Microsoft to launch iPod killer.

[Osnabrueck]

This is far from being 'best' and most 'logical'. It is monopolising the market, forcing users to use Apple products to get the damn thing to work *ahem Windows/Internet Explorer*.

Let me put it another way. The iTunes DRM is better than another other DRM scheme offered by competing online stores.

Mind you - Apple is far from alone in their quest to lock you into their proprietary store/player scheme. Sony's connect gives you their proprietary ATRAC format which will only function on their players. Heck, they were so arrogent, their first players wouldn't even accept mp3 files.

 

[Gene]

Let me put it another way. The iTunes DRM is better than another other DRM scheme offered by competing online stores.

Mind you - Apple is far from alone in their quest to lock you into their proprietary store/player scheme. Sony's connect gives you their proprietary ATRAC format which will only function on their players. Heck, they were so arrogent, their first players wouldn't even accept mp3 files.

Lets just agree that whoever comes out on top, in the end it'll be better for the consumer, whether it be reduced prices or more choices

 

[Osnabrueck]

That's right, and for that reason I'm glad that Zune is bound to build at least a marginal amount of steam.

The iPod doesn't really need competitive pressure much as the iTunes store does. 99 cents is reasonable for new singles, but the prices being charged for full albums is ludicrous. My guess is that the record companies are just as much to blame as Apple, but either way, the single-sided domanance of the iTunes store is giving us inflated prices.

 

[Centurion]

Let me put it another way. The iTunes DRM is better than another other DRM scheme offered by competing online stores.

Mind you - Apple is far from alone in their quest to lock you into their proprietary store/player scheme. Sony's connect gives you their proprietary ATRAC format which will only function on their players. Heck, they were so arrogent, their first players wouldn't even accept mp3 files.

I laugh everytime someone mentions ATRAC. Sony were so damn subborn with file format which resulted in barely anyone buying their mp3(Atrac) players.
Personall I hate DRM and all companies work harder and harder each year to try to hold us back and making us only use their products and software.

 

[Gene]

I laugh everytime someone mentions ATRAC. Sony were so damn subborn with file format which resulted in barely anyone buying their mp3(Atrac) players.
Personall I hate DRM and all companies work harder and harder each year to try to hold us back and making us only use their products and software.

DRM has its place in this new digital age. If you put the effort in to make the music/software, you want to be rewarded for this, particularly if its the way you make a living. Without DRM its like telling me telling you to work for free.

On the other hand, DRM makes things so difficult to use that I tend to steer clear of the so-called 'better' anti-piracy techniques. For example, I don't buy Sony music CDs because of the rootkits, and I would never buy a Ubisoft game because of the starforce antipiracy mechanism which basically breaks your computer on installation.

The alternative is of course trust licensing. But how well do you think thats going to work

 

[Choleric]

That's right, and for that reason I'm glad that Zune is bound to build at least a marginal amount of steam.

The iPod doesn't really need competitive pressure much as the iTunes store does. 99 cents is reasonable for new singles, but the prices being charged for full albums is ludicrous.

$10 for an album, ludicrous? thats pretty damn good considering they're anywhere from 12 to 17 dollars at most retail stores.

 

[Osnabrueck]

$10 for an album, ludicrous? thats pretty damn good considering they're anywhere from 12 to 17 dollars at most retail stores.

Actually, I don't think $10 an album is ludicrous at all Choleric. I think $10 for a new full-length is possibly quite reasonable. No, what I find ludicrous is how many old, dusty albums are being priced just like new albums, despite the fact that they'd be bargin-bin items at your local Tower Records.

The record companies have already made their sheckels several times over with popular artists from the 60s and 70s. They've gone through LPs, Cassettes and CDs, all selling the material initially at full price. All they do is repackage the crap, add a little "Remastered" banner at the top and sell the stuff for full price.

Hopefully Zune will create some downward pressure on back catalogue items that don't merit their asking price.

 

[Centurion]

$10 for an album, ludicrous? thats pretty damn good considering they're anywhere from 12 to 17 dollars at most retail stores.

$10 is dead espensive if you ask me. I rather pay $15 for a CD, getting a case and full audio quality.

 

[Osnabrueck]

Well, that's one more thing Lu. $10 for a full album is also expensive when you consider iTunes' lackluster 128k bitrate for purchased music. When an album is released that I really want, I'm apt to go buy the CD and get a high quality recording, instead of a medium-quality recording.

Low bitrates are ok for material where the sound quality was never steller to begin with, but for new releases the quality leaves me cold. Hopefully Zune will also pressure iTunes to improve the quality of downloaded files.

 

[Mr. M]

Darn, I got my 4th generation iPod replaced because of battery problems, and within 2 days it broke down again! Hmmph.

 

[Centurion]

Well, that's one more thing Lu. $10 for a full album is also expensive when you consider iTunes' lackluster 128k bitrate for purchased music. When an album is released that I really want, I'm apt to go buy the CD and get a high quality recording, instead of a medium-quality recording.

Low bitrates are ok for material where the sound quality was never steller to begin with, but for new releases the quality leaves me cold. Hopefully Zune will also pressure iTunes to improve the quality of downloaded files.

I couple of months ago i read about a download service which even send you the songs you downloaded on a CD. Quite nice if you ask me. I don't understand why the songs on itunes aren't tripped in high bit rates and such.

 

[Osnabrueck]

I don't understand why the songs on itunes aren't tripped in high bit rates and such.

Either 1: Apple is really stingy with their bandwidth, or 2: It was part of the deal they struck with the record companies that iTunes bitrates would be of interior quality so that CDs would remain the ultimate medium for audiophiles and "serious" music lovers.

An alternate theory would be that the 128k figure is a marketing ploy, so that Apple can say "this iPod can hold 4,000 songs." If they increased the quality of their iTunes catalogue they'd have to adjust that to say "...can hold 3,000 songs" which would look bad in the eyes of the general public.

Really, it wouldn't take much for Apple to make their downloads sound good. 128k is at the threshold of good, just bump to, say, 198k and we're doing just fine. The fact that they have yet to improve their quality prevents me from buying more stuff on iTunes.

 

[Centurion]

Either 1: Apple is really stingy with their bandwidth, or 2: It was part of the deal they struck with the record companies that iTunes bitrates would be of interior quality so that CDs would remain the ultimate medium for audiophiles and "serious" music lovers.

An alternate theory would be that the 128k figure is a marketing ploy, so that Apple can say "this iPod can hold 4,000 songs." If they increased the quality of their iTunes catalogue they'd have to adjust that to say "...can hold 3,000 songs" which would look bad in the eyes of the general public.

Really, it wouldn't take much for Apple to make their downloads sound good. 128k is at the threshold of good, just bump to, say, 198k and we're doing just fine. The fact that they have yet to improve their quality prevents me from buying more stuff on iTunes.

Good points made.