Advertisement

#1 Posted by Dazzla on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:04

This god damn rocks, sheer simplicity. The way it integrates with iTunes is ingenius as well, one click from Apple to your hard drive, all within iTunes 4. If anyone can pull this off it's Apple. AAC is superb as well, I used to encode music in this when I had my Mac with Quicktime. The quality was fantastic with a 128Kbit AAC file easily on par with a 192Kbit MP3, if not superior. Absolutely fantastic. Free 30 second streaming, so no more buying albums only to find a load of songs are crap, free music videos as well. Freaking sweet. Go Apple!

(5 replies) #2 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:04

that's alright we have kazaa . according to the site all the songs will be encoded at 128 AAC, so for all of you who wanted better quality i guess you have to wait. the new ipods look nice, that's about the only thing i like and would purchase in this announcement.

#2.1 Posted by malebolgia on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:06

I agree

#2.2 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:18

Um AAC 128K ~= 192-256K MP3 it's like mpeg4 for audio...

#2.3 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:53

[neoquote=#2.2 by timdorr]Um AAC 128K ~= 192-256K MP3 it's like mpeg4 for audio...[/neoquote] but it's still not 320k bitrate or loseless

#2.4 Posted by ImOnTheGoodFoot on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:21

[neoquote=#2.3 by macrosslover]but it's still not 320k bitrate or loseless [/neoquote] 320k isn't lossless either. No MP3 is lossless because they all have compression to [I]some [/I]extent. AAC @ 128 IS about the same as regular 192 bit rate MP3's, which to the human ear are of no less quality than 256 or 320.

#2.5 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:17

[neoquote=#2.4 by ImOnTheGoodFoot]320k isn't lossless either. No MP3 is lossless because they all have compression to [I]some [/I]extent. AAC @ 128 IS about the same as regular 192 bit rate MP3's, which to the human ear are of no less quality than 256 or 320.[/neoquote] ok maybe i should have clarified, i know 320 isn't loseless. i meant to say that it wasn't in 320 or in loseless. WMA 9 claims to have a loseless codec. i've never used it so i can't attest to it, but if you are paying shouldn't you have a loseless quality file??

(3 replies) #3 Posted by xStainDx on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:06

end of the year for what? iTunes for Windows? or the 1.3 Update?

#3.1 Posted by malebolgia on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:07

Looks that way, though I have my doubts.

#3.2 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:07

[neoquote=#3.0 by xStainDx]end of the year for what? iTunes for Windows? or the 1.3 Update? [/neoquote] yes and the rest of the world lol.

#3.3 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:19

the 1.3 update, and the service for PC. i doubt that means itunes for pc, probably just integration into music match...

#4 Posted by me101 on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:08

Dang Timdorr, you beat me to posting this "story" from malebolgia...

(1 reply) #5 Posted by astrokat on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:10

it would be cool .. if it worked :/

#5.1 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:18

yeah, it's getting bogged down right now, but I'm sure it'll be better later tonight...

#6 Posted by Hills420 on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:20

those ipods are cool

(5 replies) #7 Posted by me101 on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:21

