iPod Users Buy CDs, Shun iTunes

twitter writes, "The BBC's summarizes a Jupiter Research study, 'iPod fans shunning iTunes store.' From the article: '83% of iPod owners do not buy digital music regularly... only 5% of the music on an iPod will be bought from online music stores. The rest will be from CDs the owner of an MP3 player already has or tracks they have downloaded from file-sharing sites... [T]he only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music — especially CDs.' This is despite years of iTunes promotion and apparent success. Given the outright failure of other music services, it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it."

Comments

DRM is a hassle

[BWJones]

This is exactly what I have been doing since the beginning of iTunes. DRM on my music simply does not satisfy for a number of reasons including 1) quality (I can tell the difference). 2) It's a hassle to have to deal with the inability of others on my subnet to not be able to listen to (share) the DRM encoded songs. 3) I already had a huge amount of music on CD and have relied on ripping to iTunes as a back up means.

Interestingly, iTunes has increased my music purchases significantly, though on CD,

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Nutsquasher]

Yeah, I've bought more CD's now than before not because of iTunes, but because of Pandora.com. Points 1, 2, and 3 are very valid. Also, you're unable to resell your iTunes music collection if you wish.

I find it odd how I'm so anti-iTunes due to the stated reasons, but I'm more than willing to buy games on Xbox Live Arcade, seeing as they fit within similar restrictions. Well, only if they're original and not repackaged retro-games I've played to death.

It probably has to do with the fact that Xbox Live Arcade games are only available through a restricted medium, where I can bypass iTunes and buy a non-DRMed CD and Vorbis it.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM on my music simply does not satisfy for a number of reasons including 1) quality (I can tell the difference).

When is this faux-audiophile bullshit going to end. DRM does not change the sound of music. It does not sound any different.

A DRMd 128kbps AAC file decrypts and uncompresses to the exact same waveform as a non-DRMd 128kbps AAC file. It sounds just as bad.

A DRMd lossless format decrypts and uncompresses to the exact same waveform as a non-DRMd lossless file. It sounds just as good.

You cannot tell the difference between a DRMd file and a non DRMd file all else being equal. End of story, no argument, thank you take the next gate out of here.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. If you had ears worth a damn you would know that encryption of any kind irreversibly changes the data being streamed through it, and thus causes a definite change in the sound. I don't know the exact reasons for it, but you cannot deny that the data is being changed. According to Quantum theory anyway, you cannot help but change something like the resulting wave form simply by observing it, and you NEED to observe it in order to change it into an encrypted form, and then again in order to apply the unencryption key.

In my experience it changes the music in odd ways different to the changes that compression cause. It gives a bass that's more harsh, and increases the midrange while levelling out in the high end. That's an issue totally separate to what happens when you compress with AAC or MP3 or whatever. If you want to test, make an mp3 and then make two identical copies of the file. Run one of the resulting compressed files through an encryption utility (it doesn't have to be Apple's fairplay, even sending it via PGP email will do) and then decrypt it. Play the never-encrypted file and play the encrypted then decrypted file one after another, you'll easily tell the difference.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yaztromo]

ol. If you had ears worth a damn you would know that encryption of any kind irreversibly changes the data being streamed through it, and thus causes a definite change in the sound.

This is the biggest load of crap I've read on /. in a long time. Congratulations!

Encryption makes the data appear pseudo-random, however the decryption will return the bits, before they are inserted into the audio buffer, to the exact same state they were in prior to encryption.

Your own test bears this out -- just do a comparison of the resulting files. The computer has no way of knowing that the "encrypted" file was ever even encrypted (as you aren't replacing the bits -- you're duplicating them). If you can hear a difference, it's only because the voices in your head are getting louder. Or maybe your tinfoil hat is askew.

Yaz.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just pull that out of your ass?
Try better next time, okay?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[cskrat]

PGP is a lossless encryption whereas fairplay uses a watermark technique. Big difference in algorithms and quantum theory has nothing to do with it.

The difference between a DRM'd song and one that you rip yourself is an issue of control. With iTunes you are stuck with 128kbps AAC encoded by their in house encoding/DRM software. When you rip a song yourself you have the option of using any one of myriad different encoders, algorithms, bitrates, configurations, and etc. I usually use 240-355 VBR WMA encoding for personal use.

Personally I've only purchased one album from iTunes (unfortunatly I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times) and while their encoding method is fine for listening through earbuds, it shows noticable degredation vs. PCM on my 7.1 home theater setup. But it has nothing to do with watermarking DRM and it definately has nothing to do with quantum theory and schrodinger's cat, it is all about the bitrate and the encoding software. And Apple uses a substandard encoder set to a bitrate that is almost pallatable to AOL dial-up customers.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[BWJones]

DRM does not change the sound of music. It does not sound any different.

No, but I cannot purchase from the iTMS songs that are encoded at higher rates. That was my point.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Rix]

Ssh.

It may not be rational, but if it gets the plebes to opose DRM, it's good for everyone in the long run.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Your own test bears this out -- just do a comparison of the resulting files. The computer has no way of knowing that the "encrypted" file was ever even encrypted (as you aren't replacing the bits -- you're duplicating them)

Of course the computer will identify them as being the same, its job is to work with discrete components in the form of bits, where the human ear can hear on a lower level than that. I'm no digital maven, so I can't say the EXACT reason why, but I've been selling, repairing and setting up high end audio systems for 17 years. It's my job to know what sounds the same and what sounds different. Perhaps the bits themselves are longer or shorter than before encryption, or perhaps they're a bit (pun intended) higher voltage where a computer will still read it as a "1" when it's in a bass waveform, therefore things like md5sum will claim it's the same file, but if you knew anything about signals over a wire you'd know things like a waveform that can be represented digitally can look (and sound) very different depending on the size of the peaks and troughs. That's why a modem connection can sometimes get 33kbps on one connection, then connect at 44kbps on another attempt, where they're both transmitting the exact same data.

As I said, my 17 years experience tells me there's an audio difference, and my business depends on being able to tell. I'm still in business.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[hpavc]

Yeah, I am pretty sure the ITMS (and similar) music margins are so low that they really don't make much if any money off it. It has a nice steady pace to it in numbers (by track, how can that not be huge) and the number of 'tracks downloaded' has to be insane with podcasts if that is included.

In the end its just a value add to the apple products and their brand long term.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Typhon100]

Quantam theory? Wave forms? What the fuck are you talking about? This is about bits... you know, ones and zeros? Last time I checked you can observe ones and zeros without changing them.

On top of that, lossless encryption means the ones and zeros before encryption and the ones and zeros after decryption are identical. There is no gray area here, no "odd" changes.

Wow.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[wordsnyc]

It's homeopathy! The bits remember being encrypted!

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, how awful is the sound of plebs!"

Cato - Rome, HBO miniseries

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

As I said, my 17 years experience tells me there's an audio difference[...]

Your 17 years of experience are indeed in the audio field, because it's quite evident that you don't know the difference between DRM/encryption and lossy CODECs.

Or maybe you're just confused about the differences between analog/digital audio and digital lossy audio. We all know that digital audio is an approximation of analog audio, you don't need to explain such a topic on slashdot. That's at least 20 years old news to most of the people here.

From best to worst: analog audio (tape, vinyl, etc) ---> digital audio (WAV/AIFF/etc) ---> lossy digital audio (MP3/AAC/etc). You can insert DRM/encryption in either or both of the digital steps, it won't change the data nor the resulting decoded audio.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[monoqlith]

Personally I've only purchased one album from iTunes (unfortunatly I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times)

Just so you know, there is a button in the iTunes Music Store account information page that lets you deauthorize all the computers that you've previously authorized to play your music. It only lets you do this once a year IIRC, but it's useful if you've reached your limit of 5 computers and can't get to an authorized computer to deauthorize it.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

[...] I usually use 240-355 VBR WMA encoding for personal use.

Personally I've only purchased one album from iTunes (unfortunatly I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times) and while their encoding method is fine for listening through earbuds, it shows noticable degredation vs. PCM on my 7.1 home theater setup. But it has nothing to do with watermarking DRM and it definately has nothing to do with quantum theory and schrodinger's cat, it is all about the bitrate and the encoding software. And Apple uses a substandard encoder set to a bitrate that is almost pallatable to AOL dial-up customers.

Oh great, another Microsoft fan spreading FUD about Apple.

First of all, WMA has been shown to be the worst (or second worst) CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done.

Second, you can reset the list of computers that are allowed to play your purchased songs. In iTunes, go to the music store and click on your account button. If you have 5 authorized computers in your list, you should have a button next to "computer authorizations" which you can use to reset the list. You can use that feature once or twice a year AFAIK. You then simply re-authorize the current computers that you want to use. You don't need the old computers to de-authorize them.

Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yaztromo]

Of course the computer will identify them as being the same, its job is to work with discrete components in the form of bits, where the human ear can hear on a lower level than that. I'm no digital maven, so I can't say the EXACT reason why, but I've been selling, repairing and setting up high end audio systems for 17 years. It's my job to know what sounds the same and what sounds different. Perhaps the bits themselves are longer or shorter than before encryption, or perhaps they're a bit (pun intended) higher voltage where a computer will still read it as a "1" when it's in a bass waveform, therefore things like md5sum will claim it's the same file, but if you knew anything about signals over a wire you'd know things like a waveform that can be represented digitally can look (and sound) very different depending on the size of the peaks and troughs.

As it happens, I know quite a bit about digital signaling. I also know that that "bit" you're reading is going to be converted several times from when you read it fro the hard disk, by a variety of independent subsystems which set their own bit levels as high or low, based on their own signaling specifications.

You read some bits off your hard drive. The bits sitting on your drive have no voltage -- they're simply a magnetic field. This field get translated into either a 1 or a 0 bit. The drive controller copies this into a voltage that it then transmits across the drive bus to a bus controller. This bus controller then copies the bit to the system bus. The system bus copies it to the CPU, which copies it to RAM, which is then refreshed thousands of times per second. This is then copied back onto the system bus, and send to your audio hardware, which feeds it through a DAC.

Each of these transmissions is a copy operation on the bit -- not on the strength of the magnetic field, or whatever voltage was being applied to the transmitting component. So signaling in this case makes no difference -- so long as each field or voltage fits within the proper tolerances, it will be treated as a 1 or a 0, and will be raised high or low at the new voltage level as a completely new signal during each conversion. As such, it isn't the case that if the bit is magnetically weak on your hard drive that it will have a lower-than-normal voltage once it finally gets into RAM.

Thinking of it another way, it isn't like using a tin-can-and-string telephone to transmit data. It's more like the telephone game, where someone says something to someone, who then tells the message to the next person, and so on until the recipient receives the message. It doesn't matter if the first speaker is male or female -- the last person to pass on the message is going to state the same message regardless, in their own voice. The only difference in the case of a computer is that most stages have integrity checking to verify that the message is received properly, and in some cases can either request a retransmission if the integrity checking fails, or can receive the data in a manner that it can be reconstructed with mathematical certainty by using appropriate data encodings.

Encryption makes no difference. The system is not analogue -- it is digital. And the system only knows two digits. Each individual subsystem has completely different mechanisms for representing those bits, and that representation is completely independent of other subsystems. Reading an encrypted block from your hard drive causes the encrypted data to be copied into RAM, from which a decrypted copy is placed into RAM. This copy is generated electrically in exactly the same fashion if it had been read unencrypted from the hard drive. By the time it gets to the audio DAC, the data is identical from both a data and a signaling standpoint.

I'm sure you can handily replace the needle on a record player arm, but you know absolutely squat about digital signaling.

Yaz.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Gr8Apes]

You're right - DRM doesn't change the sound of the music. The compression does though.

The DRM causes other issues, like no sharing, no moving to car on a throw-away CD, no taking a throw-away copy with you on vacation, etc.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ender-]

Of course the computer will identify them as being the same, its job is to work with discrete components in the form of bits, where the human ear can hear on a lower level than that. I'm no digital maven, so I can't say the EXACT reason why, but I've been selling, repairing and setting up high end audio systems for 17 years. It's my job to know what sounds the same and what sounds different. Perhaps the bits themselves are longer or shorter than before encryption, or perhaps they're a bit (pun intended) higher voltage where a computer will still read it as a "1" when it's in a bass waveform, therefore things like md5sum will claim it's the same file, but if you knew anything about signals over a wire you'd know things like a waveform that can be represented digitally can look (and sound) very different depending on the size of the peaks and troughs. That's why a modem connection can sometimes get 33kbps on one connection, then connect at 44kbps on another attempt, where they're both transmitting the exact same data.

As I said, my 17 years experience tells me there's an audio difference, and my business depends on being able to tell. I'm still in business.

God, I don't know whether to cry or laugh! This is like saying if you buy a jar of applesauce, and bring it into the house carrying it in your left hand, that it tastes different than if you were to bring that same jar into the house carrying it in your right hand. It's complete and utter nonsense. It's the exact same applesauce regardless of which hand you carry it in. Or in response to your modem comment, its the exact same applesauce regardless of how fast you walk as you carry it. [Unless of course you walk so slowly that it rots before you make it to the kitchen :) ]

Ok, end of that pathetic metaphor. The point is, no amount of *lossless* encryption, or conversion will change the way the audio is fed to the speakers, assuming ALL other aspects of the chain remain the same. All those changes [and re-constitution to the original format] occur BEFORE the audio is sent to the audio system/speakers. The speakers recieve the exact same signal either way.

Maybe I should feed the trolls though [or the terribly misinformed perhaps]. Then again, tell me the name of your audio business so I can make sure to avoid it.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[omeomi]

According to Quantum theory anyway, you cannot help but change something like the resulting wave form simply by observing it, and you NEED to observe it in order to change it into an encrypted form, and then again in order to apply the unencryption key.

Just to humor this ridiculous suggestion that encryption changes the waveform...I'd like to make two points: 1. Quantum theory only applies to things on the quantum level. Audible waveforms are significantly larger than that. 2. It doesn't take a double blind test or any of that hoo-ha to tell that the recordings are the same. Do what you said, take two mp3's, and run one through a PGP encryption algorithm. Then reverse the phase of one of the recordings, and mix them together (surely, if you have 17 years experience, you'll know how to do that). Do they completely cancel each other out? That's because they're exactly the same...magic ears or not.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Paco103]

Quantum theory only applies when working on a quantum level - which is below atomic. By this theory, the sound quality would change when someone else walked into the room. I know someone is going to say it does, due to the interference with the aucoustics of the room. But that is not the source changing, it's the ambiance of the room. Does your photo album change every time someone looks at your pictures?

I wish data got changed through encryption. I'd buy a Lamborghini online. Since my credit card number is encrypted, it's changed, and I can never be charged. Of course I'd have to pick up the car myself, as delivery would be impossible since my address would be random too.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Hoolala]

The 17-year-exp guy is confusing digital encoding/decoding versus data encryption/decryption.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[splodger75]

WMA may be one of the worst codecs and AAC one of the best codecs, however considering the difference in bitrates (240-355 VBR WMA vs. 128 AAC), wouldn't WMA sound as good or better?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Deliveranc3]

You are missing the Super Tasty Stolen Candy Factor.

DRMed files are larger or require decryption, that is bandwidth or processing power better used for more quality.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[1310nm]

Same here. I don't want to be chained to iTunes or the iPod in the future. Plus I've found that some MP4/AAC files sound like crap. For instance, Muse - Absolution sounds horrible downloaded from iTunes, and after I burned it to CD for playing in my vehicle's CD player, it sounded even worse.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[gregory]

I think the original poster is referring to the poor quality of iTunes encoding (128kbps) vs. what he may choose to encode from CD when he talks about "hearing the differenct", not it being an effect of DRM.

I completely agree, by the way. I refuse to buy iTunes preferring to buy a CD and rip it the way I like, VBR with 192kbps which, while still lossy, is a good compromise between file size and audio quality.

Besides, I have an iPod now but who's to say that I will continue buying iPods? There's no way in hell I want to be locked into apple HW to listen to my tunes.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

Except that if you allow a higher bitrate for WMA, you either are losing storage space to get the same quality, or you could get an even higher quality for the same higher bitrate.

In both cases, WMA loses.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[cyclocommuter]

You hit the nail right in the head... I have not bought any music from iTunes preferring instead to rip mp3s from my huge CD collection or from mp3s I have downloaded or shared with me over the years. I still buy CDs, usually waiting until they are on sale for 10 bucks each... I then usually rip them to mp3s. MP3s gives me the freedom to play my music not just on the ipod but on my home PCs, my office PC, on my PocketPC, and most importantly use any player I want and not just iTunes. Long live mp3s... Fuck iTunes and all its DRM ilk.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ConceptJunkie]

Actually, it's worse than that. Encryption and decryption tends to stress the bits, so that rather than representing 0's and 1's, the bits can be off by up to 0.01, leading to degradation of the sound quality of the resulting audio data.

Sony has patented a superior bit, which should be hitting the market in late 2007, but in typical Sony style, these new bits, which represent 2 or 3, instead of 0 or 1, will not be compatible with existing bits. So while audio files that utilize the new Sony bits will lose far less fidelity per bit from being encrypted and unencrypted (less than 0.001% according to laboratory testing), they will not be compatible with the iPod without an expensive bit adapter.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[richsw]

Are we blaming the wrong party? Is it Apple that wanted the DRM or the Record companies? I belive the DRM thing is due to the record companies not wanting perfect copies of their products available for only 99 cents.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[dmitrygr]

Send yourself a file using PGP, decrypt it, and then have someone rename it and the original file to some filenames that do not say which is which. Then go ahead and try to see which went through pgp. Or if you want, compare them (using fc or diff). You will be surprised to see that they are identical. Bit to bit...

Re:DRM is a hassle

[BWJones]

Hey, don't get me wrong.... I love iTunes because it is the best digital media database out there, is easy to use, is fast and convenient. The main issues are the issues I talked about in my first post plus, what some of the others are talking about with the recording industries insistence on outrageous prices for digital media that has much lower distribution costs than physical media.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

The DRM causes other issues, like no sharing, no moving to car on a throw-away CD, no taking a throw-away copy with you on vacation, etc.

If you mean sharing as in "giving illegal copies to your friends or send on a P2P network", then yes, DRM blocks that (it was added exactly for that, in fact).

If you mean sharing with other computers at home, you simply forgot to authorize the other computers (up to 5, with iTunes).

As for moving to throw-away CDs, you can burn your purchased tracks to a regular audio CD.

Aside from illegal uses, I don't see what your problem is, unless you just don't want DRM.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[BWJones]

I am not blaming Apple at all. In fact, in the early versions of iTunes, things were much less restrictive and they had to enact a number of DRM issues in response to the recording industries demands.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Redlazer]

Perhaps the reason youre more willing to suffer the same problem with Xbox Live Arcade is because its a different application, a different type of entertainment.

Music and games are entertainment, but they fill different facets of the entertainment genre.

Also, a video game seems "worth" more to the average person - you can get more out of it. A song is entertaining for the 3 minutes its playing.

-Red

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Mex]

I don't think he's saying the DRM affects the quality.

He's probably referring to the fact that if he wants it to be a 320kbps file, itunes won't provide that.

