This just ain't Apples week.

[paul_pci]

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

[Groundbeef]

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

These record compaines are not a non-profit charity. Like it or not, this seems to be the system that music listener's have been asking for. I can't count how many times I have bought a CD, only to find out I got 13 tracks of filler, and 1 hit. At least now I can spend the money for what I want, not what the record company puts out.

And the best part is, if I like to music, I can ALWAYS buy a hard copy (CD) if I want the full sound.

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

[emorphien]

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

While that's true, that's no justification for charging $1 for a compressed track.

Allofmp3.com has the best price/quality structure I've seen. Unfortunately there's the questionable legality of "purchasing" your music there. To me it seems more like you're paying for the bandwidth, but the songs are free.

[teledynepost]

Well new stuff is still released on vinyl so I don't think CD's are going to disappear entirely...

[noddin0ff]

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

Just curious where you saw this? Are you referring to the iTunes Store? I don't see that indicated anywhere on the site. The iTunes Store support page reads.

"Purchased songs are encoded using MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format, a high-quality format that rivals CD quality. Songs purchased and downloaded from the Music Store are AAC Protected files and have a bitrate of 128 kilobits per second (kbit/s). The file extension is .m4p."

You can set iTunes to rip from CD at many bitrates but this, to my knowledge doesn't effect downloads from the store.

...and that bit about "rivals CD quality" may be true...if you compare it to wax cylinders...

[Groundbeef]

I many have gotten ahead of myself. After checking into it a bit more you are probably correct. Itunes can RIP a CD at 320kbs. Sorry about that. I was equating "Import" with "Itunes". I need more sleep. Anyway procedure is listed below for anyone interested.

In your Itunes Interface, click on "Edit" on your upper left corner. Then select "preferences". Click on the "advanced" tab. Click on "importing" tab.
On setting click on "Custom" and scroll on down to 320kbs.

Also, it is interesting to note that in that same menu you can select the encoder you want to use. It is default to ACC Encoder, but there is a selection for MP3 and WAV encoders. Not sure if that is the actual file type or just how it comes into the computer. I may fool around with some of the weekly "free" files to see if it affects the file type that I receive.

[nightflier]

Beef,

As Mike pointed out, that does not justify the high price. I just checked out the allofmp3.com site, and I have to say that's a much better deal. 10-20 cents per song, download into any format or compression ratio, and own it. If more people knew about this, it would put iTunes out of business.

It's about time there was some real competition in this industry to bring prices back down to market-driven levels. And if this competition comes from abroad, then it's about time the US RIAA learns that they don't run the world. It's only a matter of time before China & India put up their own allofmp3 sites....

[Groundbeef]

Its not so much that $.20 or $.30 a song is a bad deal. However, just because that is what you want to pay makes it doable.
I would like a new Ferrari for $50.00, however there are some fixed costs that need to be covered.

If labels are selling songs for $.30, how much is getting to the artist? $.01-.03? Is it worth the effort to sell 100,000 copies and make yourself $1-3k? I doubt it. Your pricing is not going to support any artist. The option for the artist to sell direct isn't very practical either, as servers cost money, as well as covering the bandwidth.

I don't think that the artists make very much off Apple either, but its a better amount than if they were selling at the price you suggest.

As a consumer nation we are constantly *****ing about price, and how we want to pay less. I find it ironic that members of this board will spend hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for sound equipement, and complain that $1.00 for a song is going to break the bank.

If the format is the problem, would you pay $2.00 for a lossless copy? Perhaps we need to look at a bit more money, not less to get what you want.

I for one do not have all the answers, but I am curious as to your solutions. I don't think that lowering the price for songs is going to do anyone any good however.

[emorphien]

Its not so much that $.20 or $.30 a song is a bad deal. However, just because that is what you want to pay makes it doable.
I would like a new Ferrari for $50.00, however there are some fixed costs that need to be covered.

If labels are selling songs for $.30, how much is getting to the artist? $.01-.03? Is it worth the effort to sell 100,000 copies and make yourself $1-3k? I doubt it. Your pricing is not going to support any artist. The option for the artist to sell direct isn't very practical either, as servers cost money, as well as covering the bandwidth.

I don't think that the artists make very much off Apple either, but its a better amount than if they were selling at the price you suggest.

As a consumer nation we are constantly *****ing about price, and how we want to pay less. I find it ironic that members of this board will spend hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for sound equipement, and complain that $1.00 for a song is going to break the bank.

If the format is the problem, would you pay $2.00 for a lossless copy? Perhaps we need to look at a bit more money, not less to get what you want.

I for one do not have all the answers, but I am curious as to your solutions. I don't think that lowering the price for songs is going to do anyone any good however.

How much of that $0.99 you spend at the iTunes store makes it to the artist? Allofmp3 may not give much if any to the artist, but iTunes is giving a small portion to the artist as well.

Somewhere I've seen the breakdown of the iTunes money distribution, Apple gets a chunk, the record companies get a huge chunk and finally down to the artists with just a wee bit.

If a legit system structured like allofmp3 came up without the questionable legality and was offering a flat amount to the artists per song it'd kill. Lets say allofmp3.com inreases all their track prices by $0.10 it'd still be much less than iTunes and if you paid $0.99 for a track the quality would be far better than what iTunes offers and that $0.10 would go directly to the artist and recording company for instance. As it is right now I don't know how much of allofmp3s sales goes to them.

The point is a system could work which provided the user with more options and was priced better. Want to download a lossless format? Then you pay more for it, otherwise it should be less than $1 a track.

[Mike Anderson]

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

Nope, not with MP3s or any other lossless format. Once it's compressed, the extra information is lost forever, and no amount of burning to a CD will get it back.

There is lossless compression however (e.g. FLAC), but you can only compress so much. A typical CD can be compressed by about 50%.

With FLAC you can always burn back to a CD, but there's no reason to (other than actually having to use a CD player) because FLAC is indistinguishable quality-wise from a CD.

[swicken]

Let me clear things up for people, since you don't seem to understand exactly what is going on.

They made the iPod recognize a wide variety of formats, their main one of choice being the AAC (Apple Audio Codec)

Which in my opinion is fine, since it's a better means of compression then the MP3 anyway, provides better quality sound.

The only reason you can 'only' use the iTunes interface to import music on to your iPod is on account of the fact that after writing the files to your iPod it then writes an index file that the operating system on the iPod can recognize.

They didn't restrict access in any way, and not using iTunes is as simple as downloading a python script that builds the same index file FOR YOU, you just put the file on your iPod and double click it whenever you want to rebuild the index. Or you can even choose to change the operating system on the iPod (yes they didn't restrict that either).

Yes battery problems are an issue, but I doubt an issue they wanted.

You're not 'forced' to use any one store, people just don't know how to use other ones and still put it on the iPod. The french court battle is over digital compression methods, because Apple and Sony both use their own compression method for files on their stores, which makes them unplayable on other players.

That should be their right.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Scott