Some more details on the music service announced today by Apple... Taken from [URL=http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/04/28/musicstore/]MacCentral - iTunes Music Store launches with 200K+ songs[/URL] The iTunes Music Store -- designed to work hand in hand with Apple's new iTunes 4 software and the new iPod models also announced today -- provides users with the ability to burn songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods, and play songs on up to three Macs. What's more, the iTunes Music Store is Mac-exclusive, at least for the moment -- [B]Apple says a Windows-compatible version will come later this year.[/B][list][i](shame on Apple for not getting the "Windows" and "Mac" version off the ground at the same time... They have known about this "venture" for quite some time, so could have been making in-roads to including the Windows users in on this... I recently read that close over 60% of the iPod's out there are for Windows users, yet again Apple is shunning the Windows community, by delaying the Windows version... Come on Apple, produce a version of iTunes for Windows, it's the only decent thing to do...)[/i][/list]Artists from the five major commercial music publishers -- BMG, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal and Warner -- are all represented on the iTunes Music Store, and Apple's new service has even managed to secure exclusive tracks from more than 20 artists like Bob Dylan, U2, Eminem, Sheryl Crow and Sting. Users can listen to free 30-second excerpts from songs, search by title, artist, album, browse by genre, artist and album, watch free videos, then purchase and download their favorite songs or complete albums. The iTunes Music Store leverages Dolby's Advanced Audio Codec, or AAC -- a key QuickTime 6 and MPEG-4 audio technology that produces smaller files at 128Kbps with superior sound quality than MP3 files, according to Apple.[list][i](just how much protection is there in an AAC file??? is it possible for TWO users to download the same music file and compare these to see if there are any hidden extra, ie DRM, even thougn they say that there is no DRM...)[/i][/list]The iTunes Music Store has been integrated into Apple's newly released iTunes 4, available for free download from Apple's Web site, and requires iTunes 4 to work. The software and service require Mac OS X 10.1.5 or later.[list][i](Just how long will it take for these AAC encoded songs to be ripped and placed onto file sharing networks... Or just how close is AAC to MP3 so maybe someone has already done an AAC > MP3 converter, remembering they both are lossy compression systems....)[/i][/list]The iTunes Music Store requires a valid credit card with a U.S. billing address. In his speech to attendees of Monday's special event at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, Calif., Apple CEO Steve Jobs indicated that Apple was working on ways to open the iTunes Music Store to international users as well.

#7.1 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:28

[neoquote=#7.0 by me101]shame on Apple for not getting the "Windows" and "Mac" version off the ground at the same time... They have known about this "venture" for quite some time, so could have been making in-roads to including the Windows users in on this... I recently read that close over 60% of the iPod's out there are for Windows users, yet again Apple is shunning the Windows community, by delaying the Windows version... Come on Apple, produce a version of iTunes for Windows, it's the only decent thing to do... [/neoquote] Well, they'er looking to draw people to their market share. This is a reasonable way to do it, and it's not going to be *just* iPod owners that can use this. You can burn the tracks to CD as well. So, they'll be hitting a TON of users already, in a bracket of the market that's willing to actually pay. PC users are generally more cheap and less willing to pay, so it makes more sense to get it out there and get it successful with this market segment. They'll get it to the PC soon enough, it's just their doing it to their advantage to wait...

#7.2 Posted by Wickedkitten on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:34

it's not like pc users are going to be getting anywhere near the whole experience anyways, hah Musicmatch jukebox hahahahahahaha

#7.3 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:00

[neoquote=#7.1 by timdorr]Well, they'er looking to draw people to their market share. This is a reasonable way to do it, and it's not going to be *just* iPod owners that can use this. You can burn the tracks to CD as well. So, they'll be hitting a TON of users already, in a bracket of the market that's willing to actually pay. PC users are generally more cheap and less willing to pay, so it makes more sense to get it out there and get it successful with this market segment. They'll get it to the PC soon enough, it's just their doing it to their advantage to wait...[/neoquote] you say Mac users are more willing to pay?? what is the amount of Mac users that have adopted .mac?? i'm curious to know.

#7.4 Posted by Dazzla on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:05

[neoquote=#7.3 by macrosslover]you say Mac users are more willing to pay?? what is the amount of Mac users that have adopted .mac?? i'm curious to know.[/neoquote] A few hundred thousand.

#7.5 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:20

[neoquote=#7.3 by macrosslover]you say Mac users are more willing to pay?? what is the amount of Mac users that have adopted .mac?? i'm curious to know. [/neoquote] This a group of people that are willing to pay more for computers and more for mp3 players. Being likely to spend money on a few music tracks at 99 cents is quite reasonable to assume

(9 replies) #8 Posted by Koyder on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:45

Windows doesn't deserve iTunes.

#8.1 Posted by ImOnTheGoodFoot on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:24

[neoquote=#8.0 by Koyder]Windows doesn't deserve iTunes.[/neoquote] damn straight

#8.2 Posted by malebolgia on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:28

Nor does Windows want it

#8.3 Posted by Wickedkitten on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:47

you might not, but I know about 10 people on my msn list that do.