And a 128kbps mp3 is completely distinguishable from a 256kbps mp3.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[mad_minstrel]

If an association between DRM and bad quality could actually be formed, it might be beneficial to humanity. And iTunes is doing a great job promoting that association.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

I've bought more CD's now

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_a post.html

Re:DRM is a hassle

[louisadkins]

As much as I hate DRM, I have to disagree. Giving people false information to make their decisions will only lead to angry people. It does not matter if the reason is good or noble. False information give the opposition a way in to the people you are trying to effect. They can go "See? It really isn't like they say. Here is proof." Once that president has been set, your target audience/market/group/whatever will be more likely to discard what you tell them, and accept what your opponent tells them.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Al Dimond]

The "17-year-exp" guy is probably not even 17 years old. He was trolling all of you, and he got you good.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot purchase from the iTMS songs that are encoded at higher rates. That was my point.

Your point was obvious. Some readers are morons. Maybe you didn't make your point 110% crystal-clear, but you compared DRM-protected iTunes Music Store files to CDs you ripped. Who the fuck rips their CDs at 128kbps CBR?

I guess some people snap whenever someone dares to criticize something that Apple does.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ClamIAm]

From best to worst: analog audio (tape, vinyl, etc) ---> digital audio (WAV/AIFF/etc) ---> lossy digital audio (MP3/AAC/etc).

This statement is not true. There is no consensus on whether or not analog recordings are really "better" than digital ones. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and making a blanket statement that "analog is better than digital" is completely preposterous.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[geobeck]

Perhaps the bits themselves are longer or shorter than before encryption, or perhaps they're a bit (pun intended) higher voltage where a computer will still read it as a "1" when it's in a bass waveform...

Congratulations. You just broke my bullshit meter.

Where do you find these variable-sized, variable-voltage bits?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have moded parent as Funny, had I got some mod points.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

That may have been your point but that was not what you said.

QFT: "DRM on my music simply does not satisfy for a number of reasons including 1) quality (I can tell the difference)."

Don't take this the wrong way. You made an error in how you communicated and were corrected for it. The way this was worded was clearly wrong and even though this is /. and we are anti-DRM, we play by the rules and don't spread mis-information just to further our cause.

Don't worry, one of these days someone will make some incorrect comment about retinal degradation and you'll be able to correct them. Sure they will have meant something else but at least you'll have had your psuedo-revenge. :)

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ScriptedReplay]

With iTunes you are stuck with 128kbps AAC encoded by their in house encoding/DRM software. When you rip a song yourself you have the option of using any one of myriad different encoders, algorithms, bitrates, configurations, and etc. I usually use 240-355 VBR WMA encoding for personal use.

Oh great, another Microsoft fan spreading FUD about Apple.

Aren't you jumping the gun a little? The way I see it, he didn't put any FUD about Apple - unless you can buy songs at a higher bitrate than 128kbps. Also, his statement about ripping flexibility is correct - you can use the highest bitrate available for your favorite codec, or go lossless. Then he stated a personal preference, high-rate WMA. Now, I'm no MS user (let alone fan of WM(A|V) ) but perhaps the guy didn't want to bother with installing a new ripper on his WinXP and, since MediaPlayer rips to WMA, he went for the highest quality available. Heck, I'm doing an equivalent thing on my machine - why bother installing another lossless encoder (monkey's audio, apple lossless) when flac is available from my distro and does the job nicely? For that matter, would you install something else when iTunes gives you AAC and apple lossless?

Just because he's not worshiping the not-so-high-rate AAC encoding that Apple uses for the iTunes store does not make him a 'MS fan spreading FUD about Apple'.

First of all, WMA has been shown to be the worst (or second worst) CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done.

And that was for low-to-medium bitrates, AFAIR. High bitrate encodings are pretty much on par across the established codecs. So depending on your favorite software and the trade-offs you're willing to live with, you can choose any of them. Who is spreading FUD now?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[BalanceOfJudgement]

As for moving to throw-away CDs, you can burn your purchased tracks to a regular audio CD.

There's a great quote from X-Men 2:

Pyro: "If you can imitate humans, why not just look like one all the time?"

Mystique: "Because I shouldn't have to."

No, burning songs to a CD isn't a huge problem. But I shouldn't have to.

Aside from illegal uses, I don't see what your problem is, unless you just don't want DRM.

You're forgetting one thing: What if I, Joe User, want to put my iTunes purchased tracks on my shiny new Zune?

I can't do it. That's the biggest problem I have with DRM: Due to vendor lock-in, consumers are no longer relevant to the market. It's all about what various corporate interests want to control.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[aichpvee]

Maybe he tried to play them while they were still encrypted instead of using something that could decrypt the audio. I imagine that more often than not that will have a negative effect on the sound quality...

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Tape, vinyl, etc sound 'better' because their frequency response is limited, thus acting as a lowpass filter. This is why people call digital 'harsh' and analog 'warm'. It's a matter of preference, not quality.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Kaenneth]

To play devil's advocate...

Optional software filters to 'enhance' audio (bass boost, noise removal, volume leveling...) may not be allowed to run in the 'trusted' DRM chain. In order to exclude possible digital copy work arounds, the DRM may only output directly to the A/D converter, not allowing any other software to touch the clear digital stream.

A player could use more electric power to decrypt DRM content than clear content; leaving less power to drive the speakers. (DRM music players drain batteries faster, in general)

The extra work done by the CPU creates more RF noise and heat, causing the analog curcuits to not perform as well.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[mattmacf]

Shhhh.... Did you hear that? That's the sound of the lossy DRM quantum heisencompression encoding the grandparent used. What does that sound like exactly? It sounds just like a joke going right over your head.

**insert obligatory ascii diagram here**

; )

Re:DRM is a hassle

[fingusernames]

OH MY GOD! This is jawdroppingly funny and yet sad. It just defies correction, akin to countering a belief in UFO abductions and bovine anal probing -- fruitless.

Larry

Re:DRM is a hassle

[skiflyer]

Also, a video game seems "worth" more to the average person - you can get more out of it. A song is entertaining for the 3 minutes its playing.

I think it's more about time. I buy a game, I expect to get a few dozens/hundreds of hours of enjoyment from it, then I shelve it, and that's pretty much it. Maybe I pull it off for a nostalgic moment a few years later, but that's too likely... and I certainly am not planning it when I make my purchase.

Music is totally different to me though, I fully expect to have it at my disposal as soon as I download it, next week, next month, my next car, my next home stereo, my next portable, the whole next medium which will be invented by some kid who's currently in pre-school, whatever. Given the lossless reproducability that the CD age introduced, I really do expect all of this... sure some of my favorites may get re-bought if they're remastered in 47 channels in 2039, but for the most part I don't expect to lose any music I bought.

But now introduce music as software, and a close sourced DRM solution at that, I feel like a certain permanance is no longer there.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Isotopian]

Quantum theory only applies to things on the quantum level.

And therefore on all levels, if you follow the principals of quantum mechanics to their logical conclusions.
I believe in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ravenshrike]

Quantum theory doesn't just work on the quantum level, but the probability for quantum effects to coincide in such a matter and be long enough lasting to be noticable at the specific area in the universe known as earth is so astronomically improbable as to be irrelevant.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[pla]

Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.

AAC does indeed do a great job at lossy compression. At 128kbps, it CAN beat every other 128kbps encoding out there - Key word, "can".

You have to consider, though, that "AAC" doesn't really refer to just one specific way to encode music, though - More like handing someone a toolbox and blueprints for a house. You can create a compliant AAC encoder using nothing more than than the LC profile, or you could use LTP+SRS+PNS with KB windowing. On top of that, even limiting yourself to just the MAIN profile, you can tweak the parameters such that encoding a three minute 2ch 44khz song will encode faster than realtime, or take over a full day to finish.


Now, all that aside, I doubt Apple skimped all that much on the encoder, as they don't need to encode in realtime, just when they add a track to their library. Regardless, you just can't compare a 128kbps encoding to one at 240kpbs. If Apple had gone with 192 or higher, I'd say any modern format approaches perceptually equivalent to CD quality. But NO format at 128kbps can pull that off yet.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ben there...]

First of all, WMA has been shown to be the worst (or second worst) CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done.

Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.

Any good ABX listening test compares codecs at similar bitrates. So it's not very relevant in a comparison of 240-355 kbps WMA vs. 128 kbps AAC. The WMA likely sounds *much* better than the AAC.

That said, I'd use MusePack (MPC) or Vorbis.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[andymadigan]

Interesting, could you please tell me how to authorize my machine? It's an Athlon64 laptop running Ubuntu. I tried running linux, but it crashes too quickly. Of course, since Mac OS X/Intel includes Hardware-based DRM as well, I can't boot it on this system. So that leaves me with linux, if you could provide me with instructions on how to do this, I would much appreciate it, as I have music on my iPod that only it can play.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[draxredd]

Next you will assert that you can tell if a FLAC file was mailed ZIPped or 7Zed ?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[andymadigan]

I meant I tried running *windows* but it crashed too quickly.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be more interesting is seeing how many people buy iPods without already having invested heavily into a music collection. This comparison seems moot since nobody would spend 300 USD on a portable hard-drive-based mp3 player unless they needed the portable hard-drive's capacity for storage and the main reason they'd need all that capacity is having already purchased a cd collection.

What is the average age of iPod buyers (first time and repeat buyers)? By the age they can afford one, I'm certain most buyers already have volumnous music collections. The iTunes music store is basically a nice way to chase down those few tracks from albums where it was the only good song and the rest of the album wasn't worth buying.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Mp3's sound even better if you coat the edges with green ink.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[jb.hl.com]

Sooo...it's FUD.

Because an honest intellectual debater needs to make shit up.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Rix]

Who said anything about intellectual debate? I talking about politics.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[jb.hl.com]

So as soon as it becomes politics, you're allowed to talk whatever bollocks you feel like talking without any regard for the truth.

Wonderful.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he is actually just joking.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Woooh there.
I am guessing he is just refering to the fact that music stores are selling music at 128Kbps which you must agree is shite
I might not the world best ears BUT I can here that 128kbps is shite
Hence all my rips are at 192kbps and ONLY through a decent stereo in a quiet room could I maybe just here a difference at the next encoding level

it is robbery that DRM-music is encoded at such a rubbish level and it is that fact that is at the top of my refusal to ever buy from online music

IF they upped it to 192, then there is the DRM but at the moment the 128 is a major off-putter

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Hackeron]

In the tests I've seen, it seems AAC is better than most at 128kbps, WMA is better at 64kbps (although at this birtate, the quality isn't really usable anyway), OGG is better around 160kbps (sweet spot for portable audio?), MP3 still smokes all at 320kbps. So if you take AAC and encode at 320kbps, you won't get the quality of mp3 at equivalent bitrate, so really, just stick with high bitrate mp3 or lossless for optimal quality - wma is impressive for what it is but I wouldn't use it for much other than putting a ringtone on my phone.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[dnoyeb]

Music makes memories. Hardly when I am playing an old game do I remember the old times with it. So there is no urge to play old games as their is to listen to old music on occasion.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Tony Hoyle]

I really don't buy their margins are low.

A CD on itunes still costs more than a CD on the high street - and they have the physical costs of running a store, shipping costs for the media, etc.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can log in to yor account, there is a from you can fill out in order to remove the licence from your old computers, and licence your new one.
The music is not lost yet! :)

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Golias]

For that matter, would you install something else when iTunes gives you AAC and apple lossless?

Actually, it also gives you VBR MP3, if that's what does it for you. All the iTunes encoder really lacks is ogg vorbis and FLAC.

(And WMA I guess, but that's total shit, so who needs it?)

I feel there are two situations in which one stores compressed music:

1. For use with flash-based players or other space-limited applications. Under these circumstances, a high-quality-per-low-bitrate codec is paramount. 128-bit AAC really shines in this category. VBR MP3 at a slightly higher bitrate is sometimes regarded as a nice compromise if your equipment does not play AAC.

2. For use with home audio or high-volume portable players, where computer hard drives are cheap and ever getting cheaper. Here, you want quality above all else. Lossless storage (FLAC, Apple, etc.) is the only way to go that makes any sense at all.

WMA does not fit either category, and is therefore pretty much worthless, IMHO.

Personally, I buy CD's and rip everything to lossless myself, but I have bought some things on iTunes. For example, their J-Pop selection, while limited, offers a lot of songs at a very tiny fraction of what they cost in Japan. Also, the single-song purchase flexibility is nice for novelty acts and one-hit wonders. I love listening to "Meaning of Life" by Disturbed when I'm working out, but would never be interested in buying the whole album. iTMS is nice for stuff like that. I just wish they offered the option of lossless tracks.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Ebirah]

You cannot tell the difference between a DRMd file and a non DRMd file all else being equal.

Oh, but you can, though...

...Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-6462771-1.html

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Fred_A]

God, I don't know whether to cry or laugh! This is like saying if you buy a jar of applesauce, and bring it into the house carrying it in your left hand, that it tastes different than if you were to bring that same jar into the house carrying it in your right hand.

Of course this depends on what hemisphere you are in.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[JulesLt]

I think there's also the issue of lifespan - I buy music expecting that I might be listening to it in 15 years time, but the number of games in the same position is tiny.

Also, there's the fact that games are generally tied to specific hardware for genuine reasons, rather than just DRM (at least until emulation software / PC power catches up).

I'm waiting for emusic to overtake iTunes. While it's range is smaller, it also fits well with consumers who buy a lot of music by volume, and the prices on emusic are compelling enough to make me think twice about buying the CD.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[ScriptedReplay]

Lossless storage (FLAC, Apple, etc.) is the only way to go that makes any sense at all.

Completely agree. I was only trying to point out that having a personal preference (even one that I dislike - but hey, if it works for him who am I to throw stones?) does not one make a FUD-spreading shill. OTOH ~300kbps WMA is better than 128kbps AAC, regardless of how fit is to choose WMA as a high-rate codec anyway. And since I have no idea whether he really must do with WMA or not, I would defer judgement on that. But speaking for myself, if WMA ever were a choice, it would be the one discarded first.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Paolo DF]

quote: it shows noticable degredation vs. PCM on my 7.1 home theater setup. /quote

Well, let me tell you that using a 7.1 home theater setup in order to discuss audio quality is a little off, to say the least.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[CycleFreak]

Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.

That's all well and good, but 128kbps AAC is still not nearly as good as a CD.

I will never buy from iTunes. But it's not primarily due to DRM infected audio files. It is mostly (maybe 75%) because I have to pay the same price for inferior quality audio than I can get for an identically priced CD. Also, no album art, no physical "thing" to hold. (another 15%). Then DRM is the last 10% why iTMS sucks.

I wish there was some way to get this across to all the sheeple out there sucking down poor quality music from iTMS and doing nothing but fattening the wallets of Apple and various RIAA-backed music labels. Why people are willing to pay the same for an inferior product is beyond me.

CD -> EAC - > LAME --alt-preset-extreme = MP3 files so close to CD-quality, no one can tell the difference (no matter what they think).

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Um no moron. The default file from itunes is crappy 128k CBR. It should be plainly obvious that the files purchased in that form are totally inferior to those one would rip personally.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Night Goat]

Music makes memories. Hardly when I am playing an old game do I remember the old times with it.

When I think of Super Mario Bros., I always think of listening to Metallica's self-titled album because I listened to it on repeat while playing. It's interesting how music can create associations in our minds like that.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[cskrat]

Actually my main reason for chosing WMA is that my car CD player supports MP3 or WMA but not AAC, FLAC, OGG or anything else. If AAC was supported I would have tested that as an option for personal use.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[cthellis]

I really don't buy their margins are low.

A CD on itunes still costs more than a CD on the high street - and they have the physical costs of running a store, shipping costs for the media, etc.

APPLE's margins are low. The music industry is the one truly drawing profit from it. (Apple is, of course, drawing massive profit from the iPod hardware industry at large, and is why they've kept song prices as low as they have.)

It won't always be this way, as electronic distribution fleshes out, but for now Apple has kept their margins low to make iTunes succeed (it has), sell more hardware (it has), and draw people into an arena where they'll find there's JUST A TAD of vendor lock-in. 8-P

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

No, burning songs to a CD isn't a huge problem. But I shouldn't have to.

You're mixing "shouldn't have to" and "different technologies". I "shouldn't have to copy my music from a CD to a tape"... but my car only has a tape deck and no CD player. In your case, you either have to burn to CD to stay compatible with the CD player in your car, or buy an iPod and bring it in your car.

You're forgetting one thing: What if I, Joe User, want to put my iTunes purchased tracks on my shiny new Zune?

That's almost the same as if I was complaining that a Windows game won't work on my Mac. I can't do it.

If you look at Starcraft on Windows or OS X (or even OS 9) you won't see any difference in the gameplay. The end result is the same. However, the code underneath is quite different. The same happens with DRM'ed songs purchased online. The end result may be the same (if we forget the differences with the lossy CODECs) but the CODEC and DRM are both different.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

I wish there was some way to get this across to all the sheeple out there sucking down poor quality music from iTMS and doing nothing but fattening the wallets of Apple and various RIAA-backed music labels. Why people are willing to pay the same for an inferior product is beyond me.

If I go buy the CD, I'll rip to AAC@128kbps. My end result will be the same (if we take for granted that the labels/Apple use the same encoding software).

As far as price goes, you're right only if you're talking about buying full albums. The iTMS is great for picking a few tracks from a CD instead of buying the whole thing. The choice ends up being between "pay 10-15$ for one track" and "pay 0.99$ for one track" (and "download said track illegally and hope it won't sound like shit and will be properly tagged").

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to remember that we are dealing with audio data. Everybody knows that audio data is intrinsically analog - thus the computer represents the music using analog bits. This, of course, is where the variable-sized, variable voltage bits come from - it is why you have to run an application to play music on your computer in order to play music (instead of having the computer play the music directly) - the software (iTunes or Windows Media Player or WinAmp, for example) uses digital to analog conversion routines to leverage the analog bits in the computer in order to play the music.

It's really quite simple, once someone explains it using layman terms and doesn't try to hide it behind a bunch of high tech computer talk.

(Disclaimer : I'm pretty proud of myself for not berating you in public for thinking that the computer uses digital bits to represent analog data. See - it is possible to be cooperative and nice, even when posting AC.)

Re:DRM is a hassle

[kgruscho]

unfortunately, it has a bad habit of treating different MAC addresses as different computers, ocassionally VPN also interferes. They need a button to completely deauthorize the current computer, as i have had the same physical computer inadvertently take up 3 authorizations and only been able to clear out one...

Re:DRM is a hassle

[omeomi]

And therefore on all levels, if you follow the principals of quantum mechanics to their logical conclusions.

Except that's not how the universe actually works. Hence the need for, theoretically, a "Grand Unified Theory".

I believe in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.

That doesn't change how things actually work.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Matt Perry]

DRM on my music simply does not satisfy for a number of reasons including 1) quality (I can tell the difference).

When is this faux-audiophile bullshit going to end. DRM does not change the sound of music. It does not sound any different.

He didn't say anything about the audio of the song. Maybe you should re-read the message. I have a quality issue with DRM as well, namely that I'm not not assured of getting the same value for my money as I would when purchasing a CD. That affects my percieved quality of the product.