#8.4 Posted by insurgent on 29 Apr 2003 - 00:40

[neoquote=#8.2 by malebolgia]Nor does Windows want it[/neoquote] Yeah, god knows WMP 9 and Musimatch Jukebox are just *awesome*...that is, if you're idea of awesome is eating a moldy turd on wheat bread.

#8.5 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:08

[neoquote=#8.4 by insurgent]Yeah, god knows WMP 9 and Musimatch Jukebox are just *awesome*...that is, if you're idea of awesome is eating a moldy turd on wheat bread.[/neoquote] haha you're funny...fyi wmp9 is great. wma is a great format and better than mp3. i haven't personally done any comparison tests against aac and wma, but wma is worth it.

#8.6 Posted by Jiles on 29 Apr 2003 - 05:52

[neoquote=#8.5 by macrosslover]haha you're funny...fyi wmp9 is great. wma is a great format and better than mp3. i haven't personally done any comparison tests against aac and wma, but wma is worth it.[/neoquote] wma = teh sux. :n:

#8.7 Posted by malebolgia on 29 Apr 2003 - 06:15

[neoquote=#8.4 by insurgent]Yeah, god knows WMP 9 and Musimatch Jukebox are just *awesome*...that is, if you're idea of awesome is eating a moldy turd on wheat bread.[/neoquote] Some people probably would eat that.

#8.8 Posted by Toxicfume on 29 Apr 2003 - 16:54

[neoquote=#8.6 by Jiles]wma = teh sux. :n:[/neoquote] and bleh to aac too, ogg all the way

#8.9 Posted by Tom Servo on 12 May 2003 - 12:05

AAC owns Ogg at 128kbit and up.

(6 replies) #9 Posted by FISKER_Q on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:48

Its too expensive. I would've rather seen something like 50 cents. Since the normal amount of tracks and the price here equals the singleprice. And normally you get the other cds from a multicd release for free here. So when we're up in paying the double for what it might have costed real then its not worth it. But i think its great that people are starting more with the buy over internet.

#9.1 Posted by Wickedkitten on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:50

I don't know where you are but over here singles are about £2.99

#9.2 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:22

Full albums are $9.99. Considering "shipping" is free, that's INCREDIBLY cheap compared to the 18.99 you'll end up paying in store..

#9.3 Posted by radixvir on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:27

uh most brand new albums are 10.99-11.99 at bestbuy. plus you get the jewel case and book, the real stuff you cant get off kazza. so all you people that think this is some huge deal think again.

#9.4 Posted by Wickedkitten on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:00

[neoquote=#9.3 by radixvir]uh most brand new albums are 10.99-11.99 at bestbuy. plus you get the jewel case and book, the real stuff you cant get off kazza. so all you people that think this is some huge deal think again.[/neoquote] jewel cases end up stepped on and the book isnt that big a deal.

#9.5 Posted by timdorr on 29 Apr 2003 - 14:20

http://www.bestbuy.com/mandm/default.asp?m=254&prodtype=music I'm seeing mostly $12.99 or $13.99 for the newer cd's. Plus, you have to go to the store, *and* you have to buy all the tracks you might not want...

#9.6 Posted by Tom Servo on 12 May 2003 - 12:07

[neoquote=#9.2 by timdorr]Full albums are $9.99. Considering "shipping" is free, that's INCREDIBLY cheap compared to the 18.99 you'll end up paying in store..[/neoquote] So whats the quality of the files? 128kbit MP3? 128kbit AAC? Either way, not going to pay 10$ for low quality, I prefer paying 15$ for the CD than 10$ for quality degraded files.

(2 replies) #10 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 19:55

obviously this is an attempt by Apple to lure people over to the Mac side, but i seriously don't see anybody on the pc side switching because of this when we have kazaa and every other p2p service for FREE you can think of. there's not enough motivation. if we were used to paying, we'd buy the cds. i mean i can't stress FREE enough lol. yeah the Apple service has a MUCH better interface, but it ain't free and you have to have a mac to use it. which means that right now you have to spend a minium of 699, to join the Mac community.

#10.1 Posted by wtmcgee on 29 Apr 2003 - 05:45

you know, i like the new bmw's but i don't see myself buying one since i can just go down to the local dealership and hotwire a car and take it FOR FREE. attitues like yours make me sick.

#10.2 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Apr 2003 - 06:22

[neoquote=#10.1 by wtmcgee]you know, i like the new bmw's but i don't see myself buying one since i can just go down to the local dealership and hotwire a car and take it FOR FREE. attitues like yours make me sick.[/neoquote] personally i don't care what you think, but it's attitude like the one you claim i have that Apple will have to win over in the long run. you can act ignorant like it doesn't exist. yeah you could TRY to hotwire a BMW and get shot on the spot, you're comparing something that isn't comparable. stealing a car from a dealership..not easy. stealing music online, very EASY. Apple isn't competing with car dealerships, they are competing with freeloaders who use p2p file services. to act like they don't exist and to act like they don't have to do something to entice the people to be "legal" is naive and stupid. being mad at them isn't going to do anything for the business, you have to offer the something to be legal. perhaps you forgot about the price fixing lawsuit the recording companies and retailers settled. they conspired to steal money out of my pocket, so i'm just returning the favor.

Last edited by 16693 on 29 Apr 2003 - 06:30

(10 replies) #11 Posted by insurgent on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:16

Man...I can't wait 'till Palladium hits the fanboys like a wrecking ball to the nuts...then we'll see how wunnerful those free mp3s are. I just wish they'd hurry up and put iTunes and Quicktime on Software Update.

#11.1 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:58

[neoquote=#11.0 by insurgent]Man...I can't wait 'till Palladium hits the fanboys like a wrecking ball to the nuts...then we'll see how wunnerful those free mp3s are. I just wish they'd hurry up and put iTunes and Quicktime on Software Update.[/neoquote] First of all it isn't even called that anymore, second it will be optional, third do some damn research about it before you blab your stupidity to the world; it won't be nearly as bad as what people are thinking.

#11.2 Posted by insurgent on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:47

Oh, could you post images of when Bill Gates came to your house and explained to you in detail what it will be about? Oh, he didn't? Then shut the hell up, since you don't know any more about it than I do. And if you believe everything microsoft tells you, you're even stupider than expected. You're talking about a company that assumes it's user base is comprised of pirating criminals (which is is), and you think they won't lie to you? Optional...I'll believe that when I see it. Yeah, ok...want to buy some property?

#11.3 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:07

[neoquote=#11.2 by insurgent]Oh, could you post images of when Bill Gates came to your house and explained to you in detail what it will be about? Oh, he didn't? Then shut the hell up, since you don't know any more about it than I do. And if you believe everything microsoft tells you, you're even stupider than expected. You're talking about a company that assumes it's user base is comprised of pirating criminals (which is is), and you think they won't lie to you? Optional...I'll believe that when I see it. Yeah, ok...want to buy some property? [/neoquote] and i assume you think Apple is perfect?

#11.4 Posted by insurgent on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:11

In the grand scheme of things, not hardly. Compared to Micro$oft...you bet your ass.

#11.5 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:06

[neoquote=#11.4 by insurgent]In the grand scheme of things, not hardly. Compared to Micro$oft...you bet your ass.[/neoquote] If anyone is a fanboy it's you...

#11.6 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:29

[neoquote=#11.2 by insurgent]Oh, could you post images of when Bill Gates came to your house and explained to you in detail what it will be about? Oh, he didn't? Then shut the hell up, since you don't know any more about it than I do. And if you believe everything microsoft tells you, you're even stupider than expected. You're talking about a company that assumes it's user base is comprised of pirating criminals (which is is), and you think they won't lie to you? Optional...I'll believe that when I see it. Yeah, ok...want to buy some property? [/neoquote] And how do you know what I've researched? Please stop it with your "I Love Apple" fanboyism and think objectively. I never claimed to know what this "Trustworthy Computing" is really all about, but I know enough to know what it won't be. It's still years away from release and it is tied to hardware, so it can be easily avoided if need be. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was even obligated to participate since this is a universal concept in computing (safety and security). As a side note the last time I posted somewhere you were a jerk there too, is this becoming a habit for you? If it is I bet you won't be allowed to stay on Neowin for very long since NW is a friendly environment and we have no need for people that insist on being jackasses.