I still have the first CD I bought. It's a Herbie Hancock jazz CD that I purchased about 20 years ago. Today it will still play in any CD player. I'm not conviced that if I buy a song from iTunes today that it will still be playable in 20 years. I'm also not willing to run some software to crack the DRM and break the law just to ensure the longevity of my purchase, at least not while there's a viable alternative with purchasing CDs.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[necro81]

Humans don't listen to the digital stream. Have you ever listened to a digital waveform, something like a squarewave? It sounds like crap, just listening to the digital waveform would. Humans live in an analog world and perceive analog waveforms. There is plenty of variation in those analog signals, because they are continuous (not discrete) and are more easily affected by spurious things like electronic noise, crappy components etc. I don't doubt that you know what sounds the same or different. You spend all your time listening to the analog signal, and adjusting the EQ or recommending higher end stereo components because of it. You should not have anything to do with diagnosing the digital waveforms. The beauty and value of digital is that, so long as the computer still reads a one as a one and a zero as a zero, any distortion of the digital waveform won't make a lick of difference to the content of that information. I happen to know an aweful lot about transmission over wires and signal processing, and can tell you without question that the distortion to the digital waveform will not bear out in the audio signal at the end, unless the distortion causes random bitflips here and there. Read about Information Theory and Claude Shannon. The reason why modems connect at different rates does depend on the transmission characteristics of the line, but that has nothing to do with how digital audio signals are transmitted around stereo equipment. Modems negotiate a baud rate based on the amount of noise in the line, transmission distance, competing traffic, and random chance. But that doesn't apply to pieces of stereo equipment, which don't negotiate transmission rates - they just blindly send and receive.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Fishbulb]

I buy music expecting that I might be listening to it in 15 years time, but the number of games in the same position is tiny.

Oh now you've done it. Time to boot up the ol' Amiga 1000 and find my Lemmings disk.

O-o-o-oh No-o-o-o-o! POP!

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

Aren't you jumping the gun a little? The way I see it, he didn't put any FUD about Apple - unless you can buy songs at a higher bitrate than 128kbps.

Isn't it convenient that you quoted a different part of the parent's post? I quoted the part that was FUD and explained why I thought it was FUD.

You just quoted a different part that had nothing to do with my post. Of course the iTMS sells songs in AAC@128kbps, I never said that was the FUD part.

Gotta love the way some of you make up stuff.

And that was for low-to-medium bitrates, AFAIR. High bitrate encodings are pretty much on par across the established codecs. So depending on your favorite software and the trade-offs you're willing to live with, you can choose any of them. Who is spreading FUD now?

Except that we're talking about online stores here, where 128kbps seems to be the norm. And if you want to go with the "most people don't encode at 128kbps" arguments, fire up your favorite P2P client. Most of the stuff is at 128kbps there too.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[JulesLt]

Still good enough that I bought the re-issue for the PSP.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting rant, but if you seriously think DRM the results in poor audio quality (as opposed to low bit rate sampling), you're making yourself look silly (and clueless).

Re:DRM is a hassle

[FFFish]

Dude, AAC (1) has been shown time and again to be among the best-sounding audio formats, period; (2) is NOT an Apple codec.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[profplump]

PGP is a lossless encryption whereas fairplay uses a watermark technique. Big difference in algorithms and quantum theory has nothing to do with it.

FairPlay uses Rijndael-AES to encrypt the AAC stream. It's just as lossless as PGP. There is personal information in the file, but not in the audio stream (this isn't MPEG here -- the file is structued). The personal information (such as the actual song keys and your account name) can be removed without affecting the encrypted/non-encrypted state of the audio stream. I don't know what system you're thinking of, but it's not FairPlay.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[xjerky]

Well, you should have known beforehand that if you bought songs on iTunes that you'd only be able to use them on OS X or Windows. But then again, how would you buy them in the first place using Linux?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[andymadigan]

I used to run Windows. Rather than just having lock-in software, whose functionality can be replaced, Apple is selling lock-in content. If you switch operating systems, your license to the media is meaningless.

The same is true of a lot of QuickTime content, H.264 is heavily patented, and Apple has decided not to port QuickTime to Linux, so there are videos that my iPod (video) can play, but my computer can't.

If someone could find me a link on the Apple website stating that content bought from iTMS can only be played on Windows and OS X, I would like to see it.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[HiThere]

I don't know what encryption they use, and there are lossy compressors, but encryption and packing don't necessarily degrage the quality of the sound track. The same processes are used on data all the time without losing a bit.

Thus, if the quality is degraded, it's because of choices that have been made, not inherently because of either encryption or compression. Or, of course, it could be the audio components of the playback system.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Karlt1]

A quick search on Google yields the following link:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t -27959.html

I've seen the same at other sites. Apple makes about $0.10 after paying licensing fees, credit card processing fees, and paying for bandwidth. iTunes sells iPods pure and simple.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[JoshNorton]

I'm no digital maven, so I can't say the EXACT reason why, but I've been selling, repairing and setting up high end audio systems for 17 years. It's my job to know what sounds the same and what sounds different.

So YOU'RE the guy whose fault it is that Monster Cable's stayed in business all this time?

Thanks a whole hell of a lot, chum.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[BalanceOfJudgement]

You're mixing "shouldn't have to" and "different technologies". I "shouldn't have to copy my music from a CD to a tape"... but my car only has a tape deck and no CD player. In your case, you either have to burn to CD to stay compatible with the CD player in your car, or buy an iPod and bring it in your car.

Sorry, I thought the parent was talking about having to burn and re-rip to strip the DRM. My mistake, sorry about that. No, I agree with you here.

That's almost the same as if I was complaining that a Windows game won't work on my Mac. I can't do it.

Agh, now it looks like you mixed "shouldn't have to" with "different technologies." Knowing more than just a little bit about game development and OS programming, I know very well why games on one platform won't work out of the box on another platform (although it speaks well of the game developers that they make releases for other platforms).

On the other hand, an MP3 is an open standard, as are almost all other audio codecs, and are fully implementable anywhere. There's nothing about a music file that should make it platform-specific [WMV excluded, of course, along with Sony's proprietary formats, because those ARE attempts to make a simple audio file platform-specific] - only DRM manages to do that; and that gives a very good argument as to why DRM is about vendor lock-in, not about piracy.

I'm not saying that audio files CAN'T be platform specific (again, the WMV and Sony examples) but that there's nothing inherent in audio technology that makes it be. There ARE such factors in games and other applications (cross-platform libraries notwithstanding).

Re:DRM is a hassle

[MightyTribble]

Congratulations, Yvan, I think you found one of those Intertube Crazies we hear so much about on the talking boxes. ;-p

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Zixia]

Music makes memories. Hardly when I am playing an old game do I remember the old times with it. So there is no urge to play old games as their is to listen to old music on occasion.

That's interesting, because sometimes when I am listening to old music I am reminded of a game that I played a lot back in the days when the music was current. Magical Dream, by 808 State, for example, often brings back memories of playing Populus on my Amiga.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps for you. I go back and play old games pretty often because I have good memories of playing them. The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, etc., a lot of the classic games get played for exactly the reason you say they don't.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[tonicxt]

Yeah I will never buy an iTunes song simply because
1. The song is in DRM -- that means I have to remember my login/password to play it, plus it will use more battery power on my ipod.
2. The quality of itunes songs literally sucks. I believe they are 128k -- compare that against any "unlegit" mp3 on the web, which are usually between 192-256kbps.

I've compared several itunes store songs against my mp3s -- and the itunes store songs sound like complete garbage.

If they can fix those two issues then I'll buy; however, I will always vow to keep my machines drm free.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Helios1182]

That, and I've never seen a "lossy" encryption method. If you are going for lossy-encryption you might as well just send random bits. Lossy-compression on the other hand can be quite useful in certain domains.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Gr8Apes]

Others have added multiple comments, here's my short list:

"Share" as in with my own family members, when fully accounted for, is over 10 systems and 4 iPods. Why should I have to buy that song more than once for use with my family? This is a new "feature" added solely through DRM, and benefits no consumer in any way.

Then there's also the multiple MP3/other players floating around. That's another scenario. Yes, it can be gotten around, but it requires a whole hop-scotch dance and loss of quality to attain.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[AmberBlackCat]

I think the whole summary is the work of a spin doctor trying to appeal to the Slashdot monoculture. iTunes was created to sell iPods. So if the iPods are selling like crazy, how can it be a failure? It also made Apple a major music retailer, surpassing all but the biggest sellers. Next there will be an article saying Toyota is a failed automaker because most people get their Camry's serviced somewhere other than a Toyota dealer.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[zip_000]

You may not be able to tell the difference between DRM'd music and non, but you can certainly hear the difference between a regular downloaded track - MP3, AAC, whatever - and CD quality.

Music from iTMS sounds flattened. The quality is certainly lower; any time there is an album that I really want, I buy the CD, but if I'm just fishing around for something new or if it's a band that I like but not a fanatic about, I'll just download (though I use emusic these days...I dislike DRM for other reasons).

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

If someone could find me a link on the Apple website stating that content bought from iTMS can only be played on Windows and OS X, I would like to see it.

I don't have a link, but I didn't have any problem just copying the music from my Win XP machine to my Mac mini when I switched more than a year ago. The list of authorized computers is five, but it doesn't matter if they're OS X or Windows (or a mix of both).

The license allows you to authorize five computers at once, your media isn't locked to a particular machine/OS install. Of course, you can't reset that list more than once a year, but that should be enough for normal usage.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

Agh, now it looks like you mixed "shouldn't have to" with "different technologies." Knowing more than just a little bit about game development and OS programming, I know very well why games on one platform won't work out of the box on another platform (although it speaks well of the game developers that they make releases for other platforms).

I was only trying to make a comparison between the two. Of course audio files shouldn't be tied to a particular platform since they don't contain code, however with CODECs and DRM it's almost the same as with games.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[VisceralLogic]

It's not just the encryption and decryption, either. Due to Einstein's relativity, things moving very quickly, like the rim of a high-RPM disk, will be distorted in the direction of motion. Consequently, the location of the music on your hard drive will make it play shorter or faster, thereby altering the pitch. And when you take into account the fact that the bits are undergoing continuous rotational acceleration, it just makes things worse...

Re:DRM is a hassle

[andymadigan]

What you quoted has nothing to do with your response. I was asking for somewhere on the site that said "Music purchased from the iTunes music store can only be played on Windows and OS X."

Re:DRM is a hassle

[prator]

I gladly paid ten bucks for a online-enabled Street Fighter II. I just wish there was a freaking joystick, and I'm not really looking forward to buying a Mad Catz joystick when they're available.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[hughperkins]

For anyone else who is wondering what is aac, it's mp4 audio.

Reference: http://www.analogduck.com/main/m4a

"mp4 can be an audio or video mpeg4 file

"m4a = mp4, but not necessarily vice versa. That is because m4a says, "This is an audio mpeg4 file", to you for your sake, not the computers, because the data is the same. You can safely rename m4a files as mp4, and vice versa so long as the mp4 file is an audio-only file.

"aac is an audio file, like an m4a, without the meta-data header. It's basically a nake m4a file. You can't add information into the file like Artist, Album, Track, etc. This was Apple's (rather lame, IMHO) idea."

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Golias]

OTOH ~300kbps WMA is better than 128kbps AAC

It is, in that it sounds slightly better.

However, if good sound is what you want, lossless is the way to go. If saving space to fit as many songs as you can get on a portable player is the priority, AAC gives you acceptable sound at a *very* low bit rate. If you're not willing to compress something beyond 192 or so, I just think it's a waste not to go ahead and use lossless.

Anything between the two extremes is a kind of "no man's land", where you are neither maximizing space nor ensuring nit-picky quality.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[soxerus]

It doesn't matter if the first speaker is male or female -- the last person to pass on the message is going to state the same message regardless, in their own voice, purple monkey dishwasher.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Isotopian]

That was actually from "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency." Check it out, good book.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point.

iTunes music is compressed using a lossy algorithm. CDs are uncompressed. DRM just adds a hassle on top of that, making it less attractive.

If iTunes sold FLAC or AAC files without DRM at the same prices, I'd be buying tons of stuff on there. As it is, being an audio purist I can't really justify spending money on compressed tracks.

As for DRM not making the sound any worse, you're right about that.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[iainl]

If you don't mind losing the disk space on your small portable player, then yes, you can get high quality. However, most of the places I've seen only sell 128kb WMA files anyway, so you're stuffed.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

Since you need iTunes to purchase music from the iTunes Music Store and that iTunes is only available for Windows XP/2000 and OS X, they don't need such a notice. At the very least, the notice must say "requires iTunes for playback" or something.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Yvan256]

"Share" as in with my own family members, when fully accounted for, is over 10 systems and 4 iPods. Why should I have to buy that song more than once for use with my family? This is a new "feature" added solely through DRM, and benefits no consumer in any way.

If there's more than 5 computers in your household, then yes the DRM is a limit to you. But the number of iPods that can by synced are not limited. As for the "not iPods" scenario, then simply don't buy from the iTMS.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

"As it happens, I know quite a bit about digital signaling." It seems to be you don't know anything about sarcasm ...

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

quality (I can tell the difference)

Doubtful. Do a true double-blind listening test. You'll be very surprised.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[kabz]

That's awesome. Playing AC|DC's Back in Black reminds me of playing Castle Quest by Program Power on the BBC Micro back in 1982 or so.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

And therefore on all levels, if you follow the principals of quantum mechanics to their logical conclusions.

No, the logical conclusion, if you follow the actual principles of quantum mechanics is that quantum effects cancel out when you're dealing with a large enough system. Quantum mechanics isn't magic, it isn't mystical bullshit, it's a scientific theory with actual math and predictions and experimental evidence. It has nothing to do with the how well a digital recording sounds either before or after encryption. And all the sophmoric philosophical wanking in the world won't change that.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[cayenne8]

"Playing AC|DC's Back in Black reminds me of playing Castle Quest..."

Funny....listening to that reminds me of the chicks I was banging in high school that year....

That game of yours MUST have been some fun if that's all the music of your youth brings back memories of....

:-)

Re:DRM is a hassle

[dwightk]

I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times
and you are too lazy to deauthorize all those computers and start over?

Re:DRM is a hassle

[c4seyj0nes]

I think you're missing the point. It's not the DRM that degrades the quality of the music its the fact that it's 128kbps AAC of any kind. If I have a CD I can rip it at any compression that I'd like. Plus I have the original source so I can then rip it again at a different compression if I'd like or a lossless compression.

I personally rip all of my music at 192kbps and I can notice a difference sometimes on some songs.

Re:DRM is a hassle

[mjpaci]

I buy Monster Cable because it looks nice.

--Mike

(just kidding)

Re:DRM is a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

You do of course realize, that WMA is just a wrapper for a variety of formats, one of which is a lossless format, aptly called Windows Media Audio Lossless?

It is true though that the standard lossy format at CBR 128 does not sound good (especially with bursts of noise yeilding a sort of robot-speech bleeping artifact.) I suspect WMA's adoption might have been more focused on hardware implementation, Janus DRM, or support from Microsoft; not so much because of the merits of the encoder itself.

but I already have a TON of CD's

[marz007]

Why do I need to buy all those again, if I buy, I'll probably buy via iTunes, but I've got a large catalog already purchased. This isn't shunning.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[cskrat]

I've sworn off of iTMS due to the fact that I've changed computers enough (bought a new Athlon64 a while back and installed Win32->Win64->Vista Beta2->Win64) to invalidate my purchases. DRM should be more like Everquest or Steam, I can install them on as many systems as I like but I can only log into one at a time. If iTunes would take the time to notice that previous authorizations are never heard from again after I authorize a new install, it should just allow me to go along my merry, non-infringing way and let me listen to the music that I paid for.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[ender-]

If iTunes would take the time to notice that previous authorizations are never heard from again after I authorize a new install, it should just allow me to go along my merry, non-infringing way and let me listen to the music that I paid for.

Apple is more than happy to do this. You can go into your account settings in iTunes, and tell it to deauthorize ALL of your prior computers. You then can authorize your current system and listen to all those songs again.

As for old systems, maybe you should consider deauthorizing them before you get rid of them or overwrite the OS. Then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[anagama]

Why do I need to buy all those again ... I've got a large catalog already purchased.

Your point is excellent. My music catalog is about 16gb (small by some standards I know). Probably 1-2gb is iTunes and 2-3gb is emusic stuff. The rest is from CDs (192kbs). I've been buying cds since the 80s when I stopped buying records. As a result, it's hardly a surprise that most of the content on my iPod didn't come from iTunes -- I already had it, why would I buy it again? No doubt, many people share similar circumstances.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[syousef]

Well enjoy buying them each time your DRM fails to validate, your computer or iPod crashes etc. People should just stop buying DRM shite now and save us about 20 years of bullshit because I guarantee people aren't stupid enough to continually rebuy the same thing with DRM after they've had 1 or 2 crashes or computer system changes that wipe out their collection.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[Mononoke]

Well enjoy buying them each time your DRM fails to validate, your computer or iPod crashes etc.

Thanks for the warning, but some of us are smart enough to back up our data files.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[Blondie-Wan]

DRM should be more like Everquest or Steam, I can install them on as many systems as I like but I can only log into one at a time.

I'm not sure I follow. As things are now, you access Apple's servers to authorize a computer to play the DRMed files (and of course to browse the store and buy those files in the first place), but otherwise don't need to talk to them at all. If you're suggesting that a fair tradeoff for having as many computers as you want able to play the DRMed music (currently limited to five per account) you'd instead log in each time you wanted to play, wouldn't that be a dramatically bigger and more intrusive hassle? What if you want to play music on a machine that's not even connected to the internet?

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[syousef]

It's not about being too dumb to backup your files. DRM ties you to a single player/machine and revalidates. That puts the entire control at the discression of the company that sold you the music. What if they go bankrupt, merge, change ownership, decide to no longer support a given format at their store...etc.

If you honestly believe that all you have to do is back up your files and you'll never lose your DRM content, it's no wonder you don't mind DRM.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[Cal Paterson]

Thanks for the warning, but some of us are smart enough to back up our data files.

Yeah, if only DRM didn't retrict the use of backed up files. It's not just loss of files that is a risk - it's the ability to play them in 20 years time. Will iTunes still be the market leader? Will iTunes even exist?

It doesn't matter all that much if you back them up, because it still looks like you're set to lose in the long run.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[trezor]

In short: If you are willing to jump trough dozens of hoops you shouldn't have to jump trough, to use your legitemately bought music, you won't have any issues with your 128kbps rip.

Yeah, that sounds much better than just getting a CD and ripping it yourself. Or just getting it in FLAC from the P2Ps while you wait for your favorite online-store to deliver it.

Seriously, the music business is trying to use digital media in a way to prevent all the advantages that can be gained by going digital. Like interoptibility which is the biggest issue for me. Now why on earth would I want anything at all to do with people trying to restrict my use, when they have NO legal right* to do so?

* at least not in Norway

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[AusIV]

People need to quit spreading FUD about collections being lost to system crashes. Yes, if you don't backup your data, and your system crashes, it's gone. That's true with any data, and has nothing to do with DRM. iTunes allows you to validate not one or two but 5 computers to play your music. If you have used up all of your computers with systems that have crashed, simply log into your account information page and click the "Deauthorize All Computers" button. Then you can authorize a new computer to play your music. You can only do this once every six months, but if you're going through a computer every 1.2 months, you've got other problems.