#11.7 Posted by insurgent on 29 Apr 2003 - 02:13

Took you awhile to think that up. Good job. I'm being a jackass and a jerk for responding to being called stupid? Seems fair. Really. Hey...what's that sucking sound...oh wait...it's you.

#11.8 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 29 Apr 2003 - 02:38

Arrogant as well, bravo.

#11.9 Posted by timdorr on 29 Apr 2003 - 02:39

a) TCPA != Microsoft. They aren't even the lead platyer in it. They just get the most heat because of they monopoly proceedings, b) It is an OPTIONAL techonology. You can turn it off. It's not gonig to stop anything you can run today from running, nor is it going to do that in the future. It is just a hardware-backed way to validate certain programs as authetic. It keeps people from pirating and releasing trojans, THAT'S ALL. c) Watch the flaming and trolling (note: i'm a mod...). If you at least backed yourself up with facts, what you said wouldn't be as bad as it is...

#11.10 Posted by Tom Servo on 12 May 2003 - 12:13

If I get a non-Pd application called FlashFXP and download MP3 files, I don't see how those files will be restricted. Or even if I'd do it with a Pd-enabled IE, and tell it to store the file onto the unprotected area, I still don't see how they're restricted. Then I don't see how it would hurt you if those files would be restricted when the TPM module allows you to export the keyring and import it into your new mainboard/computer so you can continue using your files. I wish if people would simply STFU when it comes to Pd.

#12 Posted by ImOnTheGoodFoot on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:26

Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me, happy birthday to mee-eeeeeeee..... actually my birthday is in february, but i think i'll celebrate my next one a little early...

(2 replies) #13 Posted by rastachops on 28 Apr 2003 - 20:52

I think most people forgot that the new music service -- SUCKS !!! -- its only available to people in the USA!!! its horrific. Im so appauled about how they've just shunned the rest of the world in what could have been a great service. iTunes 4 looks better than iTunes 3 though and the newer iPods are better too... :deaad:

#13.1 Posted by timdorr on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:30

It's probably not their choice. The record companies run a lot of this behind the scenes and probably have some restriction on that. You *know* they don't want to limit revenue, but there's some things they have to live with...

#13.2 Posted by Dazzla on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:35

[neoquote=#13.0 by rastachops]I think most people forgot that the new music service -- SUCKS !!! -- its only available to people in the USA!!! its horrific. Im so appauled about how they've just shunned the rest of the world in what could have been a great service. iTunes 4 looks better than iTunes 3 though and the newer iPods are better too... :deaad: [/neoquote] Worldwide service "soon" according to Steve Jobs.

#14 Posted by yudi_lks on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:00

New iPod is terrific... I wanna buy it...

#15 Posted by antsy on 28 Apr 2003 - 21:56

3rd generation, I thought this was the second

(2 replies) #16 Posted by XiXora on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:17

2nd was with the touch wheel etc wasnt it?

#16.1 Posted by antsy on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:31

What was the first?

#16.2 Posted by XiXora on 28 Apr 2003 - 23:15

probably where everything had moving parts ( old 5 gig version? )

#17 Posted by sheer on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:19

gg Apple

#18 Posted by 3a5tw00D on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:19

I walked into an Apple store yesterday for the first time. Only thing I would EVER buy that was apple was that Ipod, and now today they unveil a new bada55 design. Good stuff...looks so nice and light and minimalistic...w00t!

#19 Posted by Colonel Sanders on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:20

Wow. I can't wait for it to be available internationally (specifically canada). Man, I love iTunes, it's probably one of the biggest reasons my friends are so jealous of my mac.

(5 replies) #20 Posted by the evn show on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:22

The major complaint among most people these days is that you spend $20 on a CD from a manufactured band (Brittany spears) that only has two songs worth owning and 10 filler tracks to justify the price of the CD. Apple is addressing this complaint nicely. Rather than paying $20 for 2 songs + crap we can buy 2 songs for $2. Then there is the instant gratification of using apples service vs the 3 day weight from amazon or the hour+ it could take to drive to a record store, buy a CD, bring it home, rip it, etc. An entire CD is currently selling for less than $10 which (assuming you find an entire disc worthy of purchase) is cheaper than you'll find just about anywhere else. This looks like a great system, and as soon as it's available in this country I'll be shopping through Apple whenever possible. [size=4]Maybe they'll give out ipods at e3[/size] When you compare Apple Music to the current music distribution scheme it's a major improvement. It's only when you compare it to Kazza (or whatever) that it's expensive: of course paying for something is more expensive than stealing it - I could make the same complaint about anything ($10k discount for a $30k boxster is no reason to buy a porsche because I can steal one for free). So would the Anti-apple (or just pro-pc) fanboys stop compare a legitimate service to piracy because it's just not valid. Should Apple produce an iTunes for Windows? In my not-so-humble opinion NO. iTunes is a major feature that is available only to Apple customers - why moot that feature? What they should do is publish an API that will allow developers to integrate Apple Music into their existing products. Being able to interface with apple's store would let existing products expand (generating money for apple) without costing anything in terms of R&D, and programmers could develop for a wider variety of platforms: *nix, beos, Windows, etc. further increasing the potential customers. API documentation is far more valuable to the computing community than another piece of propriety software. I'm willing to bet apple will probably modify musicmatch (which is distributed with Windows-iPods) rather than giving one of their prized-pigs (itunes) to the "enemy".

#20.1 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:56

[neoquote=#20.0 by the evn show]When you compare Apple Music to the current music distribution scheme it's a major improvement. It's only when you compare it to Kazza (or whatever) that it's expensive: of course paying for something is more expensive than stealing it - I could make the same complaint about anything ($10k discount for a $30k boxster is no reason to buy a porsche because I can steal one for free). So would the Anti-apple (or just pro-pc) fanboys stop compare a legitimate service to piracy because it's just not valid.[/neoquote] give me break, yeah you could make that argument about stealing anything. but the REALITY of the situation is that porches aren't being stolen on the internet in mass numbers, music is. this is the competition that Apple faces, you can't ignore it. they still haven't provided a good reason why someone should stop using Kazaa for this. it is valid to compare piracy to a legitimate service because it's the piracy where nearly all of the users are at, it's the piracy that is eating into profits and revenue. any service has to find something that would make people who use kazaa say the legimate service is much better. and it's not anti-Apple, i would attack this service whoever made it. yes the Apple service is the best legimate service no contest, but it's also competing with Kazaa and other p2p services, and while Apple beats them in certain areas, overall Kazaa and p2p still win by a landslide. now i think the 30 sec preview is a great idea, personally i'll be using it to preview music...before i download it on kazaa lol

Last edited by 16693 on 28 Apr 2003 - 23:07

#20.2 Posted by insurgent on 28 Apr 2003 - 23:31

How do you steal porches? It's attached to the house, usually. I've got two good reasons to use this; not everyone likes stealing, and there is no kazaa for the Mac. I have no problem paying for something I want, if I think it's worth it. I'd never spend $400 on a video card, but there are probably hundreds of people on here that would. It's all about what is valuable and worthy to the individual. And I've been pissed-off enough in the past by kazaa users mis-naming songs or uploading crap that $.99 for a song doesn't seem that bad to me, to just be done with it and have it.

Last edited by 23339 on 28 Apr 2003 - 23:37

#20.3 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Apr 2003 - 00:08

[neoquote=#20.2 by insurgent]How do you steal porches? It's attached to the house, usually. I've got two good reasons to use this; not everyone likes stealing, and there is no kazaa for the Mac. I have no problem paying for something I want, if I think it's worth it. I'd never spend $400 on a video card, but there are probably hundreds of people on here that would. It's all about what is valuable and worthy to the individual. And I've been pissed-off enough in the past by kazaa users mis-naming songs or uploading crap that $.99 for a song doesn't seem that bad to me, to just be done with it and have it.[/neoquote] yeah not everyone likes stealing, just millions of people. it's a great service for the Mac yes, but for the PC it's not and for this service to be a success to Apple they will have to penetrate the PC market which largely uses kazaa. i spent 300 on my radeon 9700, because i had no choice, i couldn't easily steal it , but of course if i could get it for free somehow i wouldn't be paying for it. it's a simple choice really free versus pay, i think free will always win. kazaa users misnaming songs hasn't been a big problem for me, it's happend yes, but not a big enough deal where i can't just start a new download and that's still not going to be enough to get people who have been raised on napster, audio galaxy, and kazaa to switch to a pay service.