Fairplay DRM is not as bad as people claim. To address a few misconceptions I've seen spread on this article:
1) Audio quality is not affected by DRM, it's affected by the source from which you're downloading the music.
2) If you backup your music, you are not going to lose your music to a system crash.
3)The most valid claim I've seen is that iTunes ties you to a specific platform. But by giving you the option to burn CDs of your music, it no more ties you to a platform than CDs do. Some people will assert that you lose quality if you burn a CD and re-rip, but that's only true if you rerip to another lossy codec. You don't lose quality burning to a CD, you lose quality when you re-rip.

Fairplay DRM is not this horrible beast that keeps your music imprisoned. My girlfriend and I both use iTunes all the time (and have for years), and the other day I had to explain to her how iTunes puts some restrictions on your music. She had never noticed.

While I admit the iTunes DRM held me back from moving to Linux for a while, I've never been nearly as embitterred towards Apple for producing a convenient online music store that has a few restrictions as many people here seem to be.

If you don't like iTunes, don't buy from it. If you don't like iTunes because of quality, don't blame it on DRM. If you don't like iTunes because you lost your entire library to a system crash, blame it on yourself for not backing up, or deauthorize all your computers. If you don't like iTunes because it ties you to a specific platform, burn to CDs and rerip to a lossless codec, or check out the latest updates to the DRM removal software.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[macaddict]

In short: If you are willing to jump trough dozens of hoops you shouldn't have to jump trough, to use your legitemately bought music, you won't have any issues with your 128kbps rip.

A dozen hoops??

*goes up to "Advanced" menu. Menu pops open. Ooh, look! "Deauthorize Computer"*

OMG! That was so hard! I'm exhausted!

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[cthellis]

Seriously, the music business is trying to use digital media in a way to prevent all the advantages that can be gained by going digital.

The music business (like the movie business) is notoriously stupid about every form of technical advancement, and tries to stand in the way until they just CAN'T anymore, at which point the find it turns into a huge cash cow for them.

I do not rate them highly on smurts.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[trezor]

Tell me how that works if I want to play stuff on my cellphone. Right. It doesn't.

Next!

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[macaddict]

Tell me how that works if I want to play stuff on my cellphone. Right. It doesn't.

How do you normally get music onto your cellphone? I think I can safely assume that you don't just stick a CD into it and play it--no hoops.

And...the thread had been discussing music getting "lost" on old computers, so I'm not really sure where the cellphone comes in.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[trezor]

By transcoding the stuff. You can't transcode DRMed stuff. I was referring to why I don't but into DRMed music.

Also the thread was about people not wanting DRMed music. I brought the derailed thread back on topic. How rude!

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[macaddict]

By transcoding the stuff. You can't transcode DRMed stuff. I was referring to why I don't but into DRMed music.

You could transcode music from your non-DRM'd backup CD. But why do you even care, as you say you don't buy from iTMS in the first place?

Also the thread was about people not wanting DRMed music. I brought the derailed thread back on topic. How rude!

Perhaps you should write a chiding note to cskrat, as it was that post that brought up the subject I was replying to. Because, as we all know, topics NEVER branch off into other topics on Slashdot. That would be rude!

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[Paradise Pete]

It's not just loss of files that is a risk - it's the ability to play them in 20 years time.

Almost everything I bought 20 years ago I no longer have.

Just sayin'.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[SanityInAnarchy]

As for old systems, maybe you should consider deauthorizing them before you get rid of them or overwrite the OS.

This may not be possible, certainly not desirable. Consider the conditions under which you need to reinstall an OS.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[syousef]

Almost everything is not everything.

Also do you want our history and the software that came before to disappear. Imagine if early aviators built self destructs into their aircraft. What would be left for the Smithsonian?

Unlike you lots of people keep, restore and use old things. People still play phonographs. Not your average man on the street but collectors do.

This idea of a fucking throw away society is just plain bone headed.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[syousef]

No it's you that needs to spread FUD.

Data being lost in crashes aren't the problem at all.

It's the 'simply log into your account information page and click the "Deauthorize All Computers" part that's the issue'. You aren't deauthorising anything. You're ASKING Apple to. Apple can withdraw that service, and authorisation and deauthorisation wouldnt' work. At that point you couldn't do a thing after moving to a new system. (It MAY be possible to image your system so you could recover old settings, keys etc. but once that system dies that's no longer an option).

What's more Apple can stop supporting authorisations in favour of a new format, or can be sold/taken over/go bankrupt.

I don't like iTunes and I won't buy from it as you suggest. But I don't like people like you making out there is no problem with the system when there clearly is one. If you're happy to let someone else control your ability to use your own data that's fine but don't YOU spread FUD.

Re:but I already have a TON of CD's

[tbone1]

Yeah, if only DRM didn't retrict the use of backed up files.

What are you talking about? I had a hard drive fail on an (old) computer just the other week. I restored my data files from a backup once I had the new drive in, formatted, OS installed, etc. Some of those are songs purchased from iTunes, and they worked fine in iTunes and on my iPod (once I'd re-authorized the computer in iTunes for the iTM?S songs).

For your failure to grasp facts in the face of empirical evidence, you are hereby sentenced to ten minutes of listening to John Madden broadcast a Packers game. (Brett Favre, Brett Favre, Brett Favre, ...)

Who would've thought?

[Opportunist]

So appearantly the majority prefers freedom over convenience? Well, at least it keeps my hopes up for humanity.

Re:Who would've thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a pretentious twat.

Re:Who would've thought?

[Cylix]

Don't worry!

Humanity has many more chances (infinite really) to destroy your faith in it!

I know the future seems glum now, but just wait a few more days and I promise it will be even worse.

Anyone who brings up that tired old argument that humanity has an equal number of chances to prove itself is just a silly troll and I won't hear it!

I know, I know, you are thinking, "But if humanity has a choice to prove itself wrong... there must be a postive choice!" To that I must offer a scenario. There is an extremely hot chick who you want to ask out for coffee or some other meaningless opportunity to delve into your senseless lives. You could say there are a number of ways to go about such an approach. However, no matter what method you choose, you will ultimately fail miserably. (Notice the parallel with humanity). There is a bit of light at the end of this dismal tunnel. If you would perhaps borrow a gun from a friend or store ( I mean... steal it) then you would have an excellent shot of achieving your goals. I should note, she probably won't be much of a conversationalist at gun point, but she probably didn't have much interesting to say anyway.

Ah... the futility of life...

Now, I must go "ask out" this terribly hot chick.

Re:Who would've thought?

[_xeno_]

Doubt it.

I expect that, amazingly enough, most people like having something tangible for their purchase. Downloads are ephemeral things. They're not real in the sense that a CD is.

I expect that most users have lost files before. Files get deleted or lost. People lose their backups or can't figure out how to transfer files from their old computer to their new computer.

When you buy a CD you have an actual thing you can hold. It's not going to suddenly disappear. Viruses can't delete it. Some random "computer repair" won't lose it. It's real in a way that a download never can be.

I doubt that people prefer freedom over convience in this case. I doubt most people even understand the freedoms they're missing when buying from the iTunes Music Store.

I expect that the reality is that people prefer buying physical things to buying something as ethereal as a downloaded file.

Re:Who would've thought?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Don't be so sure. For many people it's still easier for them to stop by a CD store, browse around a bit, and buy few CDs than it is to download them off the net. Some people simply enjoy the RL experience more, too.

Re:Who would've thought?

[ZachPruckowski]

Dude, you're pretty frakked up. Get help.

Re:Who would've thought?

[cubicledrone]

I expect that the reality is that people prefer buying physical things to buying something as ethereal as a downloaded file.

Blizzard makes over $100 million a month selling a chance to get a purple sword.

Re:Who would've thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, buying a cd is like buying a master. you can do with it what you wish, you have quality to spare for recompression. the same couldn't be said for what itunes sells. thats just sad.

Re:Who would've thought?

[Neop2Lemus]

Dude, you shouldn't use words like "frakked".

Re:Who would've thought?

[Lord Kano]

So appearantly the majority prefers freedom over convenience? Well, at least it keeps my hopes up for humanity.

In this case, freedom IS the convienence. Some of the people that I know who own iPods also have other music players in their households. So why get music in a format that can only be played on one device when you can get it in a format that will work on all of them?

LK

Re:Who would've thought?

[WilliamSChips]

Yeah, everyone knows the correct spelling is 'frack'.

Re:Who would've thought?

[Mattintosh]

Blizzard makes over $100 million a month selling a chance to get a purple sword.

If they were smart, they'd guarantee a "purple sword" and make as much money as the porn industry!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I've never purchased from iTunes.

[HatchedEggs]

Never... and I don't really plan on doing so. I just like having a CD of my music, produced professionally, etc. Perhaps I'm behind the times, but the only stuff I get from iTunes is my podcasts.

If iTunes remembered online that I owned the rights toa piece of software and could download it again at a later time perhaps I would use it (thats me speaking blindly, I haven't even looked into it that much). My wife has downloaded a few songs from iTunes if I recall, but we both have a decent CD collection and tend to support the artists that we like by getting their whole CD.

Is it just me, or was the new iTunes release a step down from the last one? I just don't like the interface as much.

Justin
http://hatchedeggs.blogspot.com/

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[ToasterofDOOM]

You're not off your rocker. iTunes is nice, and i think it's the best software out there, and the online store is a nice option. However I enjoy having DRM-Free, physical media. I just have to rip it to my computer once and I get a free unencumbered file, and i till have physical media I can play in my car. Even though it costs more, I wouldn.t change. Freedom is worth the extra $5 bucks per album at the cash register, and the ability to rip to lossless files, or any type for that matter, doesn't hurt/

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[HatchedEggs]

Good post Spartacus, I agree with that. The mobility that having a CD gives us is definitely worth something.

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[mrchaotica]

If iTunes remembered online that I owned the rights toa piece of software and could download it again at a later time perhaps I would use it

And I'm leery even of that! (That's one reason why I haven't bought anything off Steam, for example.)

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[ClamIAm]

we ... tend to support the artists that we like by getting their whole CD.

This is a really bad reason to buy CDs instead of digital files (and it has nothing to do with DRM). Buying anything from the "Big Four" (and even many indie companies) does not really support the musicians who made the music. I'd suggest reading the classic essay "Some of Your Friends are Already this Fucked".

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam does remember what you bought. In your new computer you just need the password and username. Everything else is downloaded from valve. Even more: you can have steam and your games installed in two computers, when you switch computers and try to start a game it will ask for your password. Easy

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[eraserewind]

It's a very slight improvement (hard to be worse than before), though seems they spent all the developer hours on eye candy rather than improving the functionality and workflow. Well, at least you can see the individual downloads in progress this time. I just use it for podcasts & CDs also. Now if they'd only allow a proper way to fill up my ipod mini randomly.

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[mrchaotica]

Right, I'm aware of that. But my point was that even though you can re-download it at will, I still refuse to use the service because I worry about things like (for example) having someone hack my account such that Valve shuts it off, Valve going out of business, etc.

And what I'm really pissed off about is how they hijacked my (store bought physical) copy of Half-Life 1 -- I want WON.net back, damnit!

Re:I've never purchased from iTunes.

[Phroggy]

Is it just me, or was the new iTunes release a step down from the last one? I just don't like the interface as much.

It's just you. iTunes 7 addresses just about every complaint I've ever heard about iTunes. No, it's not perfect. The new interface may include some changes that are worse than before, but it certainly includes improvements as well, and several features that were simply broken before are fixed.

Give it some time. This is the most significant UI change in iTunes' history. It took awhile to get used to it when I first started using iTunes; it will take awhile to get used to the new version. After a couple weeks, start using the iTunes Feedback form to send your thoughts to Apple. They won't reply to you, but they really do read them, and if a lot of people have a common complaint, chances are good that Apple will address it.

Make that non-lossy music.

[Cybert4]

My objection remains that the music is non-lossy. With 8GB flash players, all the arguments for lossy music are quickly going away. While they are at it, I wouldn't mind 24-bit/96kHz or something like that.

Re:Make that non-lossy music.

[Anonymous Coward]

(un)fortunately you're a minority. Im betting that given an 8gb player and a choice between more music or lossless music most people are gonna take more music.

most of us have a cd collection.

[(H)elix1]

they made it easy to 'import' CD's into your itune lib by ripping stuff to a digital format. Most folks, I suspect, have a pretty good size collection of CD's. I'll buy music, but tend to do a CD (and rip to mp3 or other formats) rather than buy something digital from the go.

Re:most of us have a cd collection.

[(H)elix1]

(drat - hit submit rather then preview - wish there was an edit)

For those looking to rip CD's, but not learn how the command line LAME encoder works, check out audiograbber. Makes quick work of turning a collection into MP3 format.

Re:most of us have a cd collection.

[davecarlotub]

It's not that hard, man:

Windows: FOR %i IN (*.wav) DO lame -b 192 -h -m s %i
Bash: for i in *.wav ; do lame -b 192 -h -m s ${i} `echo ${i} | sed s/.wav/.mp3/g` ; done

Re:most of us have a cd collection.

[bcat24]

No, please *don't* do that. Unless your ripping MP3s at the maxium bitrate (320 kbps), there's no good reason to use CBR. At the very least, use ABR. And unless you need a very predictable file size for some reason, VBR is the way to go. Try "lame -V 2 --vbr-new".

Re:most of us have a cd collection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Audiograbber was good 10 years ago, when VBR just appeared, and no one cared about jitter correction.
Nowadays EAC is much better. And free.

Re:most of us have a cd collection.

[mrchaotica]

wish there was an edit

Be careful what you wish for -- digital information is ephemeral enough as it is, and the last thing we need is more opportunity for people to "revise" history for their own purposes.

Personally, I think not being able to edit the post is one of the good things about Slashdot, because you know that when you reference something, nobody will snatch it out from under you!

What a bad statistic

[Watson Ladd]

A lot of iTunes users had large CD collections before iTunes. So saying that most of their music is on CD is a pretty misleading statistic. Better is to look at music bought in the last n weeks.

Re:What a bad statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

"A lot of iTunes users had large CD collections before iTunes."

Yeah...I had to go through a few weeks of burning my discs to MP3 years ago to get my CDs into iTunes. There is no way in hell I would have repurchased even a tenth of this stuff through iTMS. That doesn't mean, I won't buy stuff through it -- I've gotten a LOT of music through their store...but most of the time, its a quick purchase to see if I like an artist enough to look for their CDs in the store.

Honestly, the iTMS (and not just 'iTunes) is the reason my CD purchases have gone up. At the same time, I was a stickler for this belief back when I was doing the 'napster' thing...I'd listen to the music once and if I liked it, I'd buy it...if not, I'd delete it instantly (never understood the idiots that say they'd never buy the song, yet don't feel the need to get rid of it out of their library -- if its not worth buying, morally its not worth keeping). iTMS is the perfect legal way to sample an artist or genre...

Re:What a bad statistic

[ucblockhead]

Exactly. I've mostly bought from iTunes over the last year or so, but physical CDs still make up the vast majority of my library simply because it took me twenty years to get that library.

Re:Let's be honest here

[HatchedEggs]

Actually, the music on my computer tha is converted to iTunes all came from CD. Nothing from the store. It might be semi-convenient, but if you already have a good collection and enjoy hitting up the music store now and then you probably won't invest too much in iTunes.

No, no, no

[93 Escort Wagon]

"it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it."

I have an iPod, I rarely buy anything from the iTunes Music Store, and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with DRM. The albums I want to buy are quite often in the $12-$13 range on iTunes, and I can get them in CD form at the same price or even cheaper. When I buy the CD I get a) higher quality, and b) a permanent backup I can store in a closet or cupboard.

I think what's really going on is that people can see the obvious: the price structure (digital vs. physical medium) is currently way out of whack. You don't save anything by buying the digital version! Why would you do it? It's not like I ever find myself saying "I just HAVE to own the new Audioslave, and I can't BEAR to wait 3 or 4 days for it!"

Re:No, no, no

[kannibal_klown]

If I want an entire album (which happens on occasion) I'd rather go to the BestBuy near my office and rip it. But usually I just want 1 or 2 songs off the album, at which point I'll happily shell out the $0.99 per song. This way in the end I save around $10-$12 by not buying songs I don't like or want.

If they offered higher quality encodings (like the Apple lossless or a high bit-rate mp4) for the same price my opinion might vary. But for now if you want a whole album (or even most of the songs on it) it just makes more sense to buy the physical media.

Re:No, no, no

[supabeast!]

"I think what's really going on is that people can see the obvious: the price structure (digital vs. physical medium) is currently way out of whack. You don't save anything by buying the digital version!"

I agree that the pricing is screwed up, but not because it's more than retail. I find that I often would save by purchasing albums on iTunes, as most of the albums I want are $9.99 - but $9.99 is too much to pay for 128kb AAC files. Too many of the albums I purchased with iTunes sound like crap - so I'm done with iTunes until Apple upgrades to losses audio.

Re:No, no, no

[HatchedEggs]

I think that "permanent back-up" that you mention is very real to most of us. Most people around have experienced computer failure of some sort or another, and it would be horrible losing that to a computer failure.

Sure, the physical copies can be damaged if there is a fire or what not... but it is probably also generally easier to document physical evidence of having CDs for insurance reasons than it is for digital copies.

How have you guys dealt with loss claims in regards to digital only music when dealing with your insurance companies?

Re:No, no, no

[rolfwind]

If you only use iTunes to sample an artist to see if you want to buy his music, may I suggest Napster? I know it's an evil brand now, but you can play a song 5 times for free - and in this way sample a ton of music without paying:) Who knows, you may even cost them a bit by just leeching - so it's good in a sense!

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't save anything by buying the digital version! Why would you do it?

If you want the whole album then you're right but I think most people only like a few songs on a given CD, so paying for only those songs vs buying the entire album on CD does save them quite a bit.

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what's really going on...

All your points are valid and I agree with all of them except one:

I don't buy for a second that DRM has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. If you could get the same quality of music via a download and say a lifetime (or approx. life of a physical audio cd) of unlimited downloads for all that music again should you lose it (effectivly giving you the same 'permanent backup' as the physical medium), yet have that music be crippled by DRM, that you would opt-in.

DRM cripples your freedom to listen to your music period. Anyone who would choose that over the option to buy the CD for the same price and have DRM-free music they can play whenever, wherever and however they choose is just plain dumb; period.

Re:No, no, no

[crazed gremlin]

Yeah, but this is about iTunes and iPods. Napster doesn't work with iPods....blah blah blah.

Re:No, no, no

[Ryz0r]

I think this it is quite true that DRM doesnt have anything to do with it. Coincidentally yesterday I was talking to a (female(yes, really)) friend about iTunes and she told me that she only uses it to either rip the music she's bought on CD to her iPod or the tunes she's downloaded from P2P. As a typical teenage student(the vast majority of iPod owners presumably), i dont think she has much of a concept of what DRM even is; much less does she care about it. On buying songs from iTunes: "whats the point, if i just want one song i'll get it off Kazaa"

Another point people often mention is the convenience of the iTunes service, but in reality it's no more convenient buying a song off iTunes than it is to fire up your favourite file sharing program and get a nice mp3 of the song you want in minutes.