#20.4 Posted by insurgent on 29 Apr 2003 - 00:38

Guess that's where our value system is different. While I find the idea that you would steal your videocard if you could a bit depressing...I wasn't "raised" on kazaa or napster. I was raised before such things were even thought of. Out of curiousity, did you pay for Windows? Anyways, I will agree, if there's only one or two songs from an artist I like, I'll download it. If I'm a fan of the group, I buy the cd. And besides, as it should be abundantly clear by now, Apple users don't mind spending money on things, and will pay for things they like.

#20.5 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:02

[neoquote=#20.4 by insurgent]Guess that's where our value system is different. While I find the idea that you would steal your videocard if you could a bit depressing...I wasn't "raised" on kazaa or napster. I was raised before such things were even thought of. Out of curiousity, did you pay for Windows? Anyways, I will agree, if there's only one or two songs from an artist I like, I'll download it. If I'm a fan of the group, I buy the cd. And besides, as it should be abundantly clear by now, Apple users don't mind spending money on things, and will pay for things they like.[/neoquote] well Apple is going to have do something about this value system if they want to succeed. and believe it or not i have a legit copy of Windows XP, considering i got a computer that came with it. Apple users may pay for things they like, but can the service be a success if it only reaches 5% of the computer population?? and the number of people who are willing to use their credit card online and who even have internet access is lower than computer ownership. all Apple has to do is provide good reasons to all the people who use kazaa why they should now pay for Apple's service when they haven't paid for the cds or paid for any of the others.

#21 Posted by Xero on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:28

I wonder if they are selling this in canada, they are still showing the old ones on the site, nm i see they do, but no monthly payment method, that sux I would have gotten one

Last edited by 11142 on 28 Apr 2003 - 22:39

#22 Posted by rocks1985 on 28 Apr 2003 - 23:36

If the new 10GB iPod was selling for $199, I'd buy it. It's 100 dollars too much.

(1 reply) #23 Posted by einsteinbqat on 28 Apr 2003 - 23:54

Does QT 6.2 is currently for MAC only?

#23.1 Posted by cq107 on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:02

yes, and no you can't play .m4p or .m4a files on QT with the PC... I have tried... you can't even save the .m4p as a .mov and play it on the PC (QT6.1)

Last edited by 2500 on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:09

(1 reply) #24 Posted by rudedog on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:08

I'm not a big Apple fan but I think this is great. I do wish they had a windows version. If they did, I would join right now. Will Apple ever learn? Reminds me of Apple during the 80's. They did not want to licence the Apple hardware and look where they are now. You would think they would realize this. This could be a major stepping stone for apple. I bet a PC version will be released by M$ or one of the big PC players and in 10 years, apple will be in the same situation. Kind of like the beta max vs VHS, all over again. Only time will tell. Still looking forward to a PC version soon.

Last edited by 26697 on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:15

#24.1 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Apr 2003 - 01:14

[neoquote=#24.0 by rudedog]I'm not a big Apple fan but I think this is great. I do wish they had a windows version. I would join right now, but they will never learn. Reminds me of Apple during the 80's. They did not want to licence the Apple hardware and look where they are now. You would think they would realize this. This could be a major stepping stone for apple. I bet a PC version will be released by M$ or one of the big PC players and in 10 years, apple will be in the same situation. Kind of like the beta max vs VHS, all over again. Only time will tell. Still looking forward to a PC version soon.[/neoquote] naw they would never let MS release something like this, too many people bitching about them "abusing" their monolopy power in an emerging industry blah blah. people would complain that they use WMP instead of giving people the option of using their one player, so it's a lose-lose situation for them.

#25 Posted by Xero on 29 Apr 2003 - 03:26

i want an ipod dammit, someone buy me one

#26 Posted by sudonim on 29 Apr 2003 - 05:31

Having it only on the Mac first will be a good way for them to test the demand of the service. If it is very successful with the mac users, then they will be able to adjust either the way they deliver the music or the cost when the market is bigger. It is a very common thing in marketing to start with a smaller group to judge how best to market to the larger group. They are also making the mac users feel l33t. Killing 2 birds with one stone. Good for apple. If you dont want to wait, get a Mac!

(1 reply) #27 Posted by RAEJIN_HARDONNE on 29 Apr 2003 - 10:39

regarding the mac-onlyness, from what I've heard, I think its like a small-scale rollout to test the waters. I think the record studios are worried that such lax DRM will cause piracy, and the mac-only start is a good way to test this without risking too much. also, the fortune magazine article did confirm that apple will be releasing a windows version of iTunes (not just windows access through mixmatch or whatever). Yeah, apple will be giving away a bit of what makes the mac so great, but if this thing takes off, the profits will more than offset any loss from fewer mac sales. also, regarding the whole itunes-store vs. kazaa thing, its a ridiculous argument. It's like asking a CompUSA to compete with the warez scene. You will always get a better deal pirating than buying legally. but paying people for their work is the right thing to do. Sure, if you're a poor student and can't afford to buy the stuff, just pirate it. But when you get a job and have some money, be honest and buy the stuff. Someone has to pay for it, or it stops being made.

#27.1 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Apr 2003 - 17:02

[neoquote=#27.0 by RAEJIN_HARDONNE]regarding the mac-onlyness, from what I've heard, I think its like a small-scale rollout to test the waters. I think the record studios are worried that such lax DRM will cause piracy, and the mac-only start is a good way to test this without risking too much. also, the fortune magazine article did confirm that apple will be releasing a windows version of iTunes (not just windows access through mixmatch or whatever). Yeah, apple will be giving away a bit of what makes the mac so great, but if this thing takes off, the profits will more than offset any loss from fewer mac sales. also, regarding the whole itunes-store vs. kazaa thing, its a ridiculous argument. It's like asking a CompUSA to compete with the warez scene. You will always get a better deal pirating than buying legally. but paying people for their work is the right thing to do. Sure, if you're a poor student and can't afford to buy the stuff, just pirate it. But when you get a job and have some money, be honest and buy the stuff. Someone has to pay for it, or it stops being made. [/neoquote] yeah i'm a college student, but the retail scene can win over the warez scene with the right stuff. i dl movies, but i still get the dvds, because the dvds have better resolution and extra content that make the dvd worth the purchase. they also play in the standalone dvd players while divx does not, so IMO the movie industry is doing a good job of competting. the software industry can compete as well, with most pirated software you can't get support, so that's 1 argument in favor or retail. alot of games also might have internet play that requires the purchase of the game for the cd-key and the pirates only provide a no-cd crack, so it is possible for the retail to compete with the pirates. but i always buy the movies and games i want, i just don't buy singles but sometimes i buy an album here and there. i've also heard that the files contain a watermark on them, not sure if that's true but that seems like alot to me.

#28 Posted by sheer on 29 Apr 2003 - 15:38

Fair play to Apple for having the balls to do this

#29 Posted by superfula on 29 Apr 2003 - 18:25

I think it's a good idea, and people will use it. Like RAEJIN said, some people do warez, but the software still sells well. And there are quite a few people who don't download songs on kazaa either. Also, considering the p2p song scene on the Mac is pretty poor, I think Apple is doing the smart thing

#30 Posted by RDX on 29 Apr 2003 - 19:11

Damn. Ams o piss right now. Like 2 weeks ago i bought the 10 gig ipod for $374 from DELL and now they come out with a new one for $299. rrrrrrrrrrr so pissed off rihgt now

#31 Posted by Xero on 29 Apr 2003 - 19:22

from dell?

#32 Posted by tylershaw on 29 Apr 2003 - 20:31

I use Kazaa as wel for my PC, but for my Mac I use Acquisition. The difference between Apple's music service and the P2P network is that when more ISPs start disallowing P2P file sharing on their networks (this is already happening as witnessed from the news here on Neowin) the Apple network wil still be functioning. Legally. and the songs will proba