Re:No, no, no

[The One and Only]

That reasoning is wonderful if you want to litter your domicile with hundreds of neatly packaged plastic discs. I always thought we had all this technology so we could just call up needed data from the computer instead of fumbling around for plastic discs. As for backups, having a backup solution for your entire system would save physical space and effort.

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree as far as iTunes, and felt the same way at first. I really like having physical CD's. But there are actually alternatives that changed my mind. Like emusic, where music is so much cheaper that I actually don't mind the lower quality (~192kbs mp3, which is about what I'd rip anyway) and the lack of cover art and whatnot (can DL images of it in Amarok/iTunes at least). And I don't need a backup, since I can just log in and redownload the files for free if ever I lose them.

Anyway, if you're not tied to major label releases, look around and you'll find some good digital music services out there. But for the major label stuff you're pretty much stuck.

Re:No, no, no

[noewun]

I rarely buy anything from the iTMS, but for a completely different reason: very little of the music I want to listen to is on the iTMS.

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.
I have one backup harddrive connected to my laptop.
Once, a month I backup my HOME folder to it, it takes about 20 minutes.

ITunes has a number of advantages to me:
- No trips to the CD Store.
- No ecology waste.
- Price.
When I was 5 I had ZERO music collection.
My son has 50 songs and a number of audio books that I've purchased.
His playlist alone is worth $100.
All because I can buy 1 SONG AT A TIME, and ONLY the songs he likes, through ITUNES.

When I was young, until I got into my 30's I had an collection of just 20-30 albums.
Purely because of PRICE. Music has always been expensive for people with median incomes or lower.
At least with ITUNES you can buy 1 song at a time.
The Music industry deserves the hostility they get on pricing.

Re:No, no, no

[pillsbur]

I agree. For most things I try to buy cheap used copies from Amazon. A very good quality CD can be had for $3-$6 (plus shipping) and I get to rip it at my preferred bit rate. I'll still buy new albums from bands I really like brand new though.

Like others have said, the physical copy is a backup. Also, I bought six of those wooden CD boxes from IKEA ("Mackis") and loads of cheap plastic sleeves from someplace online for pennies on the dollar, and then spent a few days breaking down the jewel cases and putting all the artwork and the disc into the sleeves. My collection isn't quite as browse-able as it was before, but the space savings have been worth it.

As an aside, I wonder if the opening of the new movie service will lead to an increase in the default bit rate of the music sold on the iTMS. I assume 128 was chosen partially for download speed concerns and we know that movies were delayed partially until more people had broadband connections. Does the green light for movie downloads signal a better chance for better bit rates for music?

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

When I buy the CD I get a) higher quality, and b) a permanent backup I can store in a closet or cupboard.

You never saw that delightful little flick, "The Ipod in the Cupboard"? Bah!

I use iTMS

[dcapel]

Of course, I am not sure I count considering I don't have an iPod, I run linux and I don't have to deal with the DRM.

SharpMusique rocks ;)

Re:I use iTMS

[Anonymous Coward]

SharpMusique rocks ;)
Does it still work?

Re:I use iTMS

[dcapel]

Yes...

Re:I use iTMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you 100% sure? Did you try buying a song?
Recent update broke iTunes 5.x, so I would assume ShapMusique stopped working too.

Re:I use iTMS

[dcapel]

Bleh, your right. I was going from a few weeks ago, so it might have been broken with the update. That sucks :/

Let me see if I have this right

[winkydink]

1) Most iPod user don't buy using iTunes
2) Every other online music store is a failure

Therefore, people don't like DRM.

Yeah, I see how that conclusion follows those two assumptions. How about, iTunes is successful because the iPod is successful and yet, that said, most people prefer to own a CD version of their digital music. Perhaps because they can encode either lossless or at a higher bitrate than offered by iTunes?

The average Joe most likely thinks that DRM is one of those new pop bands he's heard about.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[Rix]

Yeah, I see how that conclusion follows those two assumptions. How about, iTunes is successful because the iPod is successful and yet, that said, most people prefer to own a CD version of their digital music. Perhaps because they can encode either lossless or at a higher bitrate than offered by iTunes?

I think most people don't consider it "buying" unless they get something physical in return.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[Firehed]

The average joe neither has heard of DRM (let alone knows what it is) nor gives a shit about lossless or even higher bitrate audio. If a lower bitrate file inroduced artifacting rather than just reduced the range, they might care, but seeing that most people still use those stock iBuds and whatever 2.0ch speakers came with their Dell, they're not missing anything anyways. Hell, I've got a pretty decent set, but I can barely (if at all) tell the difference between a lossless rip and 192k VBR, and often times 128k as well.

As much as it would do for us, not everyone is an audiophile who wants to do all sorts of power-user streaming and whatnot. They're not greatly effected by DRM or 128kBit audio. If it's the song they paid for, they're happy, and nothing more to it. I won't use the iTMS (save free downloads) for a number of reasons, but that hasn't stopped people from clicking 'buy now' a billion and a half times.

Of course, in my case, I won't buy CDs either, unless they're not produced by an RIAA-owned label. Which, again, is really only something the geeks and freedom activists care about. Oh well, the artists' loss.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[ArbitraryConstant]

"The average joe neither has heard of DRM (let alone knows what it is) nor gives a shit about lossless or even higher bitrate audio."

These statistics demonstrate that they do in fact care about some combination of those factors, and avoid online music purchases as a result.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[winkydink]

If you can't tell the diff between 128k & vbr, you need a better set of headphones/speakers. Once I got my Shure E5c's, the diff between 128k & high vbr was obvious.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[reggiep]

For me it's totally about bitrate. I play most of my mp3s on my home stereo. Files ripped at 128KBits sound fine on your computer but it's easy to tell the difference between a song ripped at 320KBits and 128KBits when you play it on a good quality stereo.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[SanityInAnarchy]

most people prefer to own a CD version of their digital music. Perhaps because they can encode either lossless or at a higher bitrate than offered by iTunes?

Good point. And yet, why doesn't the iTunes music store offer higher bitrate stuff?

I'm guessing this has to do with the mentality. Stores which are used to locking customers in (DRM) aren't likely to go out of their way to provide choices (higher bitrate). Stores which exist to provide choices (no DRM; Magnatune) seem much more likely to provide choices (flac/lossless).

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[iainl]

"why doesn't the iTunes music store offer higher bitrate stuff?"

In short, because the iTunes Store is selling music to play on iPods. Its reason to exist is to help sell those iPods in the first place, and for my (and I'm guessing the majority's) money, 128kbs is the sweet spot for AAC between acceptable quality on headphones going about my daily business, and the number of songs I can fit on my player.

I do get the whole audiophile argument, but that's why there's a NAD seperates system in the living room and a whole cabinet of CDs. I still buy my albums on CD, but iTMS is great for when I just want an individual track (usually single B-sides).

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[SanityInAnarchy]

I do wonder if the iTunes store makes money on its own. I imagine it's not just audiophiles -- a DJ, for instance, might just need a single track for a one-hit wonder, but want it in reasonably high quality to play in a club. Even for the iPod, if you buy some headphones, you can hear the difference.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[kabz]

Man, I feel really bad. I can just barely tell the difference between streamed 48KBps RealAudio and a real CD.

I think my ears are basically f*cked. Sigh.

Re:Let me see if I have this right

[greed]

A D.J. shouldn't be going near iTMS; "Public Performance" is not one of the rights granted to the purchaser under plain copyright. Let alone the licensed-not-sold stuff from iTMS.

(I believe it is possible, in some jurisdictions, to purchase performance licenses that let you publicly perform works obtained through usual retail channels; in those cases; just over-gain the 6kHz-10kHz bands, and the resulting treble distortion should cover any problems introduced by the 128Kbps AAC coding.)

Apparent success?

[kuwan]

Just because everyone that buys an iPod doesn't buy music from the iTunes store doesn't mean that it (iTunes) isn't successful. Success is measured in different ways. If they are making a profit then they are successful. You don't have to dominate sales to be successful. Also, given that Apple has like 80-90% market share for all legal music downloads then I'd call them successful.

It's going to take a while before downloads overtake CD sales (if ever), but that doesn't mean that a new technology in a new market isn't successful.

Re:Apparent success?

[Yvan256]

It's going to take a while before downloads overtake CD sales (if ever), but that doesn't mean that a new technology in a new market isn't successful.

At the last Keynote, Steve Jobs announced that the iTMS was the 5th biggest seller of music (top four were selling CDs, like Amazon, etc).

Re:Apparent success?

[shaitand]

Does that 80-90% include allofmp3.com? After all, they are technically legal.

Free Music

[SniperClops]

Music will soon be free, you just have to watch ads as it downloads.

Re:Free Music

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually looks pretty interesting.

Re:Free Music

[Rix]

It already is free, and I don't have to watch ads.

Re:Free Music

[SenatorTreason]

Yes, watch ads while it downloads and go back and watch ads every month thereafter *forever*. Otherwise, your license expires on the songs you've downloaded. This was discussed in TWiT #67 by Wil Harris of bit-tech.net.

1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[thefinite]

"Shunning" is such a silly word to use for this. Just because the iTunes store has not entirely replaced the CD in its few years of existence does not mean that users are shunning it. Their business is growing faster than CD sales are growing. Steve Jobs even said in the recent Apple Event that they are the first music downloads store to crack the top five sellers of music in any form. He also said they are now passing the 1.5 BILLION song mark.

But I guess no one will read an article that says "iPod users gradually adopting iTunes Music Store to supplement CD sales."

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[rolfwind]

Yes, but when CDs first came out, did they find that over 80% of people who bought CD players were still buying tapes and not buying CDs?

I'm actually surprised sales aren't higher. People usually want only one track they hear off the radio and can buy that from iTunes for $0.99 instead of an entire CD or an overpriced single CD.

I still don't know why the music industry doesn't sell FLAC (or other CD quality lossless) with no DRM online. It's not like it's going to contribute to P2P as it only takes one ripped CD anyway to make its way online. It probably has nothing to do with P2P fears, but more because the distributors know that the day people only need to buy one DRM-less, play-anywhere track is the day that album sales are die.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[dangitman]

Yes, but when CDs first came out, did they find that over 80% of people who bought CD players were still buying tapes and not buying CDs?

Irrelevant comparison. CD players are not compatible with audio cassettes. However, the iPod is compatible with both downloads from the Music Store, and with CDs. The iPod does not force one to change formats. When the CD was released, there was no way for the consumer to burn CDs "ripped" from their existing audio cassettes. In fact, many people replaced their existing cassettes with CD versions. There is no reason for a consumer to replace their existing CDs with songs purchased online.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[rolfwind]

I'm not sure about that. I mean, sure, digital is digital is digital. That would be like saying analog is analog is analog, perhaps a little less restrictive.

But you still can't play your CDs directly with your iPod. You have to jump through hoops first.

It be like everyone was buying cassete players, but still buying 8 track tapes and recording them onto cassettes.

Maybe the switch will happen when the CD player is less dominant elsewhere (like stereos) and the media center PC becomes a reality in every home.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[dangitman]

But you still can't play your CDs directly with your iPod. You have to jump through hoops first.

Jump through hoops? I'm not sure what you are talking about. You simply insert the disc into your CD-ROM drive, iTunes rips the files, tags them, and transfers to your iPod. It's exactly as convenient as listening to the CD in a normal player.

It be like everyone was buying cassete players, but still buying 8 track tapes and recording them onto cassettes.

Not really, because the CD was a quantum leap in convenience from tapes. No more rewinding, or hunting for songs. It was also a big increase in audio quality. Never mind the fact that 8-tracks never had the kind of market dominance that CDs enjoy.

Similarly, the iPod was also a big increase in convenience. No more sorting through physical discs to find your CDs. No more bulky collections to carry around. The iPod did not increase quality - but the main reason for the success of both the CD and the iPod was not quality but convenience.

Maybe the switch will happen when the CD player is less dominant elsewhere (like stereos) and the media center PC becomes a reality in every home.

That's pretty much already happened. How many people actually play CDs in standalone CD players these days? How many people have a computer with a CD-ROM? I'm not sure why you need a "media center" PC to use iTunes. The difference is that people already have huge collections of CDs, and have stores that sell CDs in their neighborhood. I don't think it has much to do with people not being comfortable with using their PCs for music.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[Rix]

But I guess no one will read an article that says "iPod users gradually adopting iTunes Music Store to supplement CD sales."

I doubt very much this is happening. I would suspect there is a very low crossover between the sets of people who buy CDs, and the people who pay for iTunes.

CD sales aren't growing because they *can't*. The only way to increase the number of people in the developed world who have CD players is through birth and immigration. You may as well be comparing it to phone use. Everyone has one.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Assuming that there were 60 million iPods sold, that's 25 tracks bought per iPod, the equivalent of two or three CDs. I think it's fair to say there is plenty of shunning going on because that's not really a lot.

I don't even know if that 1.5B number counts the free tracks that they give away, I probably have 75 tracks that they gave away. They give away one to two a week for the favor of visiting their store. I haven't bought any iTunes tracks in over a year, but I've bought maybe a dozen CDs since then.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[anagama]

Maybe the switch will happen when the CD player is less dominant elsewhere (like stereos) and the media center PC becomes a reality in every home.

That's pretty much already happened. How many people actually play CDs in standalone CD players these days?

I remember back in my college days (late 80s), I had a stack of LPs. Then I bought a CD player and started getting cds. Somewhere along the line in the early 90s, my turntable broke down -- I "Goodwilled" it and then didn't replace it. About a year ago, my last CD player quit working reliably -- off to Goodwill. I haven't replaced it and have no intention to. Rather, I set up an old ibook on top of the stereo cabinet and it became my music player, yellow pages, and occasional wireless bridge. I have no intention of buying a cd player again (though I may still buy CDs and rip them).

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[arkhan_jg]

"Shunning" is such a silly word to use for this. Just because the iTunes store has not entirely replaced the CD in its few years of existence does not mean that users are shunning it.

Oh but it does. Digital downloads is such an improvement on CDs - or rather, it should be. It allows retailers to stock a much bigger range of music for little extra cost compared to warehouse scaling. That vast choice can then be offered to the customer. It allows a wide range of bitrates and codecs for little to no extra cost, so the customer can choose whether they want a low-rate mp3 for the mobile phone, a flac or dvd-audio for their monster home audio setup, or something in between. Ideally, what you pay is based on bandwidth used, so it's cheaper to download the lower-res files if you're on a tight budget.

Users can choose which tracks they want from which album - no longer do customers have to pay for half a dozen tracks they don't like - they can spend the money they save on more tracks they do like. Better musicians do better, poorer musicians relying on a one-track wonder won't, so the overall quality of music available will improve - but since it's digital distribution, even rubbish tracks will still sell a few, probably in 10 years time as 'nostalgia' pieces - and it doesn't matter, as server storage is cheap.

Digital distribution is much cheaper than physical distribution, so the cost of music can fall substantially with the artist still getting the same cut. Even better, the artists can distribute tracks themselves directly to the digital music stores, and cut out the middle man, thus getting a much bigger cut while the customer still gets cheaper music.

Digital distribution is also so cheap, it's not worth messing about with P2P for most people, so there's no DRM. DRM only means that paying users get a worse experience than illegal copiers anyway (as all DRM can be cracked easily), thus driving them to the P2P sites. DRM is thus actually counter-productive, as it harms the user experience of using the store - and one of the biggest advantages of digital distribution is that you can buy the track you want immediately, and not mess about driving to the shops or ordering from a giant warehouse, so ease of use is everything.

So - digital distribution is cheaper, more convenient, gives more money to the artist, has a much bigger range of tracks and choice in format. Its artifical restriction free, it plays on any device you like, you can redownload tracks you've already paid for and is much faster than any physical retailer.

I'm just waiting for the music industry and their supportive computing industry to actually DO this, rather than artificially hold back digital online stores to be worse than buying crappy plastic discs from a warehouse in surrey. People are shunning the digital stores because they're rubbish, not because CDs are inherently better than digital distribution.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[macaddict]

"Shunning" is such a silly word to use for this. Just because the iTunes store has not entirely replaced the CD in its few years of existence does not mean that users are shunning it.

Agreed. Most of my music in iTunes came from CDs I already own. When I do buy new music it comes from the iTunes Music Store, unless it's something they don't carry. Then I buy the CD. I don't buy a lot of music, but it's definitely more than what I bought before iTMS started up.

There is no "shunning" involved. If I already own it on CD, I don't buy it from iTMS. If it's only available on CD, then I buy the CD. If iTMS has it, I buy it from them. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this concept.

And, I should also state that I don't give a rat's ass about the DRM. I don't even notice it. I can play the songs on my desktop and laptop, my iPod and burn a CD for my car. I guess I don't have the "perfect ears" some of you have been blessed with, because I can't tell the difference. Actually, I don't really care if there's a difference--I'm usually working while listening to music, not listening intently for every nuance of the song.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[ucblockhead]

That's not a good analogy. A CD player could not play cassete tapes, so of course people who bought them bought only CDs. On the other hand, an iPod can play tracks ripped from CDs.

When I switched from vinyl to CD, there was a huge incentive to rebuy stuff I already owned so that I could listen to it on the CD player. With the iPod, there's no such incentive as I can listen to all my old CD music just fine.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[Scudsucker]

Oh but it does.

Not really. Online distribution is vastly cheaper than physical manufacturing & distribution, but none of the cost savings get passed onto either the customer or the artist. If prices were halved you'd really start to see the iTMS store put a hurt on CD sales for those who have iPods and/or computers.

Re:1.5 Billion Songs != Shunning

[thefinite]

So, you bought a CD this year and now you don't need to buy another one until this one stops working?

You can sell more CDs to the developed world by coming out with better music. CD sales don't track the number of people buying CDS, but the number of CDs sold. There is nothing stopping CD player owners from buying more CDs. So, at a time when people are buying fewer CDs on the margin, they are buying more digital tracks, in spite of whatever in the industry is pushing down CD sales.

Not DRM but physical CDs

[Pao|o]

I think the reason so many people still buy CDs is because they're tangible items unlike iTunes downloads that is "just" bits and bytes.

Well...

[sugapablo]

CDs still have the better sound quality of the two.

For me, basically I buy the iTunes downloads only if
a) I want only one or two songs of an album or
b) It's cheaper than the CD (aka good deal).

I just bough a Skynyrd CD and a Honeytribe CD from iTunes because I could get both cheaper (and faster) that way.

If the price was identical to the CD, I'd go for the CD every time.

So if these online services were smart, they'd pass on the savings they get from not having to create and ship a large inventory to the consumer and give them some incentive other than convenience to buy from them.

Re:Well...

[TalkingWire]

"Of the two" what? CD vs. compressed or lossless? What are you talking about here?

Regardless of my last post, I must admit that I have actually paid USD for iTunes DRM albums.
Honestly, iTunes uncompressed digital out to analog MiniDisk (who but your mama knows) sounds f'n great.

I don't doubt the figures...

[Kjella]

...but it also matters the reason you got them. You can easily get gigs and gigs of "assorted music" to fill up the space, for example by copying the collection of a friend. That means you'll have a lot of music that is basicly filler too, either because it was your friend's filler music or you don't like the same music as him.

That, and it basicly comes down to this: You can have water (silence) or mixed soda (P2P) for free or pay for brand soda (iTMS). Of course you'll have a ton of people that never wanted to buy a soda in the first place, but who'll happily take one if it's free. And if it's one they hate, all they lost was a little time in line.

DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[lerxstz]

I have no problem whatsoever with the DRM on iTunes. I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair. I support the bands I listen to buy buying their music, so I'm not concerned with DRM. Besides, if I ever got stuck because of the DRM, I'd burn the files to CD and keep them as .wav or .aiff format and avoid a conversion loss by not going back to a compressed format. The reason I personally don't buy too much from iTunes (I do buy some stuff, but usually only stuff where I don't want the whole CD) is the 128kbps AAC. The quality is better than mp3 at the same bit rate for sure, but it's still too low. No doubt the storage and bandwidth needed to serve up higher (or full) quality formats is still cost prohibitive, thus the rather low bit rates. But if you actually do a comparison of any compressed format versus the full quality version, you'd notice A) the stereo imaging is not as good in the lossy format B) the bottom end (lower frequencies) are reduced in the lossy format and C) the high end has phasing problems (i.e. it sounds "swishy"). THAT is why I don't buy too much from iTunes. Not because of the DRM.

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[Don Giovanni]

Actually, you may want to argue that point on hydrogenaudio.org; there are people on there with unbelievable hearing ability who generally agree that lame 3.97ß2 at preset standard is undiscerably different from the lossless file.
quicktime/itunes aac I'm not so sure about, especially at 128.
When will apple finally start selling lossless copies?

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[ArbitraryConstant]

"I have no problem whatsoever with the DRM on iTunes. I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair."

I want to be able to get a player other than an iPod in the future. I want to be able to use a platform other than MacOS/Windows in the future.

I realize Apple can't do anything about the conditions imposed on them by the labels, but those conditions make the entire thing untenable for me. It's not Apple's fault, but it's not my fault either. As you say, you can bypass the DRM, but only by going to a prohibitively large format. My hard drives can take it, but a flash MP3 player can't.

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[ender-]

I'm almost of the same opinion as yourself. I do wish they'd give better quality [lossless]. But I still have a minor issue with the DRM. For the most part, it is quite fair, but I'm not thrilled with the vendor lock-in that's involved. I rip all my music to Flac. Then I re-encode to various bitrates of mp3, depending on what I'd like to do with it. I can fit plenty of mp3's [or oggs for that matter] on my 1.5GB iRiver. Or I can encode them to an even lower bitrate, fit songs on my 512MB USB drive, and play them in my brother's car stereo [has a USB port, plays mp3s from it]. I can burn the mp3s to a CD [as data], and play them in my car stereo. I can stream my mp3s over my network to my Tivo, to play through the TV. I can play them in Linux.

None of this is possible without either breaking the law [US] and your agreement with Apple, or otherwise going through a second lossy compression [AAC->CD->MP3]. Until that is all possible, legal and simple, I won't be buying a large number of songs through iTunes.

In other words, it's time for Apple to open up licensing for FairPlay.

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[shawb]

I doubt Apple will sell lossless copies, or even significantly higher bitrate copies anytime in the near future. Yes, an audiophile will be able to hear the difference. The vast majority of people, however, can't tell the difference, or at the very least are not appreciably annoyed by it. In fact, most audiophiles would probably have a difficult time being able to tell the difference between 128 AAC and a lossless high bitrate compression algorithm if they were listening through the standard iPod ear buds, the cheap standalone computer speakers or even (God/FSM/etc) forbid a laptop's built in speakers that the vast majority or people will listen to their iTunes music through. Apple selling a format that satisfies the audiophile's needs would be like McDonald's selling porterhouse steak. The increased price would more than offset the percieved gain in quality in the eyes of the majority of consumers. To go back to the McDonald's analogy, fast food restaraunts make much higher profits than serving haute cuisine. Most gourmet restaurants wouldn't stay in business if it wasn't for the bar (yes, the food does generally make a small profit for the owner, but at an ROI that would be better served investing the money elsewhere.)

The related technology will improve which could allow for higher quality audio, but to the great majority of customers the sound quality is more than adequate. Customers would be more pleased if the technological advances developed are for faster download speeds and iPods which are cheaper, smaller, lighter, hold more songs and have a longer battery life. Oh yeah, and customers will absolutely demand above all else that the unit is trendy and looks slick.

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[lerxstz]

"I want to be able to get a player other than an iPod in the future. I want to be able to use a platform other than MacOS/Windows in the future."

I think the keyword is "future". If I was concerned about DRM today, then I would certainly worry about vendor lock-in. However when I don't want to use Mac OS XII or Windows Vista mark7 or whatever they're called in the future, the storage capacities of whatever new media format we'll be using would certainly be able to accommodate an uncompressed audio format, especially for the music I bought "today" with 44.1Khz/16bit audio. With current consumer/semi-pro level audio equipment already being able to handle higher sample rates (96Khz, 192Khz etc) and higher dynamic ranges with 32bit recording, the storage capacities of these devices in the future will have to be larger anyway, so uncompressed 44.1/16bit will be absolutely no problem, even for flash drive type storage, IMHO.

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[lerxstz]

Seems like hydrogenaudio.org is to the music enthusiast as slashdot.org is to the tech enthusiast :-)

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[ArbitraryConstant]

"With current consumer/semi-pro level audio equipment already being able to handle higher sample rates (96Khz, 192Khz etc) and higher dynamic ranges with 32bit recording, the storage capacities of these devices in the future will have to be larger anyway, so uncompressed 44.1/16bit will be absolutely no problem, even for flash drive type storage, IMHO."

It takes approximately 4 doublings to compensate for the lack of compression, or about 6+ years. An iPod 6 years from now, that would otherwise be able to hold my entire collection (since it'll still be mostly MP3s from the 90s and 00s), would be constrained to a shuffle-like level of functionality. Just because it would be able to hobble along with a level of functionality that I consider tolerable today doesn't mean it's something I want to commit myself to.

Buying CDs and ripping them gives me a) better quality, b) universal OS compatibility right now, and c) universal player compatibility right now.

Besides, I've been using Linux on the desktop since late 2003. If I had accepted your argument back when iTMS launched (and it was made back then), I would have already encountered problems as a result. AAC would not have been a problem on my Windows machine or my iBook, but my insistence on sticking with MP3 has already paid off.

Re:DRM's not a problem, just the quality

[Don Giovanni]

so the apple lossless audio codec is purely for people ripping, eh guvnor?

Spot on...

[dpbsmith]

...at least, it precisely parallels my personal usage.

My iTunes library contains 2977 items, of which 215 were purchased from the iTunes Music Store.

Most all the rest were: ripped from CDs and/or transferred from LPs, but:

There is also a considerable smattering of "personal content" including home recordings of my brother's piano recitals, radio shows recorded off the air with a Griffin RadioShark and "time-shifted" (I play them on my iPod in the car, then delete them), some downloaded public domain material (cylinder recordings from the UCSB's absolutely amazing Cylinder Recording and Preservation Project. That probably accounts for about 100-200 items.

But, to a first approximation, 7% iTMS purchases, and the rest "RIPS" in the broad sense of digitized copies of material purchased on other media.

Correlation != Causation

[popejeremy]

It doesn't prove that people don't want DRM. It only proves that people prefer to buy CDs. Maybe people want the superior sound fidelity of CDs. Maybe they just like having something they can hold in their hands. Maybe people just are just more used to buying CDs and they don't adapt quickly to change. The conclusion made by the article is not supported by the facts.

It's not just DRM...

[DigitAl56K]

I'm an eMusic subscriber (no DRM, VBR MP3, but only independant artists), and I still buy CDs. In fact, I buy CDs that I have downloaded through eMusic. There are a lot of songs that I'm quite happy to have as MP3 only, but occasionally I'll find certain gems where a FLAC CD rip is in order. Especially true of with electronic music, you just don't get those crystal clear piercing synths and airy vocals with lossy codecs.

However, DRM is still a big issue, which is why I will forgo commercial artists in an iTunes like store and instead settle for the slightly more involved process of discovering equally good independant artists through eMusic.

Re:It's not just DRM...

[O_at_TT]

I'm an emusic member too. I actually enjoy the discovery process. I'll poke around and listen to samples, sooner or later something good will come up. For 25c a song you can't really go wrong by downloading the whole album. The community forum is really helpful there too if you're stuck not knowing what to explore next.

Anyways, being an emu member makes me wonder why anybody pays $1 for a broken mp3. My iPod is full of eMu downloads.

Disclaimer: I don't work for them, but I do have affiliate links on my site. Frankly I just think they're a good service, especially compared to iTuna

Oliver

Re:It's not just DRM...

[sacbhale]

they're a good service, especially compared to iTuna

What about iSardines? you like those?

Digital music

[roboRob]

I hate to split hairs here, but audio CD's are still "digital music."

Re:Digital music

[simdan]

No no no. iPod owners, being the typical artsy types, reject the cold crispness of digital formats such at CDs and protected AAC. Rather, they prefer the warmth of analog formats such as cassette tapes, LPs and, of course 8-tracks. The real trick, though, is to find an 8-track to iPod ripper.

True, but...

[cskrat]

... you can definately tell the difference between a 128kpbs song from iTunes and a song that you ripped yourself at 192 or more kbps.

Re:True, but...

[bcat24]

Indeed. AAC is transparent for my (somewhat lame) ears at about 160 kbps VBR. 128 kbps CBR is listenable, almost always sounds a little bit bad to me.

Re:True, but...

[Shawn is an Asshole]

iTunes really should drop the bitrate crap and use quality-based encoding like LAME and oggenc. Using "--preset standard" on lame some tracks encode below 128 and other encode above 224. It all depends on what the song needs. The level of quality is the same, to where I cannot tell a difference between that and the original. This way you're not wasting bits on files that can be encoded at lower rates or losing quality on files that need more bits. Each get what's required.

At the very least it should default to VBR rather than CBR. The store should start selling VBR tracks as well.

Re:True, but...

[ericdano]

Why? AAC files are higher quality sonically than anything LAME ever produced for me. I can get away with a 160 bit AAC that sounds as good, and is smaller, than a 192 LAME encoded MP3.

I can play Ogg files on.......nothing that I own. So....moving on.....

There is support for AAC VBRing. Perhaps iTunes Store should offer 160 AACs with VBR?

Re:True, but...

[mrchaotica]

More to the point, what kind of idiot uses anything but lossless codecs when he has the choice?

(Burn, karma, burn!)

Re:True, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind who can't afford a 500GB iPod?

Re:True, but...

[Shawn is an Asshole]

By encoding at a fixed bitrate you're either wasting space or losing quality, based on the song. Some files might sound well at bitrates below 96 or even 64 whiles others would need more than 160 or 192. Quality-based encoding gives each song what it needs to keep a consistent level of quality.

Re:True, but...

[mrchaotica]

...which is why iTunes (and other music-management software) ought to have the ability to transcode your music to a lower bitrate when syncing to a portable player, while keeping the lossless "master" on the computer.

Re:True, but...

[dal20402]

I hope you have some patience when you're synchronizing that iPod...

On my 2.16GHz Core Duo MBP, iTunes, partly because it's broken (will only use one core), took a little over two days to transcode about 170GB of lossless music to 192Kbps VBR AAC. Now I just keep two copies of each file and play the lossless one on the computer and the 192Kbps one on the iPod.

Maybe after a few more generations of CPUs it will be a realistic option to transcode while syncing.

Re:True, but...

[rthille]

Yeah, I've got two copies of each song, the Apple Lossless and the 128K AAC. I wish that iTunes was better at managing multiple copies of songs. It should be able to recognize that two files are different encodings of the same performance. Further it'd be nice if iTunes could recognize (or be told) that two songs are two different performances of the same song, though that would be less useful.
In the former case then setting a 1-5 star rating on a song would affect all the encodings, and playlists could be setup once for the song, and then the user could set an 'encoding affinity' for each device and then iTunes would play/load the right file for the device.

Re:True, but...

[mrchaotica]

First of all, do the MBPs come with big enough hard drives to even hold all that music?!

Second, you've got a lot of music. I don't have nearly as much. Therefore, just because the feature wouldn't be useful to you doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful to me.

Of course, I just decided to get an iPod Video (instead of Nano) anyway, so it's a moot point for me now...

Re:True, but...

[dal20402]

First of all, do the MBPs come with big enough hard drives to even hold all that music?!

They come with a FireWire port. You can also get a SATAe Expresscard if you want one. I'll buy a 160GB Seagate 7200.2 the day it ships, so I can at least keep the compressed music on the MBP along with my documents and a Windows partition...

I don't have nearly as much. Therefore, just because the feature wouldn't be useful to you doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful to me.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that with built-in transcoding iPod syncs will not be the quick and painless operations they are now, even with small amounts of music. Honestly, I'd like the feature too. I'd probably just let my old G5 crank on the transcoding for a few days.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Abuse of Statistics

[smack.addict]

This strikes me as a rather insane abuse of statistics.

First, don't we expect a vast majority of music on an iPod to be from CDs even for people who buy a lot online? I mean the iTunes Music Store is only a few years old, yet most CD collections are a decade or two old. It would take me a long, long, long, long time of buying online music to equal my CD collection.

Second, the article says just 17% of iPod users are regular online shoppers of music. In my experience, a small percentage of people buy every CD they want and the rest just buy key stuff. I would expect a similar trend in online shopping.

So what conclusions are we really to draw from these stats?

Re:Abuse of Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

100% of all statistics are lies.

Re:Correction

[dpbsmith]

I didn't mean that I have 100-200 cylinder recordings, but that the "smattering of personal content" comprises about 100-200 items total.

In other news today

[eclectro]

Water remains wet, the sky is blue, the sun is hot, and the RIAA are jerks.

It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love when laymen kind of figure out EXACTLY what's going on... (dude, you know not of what you speak)

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[qbwiz]

How about you link to these "tests". Encryption does not change data so that you can't get back the original data. When you connect securely to a web site, does all your information you send and receive get garbled?

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[recursiv]

You're the kind of guy that the audiophile crystal audio clarifier salesman loves to see walking in the door.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[shaitand]

Dude the ears of old audio nuts claim that DIGITAL data sounds different when sent through fiber optic digital links rather than other digital links. It is a figment of their imagination. It is not like one has to guess. You do a checksum of the file before encryption, and you do a checksum after encryption, either the number has changed or not. Most encryptions are fully reversable.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[ericdano]

Well, that makes no sense. However, the argument about hearing/feeling over the CD standard 20kHz is an interesting debate though.......

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Calroth]

Dude the ears of old audio nuts claim that DIGITAL data sounds different when sent through fiber optic digital links rather than other digital links.

Digital ain't digital.

There are two main transports for S/PDIF digital data: optical (pulses of light) and coaxial (electric signals). The internal circuitry of your audio player is electric signals, so when your transport is optical, you've got to translate between electrons and light, then back again at the other end.

Ah, but it's all digital, right? The problem is timing: although you think that your light is instantly either on or off, in reality it takes time to switch on and off. So the receiver has to "guess" when the transition to 1 or 0 is complete. These guesses mean that you get jitter: your data doesn't come at a perfectly constant rate, there's a few % difference in each "beat".

But we can assume that it's coming at 44,100Hz, and eliminate the jitter that way, right? Well, not really. Unless both sender and receiver use the same clock (which I don't think S/PDIF allows for), you're going to have two different clocks. The thing about clocks is, they're not all the same. Your source and receiver both claim that they run at 44,100Hz. But one could be running at 44,102Hz and the other at 43,999Hz. This means you can't "reclock" your incoming data in an easy way. (There are more elaborate solutions.)

So. We get jitter. Certainly it can be detected by metering equipment. But can anyone actually hear it? That's the big question...

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Lehk228]

you can't be certain on the timing of ANYTHING recorded since the machine mastering may have been slightly fast or slow.

now is S/PDIF has some retarded unbuffered implementation which allows bit errors due to slight timing differences that has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with retarded implementation

getting a bitstream from one place to another undamaged is a problem that has been solved for a long time, now any work on such subjects is either doing it cheaper or doing it faster.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Calroth]

now is S/PDIF has some retarded unbuffered implementation which allows bit errors due to slight timing differences that has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with retarded implementation

getting a bitstream from one place to another undamaged is a problem that has been solved for a long time, now any work on such subjects is either doing it cheaper or doing it faster.

Oh yes, no doubt about this one.

But let's remember the context here. The original poster made a point that "old audio nuts" could hear a difference between two digital transports, without considering that the real-world implementation could account for that difference. That's what I was addressing.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[oggiejnr]

As far as I am aware S/PDIF sends clocking information along with the audio meaning that jitter in the connection is not relevant if between two digital stages. The problem is when the DAC relies on incoming signal without reclocking and hence any jitter in the signal is transferred into the anologue realm. If the two clocks worked independently as you describe then you would constantly be getting clicks in the signal. Whether or not jitter can be heard is another issue. If the signal is constantly underclocked or overclocked by a small margin then hearing the difference is unlikely however you ,ay have trouble with clicks and other audio artifacts. However the more likely scenario is that the average of the clock is 44.1 kHz but the clock varies or reflections in an optical cable cause variations. In this case, is the DAC does not reclock the data to a steady internal clock before converting back to analog you can get pitch variations, which although minor, some people claim to be able to hear.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Z34107]

but it's all digital, right? The problem is timing: although you think that your light is instantly either on or off, in reality it takes time to switch on and off. So the receiver has to "guess" when the transition to 1 or 0 is complete

The digital circuitry in every computer has to do that.

For exmaple, when the CPU reads a value for memory, how does it know when the data bus holds the correct information? In addition to actually pulling the data from memory, it also takes a while for all those zeroes and ones on its bus to change state. There are similar problems when reading the state of a single bit after changing it: depending on the type of your microcontroller and memory, it's possible for the microcontrolelr to poll the bit in the middle of it's state change.

The problems are largely the same, and have pretty much been solved by computer science. (Otherwise, computers just wouldn't be possible.)

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Calroth]

The problems are largely the same, and have pretty much been solved by computer science. (Otherwise, computers just wouldn't be possible.)

Well, let's remember what the context is. We're talking 2 pieces of audio equipment (sender and receiver), separated by a single fibre-optic line, with all its drawbacks - reflections, the speed of light, cheap LEDs, etc. Everything's gotta happen on that line. It's not like a single-chip (or single-whatever) solution where you can just move things around or draw more electrical connections to sync the clocks, or whatever.

The solutions we have are good - this is no less a solved problem than in a computer hardware perspective. The only "problem" is that, from an audiophile perspective, it ain't perfect.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Majik Sheff]

Pffft! I'll take two. Why is the salesman high-fiving everyone?

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Carewolf]

The solutions we have are perfect. We have self timing signals. Please stop being an idiot and either look it up or shut up.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Anonymous Coward]

Fibre optic SPDIF do not introduce ground loop into the audio system while a coax SPDIF does.
(All beds are off if you are using a home receiver that plugs into your TV with traditional S-video or Component inputs as that add ground loops too)

The ground loop produces electrical noise into the system on the signal ground. Electrical noise superimposes to the which would affect the threshold of the 0 -> 1 or 1 -> 0 and introduces timing jitters. Timing jitters can be reduce somewhat by PLL, but electrical noise can still affect PLL's performance as well as the rest of the analog circuits.

I don't know if this is significantly enough to be heard, but the difference is there for those of us that have high speed digital engineering backgrounds.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[dgatwood]

So. We get jitter. Certainly it can be detected by metering equipment. But can anyone actually hear it? That's the big question...

And here's the answer: no.

First of all, yes, S/PDIF can be externally clocked. If it couldn't, I'd have to trust by Behringer V-Amp Pro to provide clocking for my whole studio since it has only outputs and no (non-clock) inputs. *shiver* I like being able to operate at something other than 44.1 kHz....

Second, the bit clocks are irrelevant to the audio generation process. The DAC doesn't get updated a bit at a time. The bits get shoved into a latch and pushed to the DAC one entire sample at a time. That means that variations in bit timing don't matter except when they throw things off far enough to cause the derived sample clock to be skewed. I'd be very surprised if this timing skew were enough to be audible, as half a percent of 44.1 kHz would, I believe, result in a false "signal" in the 8 MHz range and humans can't hear those frequencies.

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[Calroth]

First of all, yes, S/PDIF can be externally clocked. If it couldn't, I'd have to trust by Behringer V-Amp Pro to provide clocking for my whole studio since it has only outputs and no (non-clock) inputs. *shiver* I like being able to operate at something other than 44.1 kHz....

I wasn't referring originally to externally clocked S/PDIF or any other magical digital transports; just plain coaxial versus optical and the differing characteristics thereof. I thought I covered my ass sufficiently with talk of reclocking but people will just pick on any minor details I missed.

Second, the bit clocks are irrelevant to the audio generation process. The DAC doesn't get updated a bit at a time. The bits get shoved into a latch and pushed to the DAC one entire sample at a time. That means that variations in bit timing don't matter except when they throw things off far enough to cause the derived sample clock to be skewed. I'd be very surprised if this timing skew were enough to be audible, as half a percent of 44.1 kHz would, I believe, result in a false "signal" in the 8 MHz range and humans can't hear those frequencies.

It wouldn't just result in a false signal; the energy from it has to come from somewhere. In this case, I suspect it'd come from right in the audio band. (Ain't DSP grand.)

Re:It's "let's pretend to be a programmer day"

[GWBasic]

Dude the ears of old audio nuts claim that DIGITAL data sounds different when sent through fiber optic digital links rather than other digital links. It is a figment of their imagination. It is not like one has to guess. You do a checksum of the file before encryption, and you do a checksum after encryption, either the number has changed or not. Most encryptions are fully reversable.

Uhm, there is some truth to the above statement. The SPDIF standard (for both optical and coax) doesn't explicitly define sampling rate. The amplifier is supposed to play back samples as they come, without much internal clocking. If your friend was using devices with bad clocks, then he'd hear the difference.

Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[TalkingWire]

Exactly.

Who the f* wants to waste time scanning album artwork or downloading PDFs of the same? Gimme a break. Buy a CD; get the liner notes and artwork in hard-copy; digitize, masterbatize, or whatever you want with it. Best part: DRM, IRM, MS, Apple, IBM, and Yo' mama can't tell you what to do with it.

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[dangitman]

Well, I guess it's a good thing Apple added the "download album artwork" feature to the latest version of iTunes. But I don't think you are representative of the market. Very few people give a shit about album artwork. Most people just rip their CDs to their portable player - and the CD/artwork goes on the shelf or in a drawer, never to be touched by human hands again.

I think most people buy music for the music, not for the artwork. If they bought for the artwork, then vinyl LPs would still be dominant - the artwork you get on those tiny CD packges is shitty, and can't compare to the quality of artwork on vinyl LPs. If people bought for the artwork - then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions of hacked-together "artwork" in miniature.

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[noewun]

. . .not shitty process CMYK reproductions of hacked-together. . .

I don't understand this sentence. All that great LP artwork was CMYK, because that's the only way to offset print continuous tone images.

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[dangitman]

Not all the great album covers were continuous tone. And those that were CMYK tended not to be shitty CMYK that has no care taken with it, as is often the case these days. Also, it was usually printed on good paper stock, too, not some of the flimsy garbage you see these days.

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[noewun]

You don't seem to understand print production. "Continuous tone" means, essentially, pictures. There is only one way to print pictures on an offset press, and that is using CMYK.* So, all those great album covers you like were printed with CMYK on offset presses, simply because no other technology existed, or exists.

Let Wikipedia guide you.

* There are some other, enhanced CMYK models out now, like Hexachrome, but they didn't exist when all those album covers were printed.

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[dangitman]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have worked in print production for years. Have you never heard of spot colors? Have you never seen images that have been screen-printed? Never seen a print made with unusual inks like flouroescent or metallic?

There is only one way to print pictures on an offset press, and that is using CMYK.*

Hilarious! So, how do they print monochrome pictures? How do they reproduce colours that can't be made with CMYK inks?

Let Wikipedia guide you.

Sorry, I get my information from extensive real-world experience, not searching on the internet.

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[noewun]

Have you never heard of spot colors?

Of course. I've worked in print production for 15 years. I've run departments. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of the album artwork in the 60s, 70s and 80s was printed with spot colors?

Never seen a print made with unusual inks like flouroescent or metallic?

Of course I have. But that's not what you said. You said "then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions" which, to me, implied that CMYK was not used to print those old covers at all. I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's what it sounded like to me.

How do they reproduce colours that can't be made with CMYK inks?

Hexachrome, baby!

Re:Scan artwork or upgrade. NOW!

[dangitman]

Of course. I've worked in print production for 15 years. I've run departments.

You must be pretty incompetent if you think that CMYK is the only way to produce continuous-tone images, as you said. So, did you really mean that, or not?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of the album artwork in the 60s, 70s and 80s was printed with spot colors?

No. When did I say this? Do you have reading comprehension problems?

You said "then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions" which, to me, implied that CMYK was not used to print those old covers at all.

Note the adjective shitty CMYK reproductions. Not all CMYK reproductions are equal. Most of the CD covers seem to come off presses that don't take very much care. And yes, there are some albums that use spot colours or different colour schemes than CMYK, to give solid colours, or to use unusual inks.

Hexachrome, baby!

Hexachrome still can't reproduce flouroescent or metallic colors. And you are still going to get half-toning, unless you are reproducing a solid area of one of the Hexachrome inks. This is one of the reasons custom colors and many screenprints look so great - you don't need to use a mixture of dots to reproduce a special color that is the "signature" of the image.

Shunning iTunes?

[dangitman]

5% is very significant. Especially considering the context:

1. Most people already have a collection of CDs. So of course all their music will not be from iTunes.
2. Legal digital downloads are a very recent phenomenon
3. Many countries do not have access to the iTunes Music Store yet, as the roll-out has been slow.

Given all these factors, I'd say that 5% of music on iPods being from the iTunes store is actually a huge success. How many people have 5% of their songs from the same independent record label?

Re:Shunning iTunes?

[Rix]

How many people have 5% of their songs from the same independent record label?

I don't know about that, but I'd imagine you'd find most people purchased a lot more than 5% of their cds from one store.

Re:Shunning iTunes?

[dangitman]

Perhaps, but not with my collection. I have lots of CDs, but rarely shooped at the same store more than a few times. Heck, most of my CDs were bought in stores that have been out of business for quite some time, and no longer exist.

CD's are going to get DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think the Sony Rootkit fiasco was? Some of the cd sharing stores already have cd's with various copy protections. When the record labels find a viable DRM option for CD's they will use this option and then you will have no DRM free choices. The average consumer doesn't know what DRM is and won't really find out until they go to copy their music from their CD's and it does not work, then at first there will be an outcry followed by acceptance. Most people don't know what the broadcast flag is, but once it prevents them from taping their favorite shows, there will be a backlash followed by an acceptence of it as well. Soon there will be no DRM free options.

Re:CD's are going to get DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

The CD standard does not allow for DRM on audio CDs, as it specifies that the data must be unencrypted on the disc and must have an unencrypted index. Those discs you see in the store with copy protection aren't actually valid audio CDs, and don't carry the logo.

Wag the dog

[Novajo]

What a spin :"[T]he only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music -- especially CDs.' This is despite years of iTunes promotion and apparent success."

The success is not apparent, it is real. They are making real money from real people. I would say: "Considering that only 20 tracks are from iTunes, then the potential for growth is huge because doubling everyone's purchases simply means convincing them to spend an extra 20$".

I Just Love Statistics!

[Jack Pallance]

This is a mathmatical sham!

The article is trying to make it sound like eveyone shuns ITunes and is instead running out the the store to but CD's to fill their IPods. And then download one or two songs illegaly. Quoth the article

Far more important to iPod owners, said the study, was free music ripped from CDs someone already owned or acquired from file-sharing sites

First, most people that get IPods already have a bunch of CD's. They get the IPod because of this fact. Second, the article adds CD sales to illegal music downloads, and then compares both together (95%) with ITunes (5%) and says that ITunes is loosing. That's statistically misleading. It's like saying that I worked with Michael Jordan to score a combined 60 points in a single basketball game. He scored sixty and I scored none.

Wow

By this measure, it's just a fair to combine illegal music (94%) with ITunes (5%), and then say that people are shunning CD purchases (1%). Which they are.

btw. I just made up the last three statistics for illustrative purposes, but I'm probably not that far off. And the exact percentages are not the real point anyway. I mean really, get off my back about it...

5% of a giant number

[sootman]

= a pretty damn big number--1.5 BILLION songs (at ~$.99 per song) sold. Even if Apple only keeps 5% of that, that's seventy-five MILLION dollars.

And I don't think most users give a shit about "DRM-free music." I think it's this:
- buy a CD, rip it: super-easy
- buy a song online, burn a CD: not as easy

Re:5% of a giant number

[absoluteflatness]

I'm not really sure how (if we're talking iTunes here), clicking the "Import" button is much harder than clicking the "Burn CD" button.

On the other hand, to burn an album bought online to CD requires two purchases, the album, and blank CDs (and, to a lesser extent, a burner. It's probably pretty hard to buy a computer without one these days, so it's probably essentially a non-issue.) Even though the price of blank CD media is very low, it's just one more thing you have to buy.

Bullshit

[7Prime]

I was totally with the article up until the last sentance, which makes a stupid, spun, assumption based on a causality. "People are buying CDs more than online music," great. "People PREFER buying CDs to online music," still good. "Online music has DRM," yes. But "Therefore people must not be buying online music because of the DRM," is NOT a good proof. DRM is one of MANY characteristics that separate CDs from music downloads, and I would argue it to be one of the least important to people. Even the "lossy/non-lossy" arguement is a very small, elite few, compared to the masses, of whome hardly care about the quality of their music. No, the three biggest reasons why CDs are still more popular is: tradition, the regularity of going to shop at a place, where you can then pick out music. And the third, which I think is probably the biggest, is the ownership of a physical object after purchase.

If people put money down on something, they want to be able to physically "hold it in their hand" (so to speak). It's human nature, we're used to dealing with physical objects. Being told, "now you have it, now go have fun" without any physical evidence doesn't naturally feel as ligitimate has being able to spend money, and hold in your hand the item you just bought. This may change, but currently people are comfortable exchanging money for items, admissions, but we haven't yet completely bought into this "paying money for non-physical data" thing.

I remember a study that showed that the majority of computer users didn't consider illegally downloading software or media to be anywhere as offensive as shoplifting. Similarly, I would suggest that people don't consider purchasing something online to be of the same legitimacy as buying something in a store.

Give me a decent, unbiased study that shows me that the common person gives much of a shit about DRM, and I'll listen, but this says nothing at all.

Re:Bullshit

[Rix]

Try explaining how iTunes works in laymans terms to people, and you'll find they don't like DRM very much.

Re:Bullshit

[JFMulder]

I totally agree with you. I was about to hit reply when I read your post. I've bought a few songs here and there on iTunes before. It made sense, I mean, I didn't want to spend 15$ + taxes on a CD for 2-3 songs, so I bought a couple of songs instead. I knew that the rest of the album wasn't my taste as I had listened to it at a store before. Thing is, I loved Marilyn Manson but hadn't bought his latest CD, and now stores sell it for 20CAN$ or so and I certainly wasn't about to pay that for a CD. So I headed to iTunes and saw the album was 10$. I was really at a dilema because, as you say, we are so used to holding the thing in our hands. I like having the CD because that means that if my MP3 collection ever gets wiped, I can always rip it again. But then, iTunes let's you download the song as often as you want once you've downloaded it, so it's almost like having the CD. I don't have the manual but then, I buy a CD for the music, not for the booklet that comes with it. So, after much debating, I bought the album. The download took a minute or two and bamm!!! I was listening to a brand new album. Cool. First thing I did was burn the songs in audio format to a rewritable disc and then rip it back to MP3s at VBRs (minimum 192kbps) (probably overkill, I suspect iTunes to use 192 or 256 kbps for their music anyway, anyone knows for sure?).

I think one of the problem virtual goods have is that computers in general have a reputation of being flaky and burned CDs always end up not working after a couple of years, so people don't really want to invest in virtual goods and then burn them to CD and cross their fingers the CD doesn't get scratched or something. They don't wantto have to backup anything either. In case of iTunes, it's nice because they can always get back the file from the iTunes store for free without any problem. That's why I haven't looked too much at stores like Napster or Yahoo Music tough. It seems to be Windows Media based and last time I checked your own computer has to keep track of the licenses. I don't want to have to manage my licenses on my computer and back them up everytime I format my computer. I'd rather have an account like the iTunes Store that knows what I've bought and let me redownload the stuff I lost.

Re:Bullshit

[MikeBabcock]

Last time I watched my machine grind into the dirt loading iTunes I decided I'd never use it again.

Why, oh why isn't the iTunes music store a normal HTML website viewable from any normal HTML web browser?

Only the 'listen' and 'buy it' links need to reference the iTunes software at all. I don't mind being able to browse the store with iTunes, but its stupid to require it. Firefox runs circles around that embedded crap.

Re:Bullshit

[jb.hl.com]

"You can only play your music on up to 5 computers at once. You can burn it to CD if you like though, just not in the same track order for more than a few times."

Yeah, sounds like they're really fucking people over.

Re:Bullshit

[Rix]

"You can't give your music files to your friends" works. So does "You can't play your music files on most mp3 players".

Re:Bullshit

[jb.hl.com]

The second one, perhaps, but the first one...so long as you only give out 4 copies you're alright as FairPlay goes. Unless your "friends" happen to lurk the other side of LimeWire.

Re:Bullshit

[evilviper]

[...] which I think is probably the biggest, is the ownership of a physical object after purchase.

Right... perhaps that is why every subscription and rental service ever concieved, has failed miserably...

Similarly, I would suggest that people don't consider purchasing something online to be of the same legitimacy as buying something in a store.

Which explains why Amazon.com's business model failed so miserably. What ever happened to them?

</SARCASM>

If people put money down on something, they want to be able to physically "hold it in their hand"

And if you feel that way, you can burn all your iTMS tracks to CD, and have a physical object for 5 cents more.

Re:Bullshit

[cthellis]

Try explaining how iTunes works in laymans terms to people, and you'll find they don't like DRM very much.

Explain LOTS of computer stuff in layman's terms to people and you find they don't like it very much. ;-) Point is, most people don't know even the first thing about DRM, so it can't be a factor in their digital music purchasing reasons.

Re:Bullshit

[SanityInAnarchy]

There is some truth to this instinct to want a physical thing. Ordinary users are used to hearing about, and occasionally experiencing, problems with computers. This is especially true with DRM, which gives Apple the ability to disable all of your access to your music, effectively stealing all of your songs back.

So, for now, a physical CD or DVD is nice, because you buy it once and it works as long as it physically lasts.

I suspect that the common person doesn't know or care about DRM, because they don't really understand the concept. It's the effects that they understand and loathe. When I want to explain DRM to someone who has no clue, I start with DVDs. "You ever push a button on your DVD remote and it tells you you're not allowed to do that? You know, won't let you skip their logo, or the previews, or something? I can skip those on my computer, but it's illegal."

The common person may not care about DRM yet, but they will hate it if we let DRM go where the **AA wants it to go.

Re:Bullshit

[Rix]

I have more than 5 friends. They have friends too. It's perfectly legal to make private copies for each other where I live. Even if they happen to be on the other side of LimeWire.

Re:Bullshit

[Rix]

Yes, but if you explain that first thing to them, they tend to dislike it. Which is the evil bit on Apple's part, they know very well that DRM is not in the interests of the people buying from them.

Backups...

[ocifersven]

iTunes doesn't allow you to redownload your music. Even if you've lost it. So why would I want to spend money on an album that I don't have a hard backup of? CD's is still the way to go. Especially because I can encode it any way I want, at any bitrate I want. It just makes better sense to me. iTMS is a great concept. It's just not perfected yet. Especially with their movie pricing... $9.99 a flick? I was just at Target spending on average of $6 a flick on DVD. Not blockbusters for movies, but movies I can have a hard copy of and encode when I want it on my iPod. iTMS just isn't ready yet. Greed has polluted that service.

Re:Backups...

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes doesn't allow you to redownload your music. Even if you've lost it.

Incorrect. You can re-download music from iTunes. Just have to call their support line, and they'll let you re-download your tracks for free.

Re:Backups...

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes music store let me redownload my songs when I lost a drive.

I did this amazing thing, where I looked at the web page, read the faq, and followed the directions
to recover lost songs.

A Digital Store, keeps digital records, of what accounts have purchased which songs.

Absofuckazing !!!

No really, try it. Call apple and tell them you lost your songs.

Re:Backups...

[gristlebud]

iTunes doesn't allow you to redownload your music. Even if you've lost it.

So what?

CD Stores won't give you another copy of a CD that you've purchased, even if you've lost it.

Sensationilist reporting

[zoftie]

There is other article that does not make connection, i have read elsewhere. Connection that people buying portable mp3 players specifically dislike buying DRM-ed because they prefer music. I should buy one of those "Jump to conclution" mat from this balding dude at the office, that got run over by the car ... for the publishing gang.

Misleading Title!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an entirely misleading title: that does not mean iPod users shun iTunes, it simply means people have a lot of CDs, which could have been (and likely were) purchased before getting an iPod. I love how iTunes lets you buy music online; the fact that the majority of my music isn't from there says absolutely nothing about my opinions toward their service.

Re:fuck that cat

[Ai Olor-Wile]

Excuse me sir, but we have reason to believe you may be a bad person. Please, step this way...

There's also a huge 'duh' factor.

[DCGregoryA]

If I go to the local CD store, I'm getting a hard copy which I can use as a backup, easily use in other devices, rip out on my own at higher quality, AND I'm paying for the cd itself, the coverart/slip, the shipping and the guy to sell it to me. ITunes is paying for bandwidth...and they're charging me the exact same price. What kind of dummy would I have to be to buy it through them if I can get the CD at the same price?

If they weren't so hard-set on 900% profit margins, they'd probably sell more, but as it stands they make tons of money so its not like they should care.

Re:There's also a huge 'duh' factor.

[contrapunctus]

Also with CDs, one is not locked in with iTunes. If one decides to switch to a different player, one can recreate one's library if need be.

Basically I'm fighting format lock.

CD Purchases included in the statistics

[MJOverkill]

FTA:

However, the report into the habits of iPod users reveals that 83% of iPod owners do not buy digital music regularly. The minority, 17%, buy and download music, usually single tracks, at least once per month...

Perhaps the only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music - especially CDs.

It's even covered in the summary

But I Want My OLD CDs Back!

[JimatForemat]

I really started ripping my CDs back in the day when CDDB was just getting popular. All of my track listings, and I don't have to type them in? Sweet!

But I didn't know anything about compression back then. 128 bitrate? Sure. Why not? The shareware ripping program I'm using says it's CD quality. Good enough for me!

Because I'm lazy, I long ago gave away all of those old CDs (over 100), or lost them, or threw them out because I didn't feel like packing them for a move. Over the last few years, my CD collection went from physical to ephemeral. But they're frozen at 128, and my ears can hear the difference.

Yeah, I was an idiot. Yeah, I should have done the research. Yeah, I should have cared about that more than I cared about, you know, graduating from college.

My music tastes haven't changed much since then. I still discover and purchase and grow my collection, but still - it would be nice to have all of those Queen songs I love actually not sound like garbage when I play them in my car.

Re:But I Want My OLD CDs Back!

[MojoStan]

Hello. I'm a music industry lowlife (Actually, I'm just impersonating one. I'm just kidding. Don't sue me.)

I really started ripping my CDs back in the day when CDDB was just getting popular.

To you early adopters, thanks for all of your free voluntary work building this database. Of course, this information was not meant to be free, so you must pay for this information now.

Because I'm lazy, I long ago gave away all of those old CDs (over 100), or lost them, or threw them out because I didn't feel like packing them for a move.

Since you no longer own those CDs, you must delete all of the ripped files from those CDs. If you don't, you are STEALING. When we catch you, we will sue you for $150,000 per stolen song. If you die before we get our money from you, we'll get our money from you surviving relatives.

it would be nice to have all of those Queen songs I love actually not sound like garbage when I play them in my car.

Then you don't want your OLD CDs back. You want to buy the new remastered versions that are better than your old CDs. Of course, we told you those old CDs were the best quality you could ever buy, but shame on you for believing us. The new remastered versions are the best, and this time we mean it. In fact, you need to buy new remastered versions of all of the "old" CDs you still possess (BTW, no refunds for the old versions).

Sure About DRM? How About Price?

[coaxial]

99 cents is too much to pay for a downloaded song. GIven that manufacturing costs are so low for a mp3 (once the initial recording/mastering/mixing of the album is complete. That's constant, so we can ignore it for comparison purposes.), and that distribution costs are so much lower since you're only pushing bits around, what's the justification other than "We think we can get some rube to pay this." (We can see this same mentality with the movie downloads. What do you mean these bytes cost twice as much for the first month? It's not like you're going to run out.)

$9.99 isn't too much to pay for for an album. I pay that all the time. Of course I'm buying a physical cd. I get a thing. I get liner notes. I get artwork. WRT to DRM, I don't have it. All this has, to put it in buisness terms, "value." I don't have any of this with a download. So you want me to pay the same price and get less? Why would I do that? (Hell, even the RIAA/MPAA (Let's be honest. They're one in the same.) should be able to figure that out. Afterall, it's just the reverse of the "If value, then right" theory (or as Cory Doctorow recalled an MPAA vice-president putting it, "Watching a show that's being received in one room while you're sitting in another room has value, and if it has value, we should be able to charge money for it.").

There's a word for that kind of thinking. It's "greed."

What's a decent price for a downloaded drm ladened song? I might pay a nickle.

Mod parent "Troll"

[Anonymous Coward]

I would myself but I've already fed him.

Re:Let's be honest here

[shaitand]

Who cares? The article also says that ipod owners were shown to be more likely to buy music in general. That means that regardless of how much of their music collections is pirated the music industry is alienating their best customers with DRM.

CD Walkman upgrade

[Badfysh]

A lot of people buy iPods with the sole purpose of carrying their existing CD collections around, and have no intention of ever using iTunes, or otherwise downloading music. They just see their iPods as an upgrade from a CD Walkman, where they used to have to carry around five or six discs. I don't think it's a DRM issue for the ordinary man in the street - most people won't even know what that is - rather it's to do with the fact that people for the most part want to stick with what they know, which is buying CD's.

consumers and DRM

[kgruscho]

I honestly think that DRM is only a concern to the majority of consumers to the extent that they cannot play their music on certain players.

I have nothing against DRM whatsoever so long as it is well standardized. I used to buy from multiple online DRM'd stores, but now only buy iTunes, because it is the only standard that does not crap out constantly.

Also i dont think that it is at all meaningful that most people go CD -> iPod. It just means that most of genX spent the 90s amassing a lot of music on CDs and so did our friends.

that said, i think stripping the DRM from music you bought should be legal if you can do it.

Re:Let's be honest here

[soft_guy]

What evidence do you have of that?

All the music on my iPod is legal. Plus, there are a ton of records that I have purchased MORE THAN ONCE (LP + CD or LP + iTunes). So, I am somewhat offended by the idea that I'm not being "honest".

Users don't care about DRM, they want a hardcopy

[courtarro]

In most cases, it's not the lack of DRM that keeps people away from music downloads, it's the lack of a tangible physical product. People don't trust their computers these days - in the eyes of most common computer users, viruses and other disasters routinely kill computers and destroy data. On the other hand, people do trust CDs. They know that, as long as they take care of it and keep it mostly scratch-free, the CD will always work; it's clear that pressed CDs (recordable CDs excluded) last for a very long time. I'm guessing that most people see downloads as having a shelf-life, while CDs last forever.

CDs also make for a nice automatic backup if you only listen to music in a compressed format. Once you've ripped the CD then it becomes a backup that can be stored in the closet or hidden away from risk of damage or theft. Music downloads have no such automatic protection. Then again, I buy used CDs on eBay and Half.com because they're cheaper than iTunes anyway.

Re:Let's be honest here

[Don Giovanni]

So so true. What we are seeing is people buying and experiencing new music.

offtopic rant: Man oh man do I ever miss the old mp3.com.
the cynic project, 303 infinity, trance [] control, etc....

I REALLY miss audiogalaxy, there was no better service for finding new music in an unbiased way based on what you like, ie: what you shared.

SpiralFrog != Free Music ...

[TheZork]

But time = money. If you have to fulfill a commitment (watching ads) to get the songs, they're not free. They're also not free in that it appears that the DRM on them will be particularly onerous. If reports hold true, you'll have to log into the service monthly (to watch more ads) to keep the WMA-crippled media playable.

Oh, and the name is stupid.

magnatune.com

[steveha]

If you would like to buy music from an online store, but you don't want DRM and you want top quality, check out magnatune.com. They let you download CD-quality (either as uncompressed wave files, or as FLAC), MP3, or Ogg Vorbis. And you can listen to everything before you buy. (128 kbps MP3, lower quality than you get when you pay.)

Not only do they not have DRM, but they encourage you to give away up to three copies of the music you buy, as a form of advertising.

They have a sliding scale on prices: you can choose what you want to pay, within a reasonable range. (I just checked, and at least for the album I checked, the range was from $5 to $18.) If you only like one song on an album, pay less for the album. If you really want to encourage an artist to make more albums, pay more. That's cool.

When you buy an album, the artist gets 50% of whatever you pay. Not 50% of the profits, and then they cook the books so they "don't have any profits"... 50% of the gross income. That's outstanding. I love their slogan: "We are not evil."

I have no connection to them, other than being a satisfied customer.

steveha

Re:magnatune.com

[owlman17]

Thanks for the link man. I've checked it out and I recognize some of the names from the mp3.com of old. I personally buy from emusic.com, which has some big names in its selection.

Re:magnatune.com

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend pointed me at Magnatune, but after some quick browsing through their rather short list (I happen to like Prog Rock and Alternative) I only found a few bands. I listened to songs from all of them, and honestly most were rather so-so, IMHO.

I think a really great band probably *will* profit more from a normal indie label or even a major label. Magnatune isn't really a platform with lots of artists, it's just a very small label. More power to them, but I won't hold my breath. All my fave bands are at semi-big labels...

I have over 20GB of music in iTunes

[Zaknafein500]

All of it legitimate, and less than 1% of it was purchased from the iTMS. I prefer to have a fully uncompressed original, that I can then encode at my chosen bitrate, and then keep as a backup. I'm not going to spend money on compressed music that I have to then backup on my own. If Apple starts offering Apple Lossless downloads, I might think about it, but otherwise, I'll just keep buying CDs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

not about DRM

[bcrowell]

Given the outright failure of other music services, it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it.
The DRM on iTunes isn't that onerous. You can still convert to MP3. I guess what some people are upset about is that there's no lossless way to convert AAC to a non-lossy format. I doubt that the average person cares. The sound quality on an iPod, after all, is limited mainly by the earbuds, not by the compression scheme.

I suspect the main reason people don't buy much music digitally is the same as the main reason people never bought e-books: price. People just aren't willing to pay the same amount of money for a string of ones and zeroes as for a physical object. They want a discount to reflect the fact that the digital thing is worth less to them than the physical object, and they also know damn well that the publishers can afford to give a discount, because they don't have any distribution costs.

The last time I started up iTunes on my wife's mac (I don't use it much myself), it gave me a little informative message suggesting that I make a habit of backing up all my music regularly. Uh, and what would I back it up onto? CDs? In that case, why not just buy a CD? Sure, a lot of people prefer to buy pop music a song at a time, but personally I buy mostly jazz and classical, and I'm not interested at all in buying single tracks.

Re:not about DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

No, back it up onto DVD. Lets say you have 100 albums, with 10 tracks on each. At about 4MB each track, you can easily get 100 albums on 1 disc. 100 discs vs 1 is what I'd compare.

Re:not about DRM

[toddestan]

I seriously doubt that many people have forked over $1000 for 100 DRM'd albums on iTunes. I'm guessing that almost everyone who has purchased music off of iTunes can easily fit it on a single CD-R.

$30,000 of music

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like that statistic I read about when the iPod came out, that to legally fill the entire thing with iTunes music would cost $30,000. So people rip music from CDs and other sources.

And this is news?

[jht]

First of all, CDs are still how most music is sold. Second, most folks' existing music libraries are in CD form (except for the ones who still have vinyl). Third, Apple from the beginning has positioned the iTunes store as a tool to sell iPods (and last I heard, they were pretty good at selling iPods). The fact that they have 3/4 of the music download market and make some profit on it is a bonus. It doesn't matter how iPod users get their music per se, it only matters to Apple that they sell more digital music than anyone else (because that means that iPods are still king of the hill). And that's the case.

Digital music is convenient, and a nice way to get the occasional single or obscure album - and a nice way to get instant gratification as well (buy it now and download it, versus a trip to the store). Apple's DRM is pretty unobtrusive as DRM goes - I'd prefer unencumbered files, of course, but as these things go I understand why they do it and I don't mind it. I really couldn't give a damn about vendor lock-in - just to give you an example, my iTunes library is approximately 3500 songs, of which roughly 150 were downloaded from iTunes. Of those, about a dozen were free downloads as well. Most of that music was ripped from CD, with the CD filed away in a drawer to gather dust.

Point being, I'm really not worried about that music being DRM-encumbered. It's easy enough to get a usable copy of it on CD or into an additional format, I have no problems using it on my 3 Macs (work, home, and laptop), my wife's Mac, or my PC. It works with my iPod, my wife's Nano, and I can burn CDs all I want from it (not that I ever do). iTunes has the nicest interface of any jukebox manager I've tried, the iPod is nice, simple, and more than Good Enough, and it all Just Works.

I understand the folks who rail against vendor lock-in, and I don't think Apple is incapable of evil, but I think the iPod ecosystem is a good example of how DRM can be relatively benign if vendors keep the interest of the users in mind. I'd rather have a world without DRM entirely, but if it's going to exist (reality: we're stuck with it), I'd rather have it Apple-style than the way most everyone else want to make it.

Re:Let's be honest here

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... of the billions of iPods users out there this post was accusing you personally, thanks for stepping up and sharing your story! Post refuted.

iTunes is a Joke!

[electrogeek_dot_com]

I recently had a client in which I had to export songs from their iTunes to use in an Adobe Elements slide show. Why did they call me to do this you ask? Because iTunes is a pain in the arse! They make it extremely difficult for the average user to export an mp3 from iTunes. In fact they do not allow you to export protected mp3's period. If you are paying to download the songs you sure as hell should be able to use them any way you want to. (Within legal boundaries that is.) I had to use a 2 step process to extract the songs and convert them to an mp3. What a joke. "Very disappointing software iTunes it is." (Yoda levitates away from the PC shaking his head in dismay...iTunes,mmmmm....) http://electrogeek.com/blog

Re:iTunes is a Joke!

[mh101]

They make it extremely difficult for the average user to export an mp3 from iTunes. In fact they do not allow you to export protected mp3's period. If you are paying to download the songs you sure as hell should be able to use them any way you want to.

To be fair, I'm sure Apple would love to make it easy, but they wouldn't be allowed to as part of their contracts. If they were to announce that all tracks will be unprotected, they'd have the RIAA and the major record labels beating down their door within minutes.

Oh I cant believe this!

[dafing]

Honestly, I live in New Zealand and dont have the iTunes Store (what its called now?), I'd KILL for the chance to buy my music through it, to at least say ive done it. I cant believe its still not in my country, its in Australia, which is where our cds are made etc, so i thought we would have gotten it at the same time. What im most upset by, is the fact that i had to use Google Images to get my cover art, you know, for the cds i imported, and which i fully own. I wish that i could have just told it to get my covers for me, but it only works that way if you have an account, of which i cant get. Unless I, an 18 year old New Zealander, were to have an American Credit Card for example. Imagine that, having the hassle of a credit card from another country, just to buy "99 cent" songs that cost $2.70 or something (99 cents is SO much sexier). Pity me.

Re:Oh I cant believe this!

[electrogeek_dot_com]

Don't worry buddy, you're not losing out on much. I live in America and I don't use the iTunes service. I only help people use it because it stinks. Cheer up. See below... http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196767&cid =16122948

Re:Oh I cant believe this!

[dafing]

Thanks for that lol. But its sorta principle, I as someone who goes about telling everyone how great the iPod and iTunes are, and yet I cant use iTunes. I remember when the podcasting came out (on iTunes of course), how I could...SEE the songs etc! i actually print screened some of the artist pages lol, as a fill in. Laugh if you must! This Album import is a bugger though.

iTunes and the like are great 'preview' services

[SethEaston]

At the risk of going off-topic, I personally do not have iTunes, but I do have URGE, and interestingly enough, it turns out that it allows me to listen to stuff I have never heard before, which has caused me to significantly increase my purchases of CDs. For example, I can go year-by-year and see what what was popular (I started in 1965 and worked my way up to 1983 so far). There is a wealth of GREAT music out there, it is just a matter of sifting through the hype and the junk. Thanks, URGE, for turning me on to such a plethora of undiscovered music!

The kicker is that I have not paid a single PENNY. I just keep getting new trial sevices. If I ever want to dowload a track, I suppose I *could* rip the DRM from it with FairUse4wm, but honestly it just sounds like crap (128 kbps never sounded 'CD Quality' to me).

In the end, I am opened up to new musical possibilities, from which I can simply buy a CD if I really like it - which I have done! No DRM, superb quality, and the flexibility to play it in my car, iPod, home or work PC, bring it to a friend's house, sell it in a yard sale, whatever....IT'S MINE MOTHERFUCKAHH!

Re:Let's be honest here

[AaronLawrence]

The poster was saying that most users of iPods are copyright infringers. Since this is quite the accusation it would be nice to see some evidence for that.

I'm still buying CDs.

[Name Anonymous]

Among other reasons that I don't buy music from iTunes (or other online services), iTunes just does not carry much of the music I'm currently buying.

Heck, iTunes couldn't even find covers for about half my music collection.

Sadly, it's all about marketing

[Yvan256]

iTunes really should drop the bitrate crap [and] should start selling VBR tracks as well.

iPod nano web page.

See how the iPod nano can hold up to 2000 songs? See the (1) note next to the "up to 2,000 songs in your pocket." text?

If you go VBR (or quality-based) you won't know the size of the resulting files. Apple wouldn't be able to market their players based on the number of songs you can store on a given model/capacity of iPod. And since the competition is using that marketing "bullet point" to sell their own players, Apple has to do it too. Especially since other players use WMA@64kbps or ATRAC3@64kbps (or even lower).

I guess it's the whole "VHS vs BETA" argument all over again. The good news, however, is that you're not limited in the CODEC (AAC/MP3/Apple Lossless) nor the bitrate (and even sampling rate) if you rip your CDs yourself.

Re:Sadly, it's all about marketing

[straponego]

Ha, no. The footnote specifies the length and the bitrate of the song. Changing the bitrate will affect the number of songs one can store in exactly the same way as changing the length. Since I don't think there market segment which insists on being able to store at least 2000 songs, all exactly four minutes long, there is no reason they can't say "Based on 4 minutes per song and 128kbps average bitrate."

Um. Or they could specify the capacity in bytes, which will come in handy as these devices are used for other types of media and programs. I think there's a precedent for that.

Re:Sadly, it's all about marketing

[squiggleslash]

Absolutely. That's also why all songs should be exactly three minutes long too!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't buy digital music?

[noidentity]

Why would anyone want the cold, lifeless sound of digital music when they can have the warm, refreshing sound of a compact disc?

Re:Don't buy digital music?

[klang]

Hilarious! :-)

Re:Don't buy digital music?

[noidentity]

I think I failed on the delivery. It sounds like I'm referring to the lower quality of lossy-compressed music, rather than the fact that CDs are also in fact digital music. I guess they aren't DIGITAL!!! as in the latest best thing, the same way you can buy digital headphones that have all analog components and accept an analog signal. Er yeah, rant over.

Re:Don't buy digital music?

[klang]

.. or the fact that the same was said about CD's vs. Vinyl 25 years ago.
It's that subtle quality that I found hilarious.
Nothing wrong with the delivery.

This will just make them phase out CD's faster

[Zadaz]

Or release them in more mangled formats or infected with rootkits and the like.

When iTunes came out I like being able to buy single songs off an album, sample music I never would have heard before and get some immediate gratification. And the price was right. I bought a couple hundred tracks all told. In general I down download pirate tracks because I like to support the artists that I enjoy. (note: Don't tangent on the economics of the record business, I know them better than you do.)

Then I bought a Sonos, which streams audio to different rooms of my home. It plays a lot of different formats and is really a wonderful (if a little pricey) bit of hardware. Except, of course it can't play songs that I "bought" at iTMS.

Well "duh" you're saying. And yeah, you're right, but you know, it had all of those advantages...

So my options were to 1) No listen to those songs in other rooms of my house, or 2) burn, then re-rip all the music I got from Apple. Which I did, and the quality drop is dramatic. And took a few days. (And yes, 3) pirate them. But...)

So I've stopped buying from the iTMS. And I'm slowly replacing all the my "rented" music with CDs, which sucks because I'm buying it twice, but 1) I'm vaguely supporting the artists, and 2) It's the last time I'll have to buy it. And the Sonos plays Apple losselss compressed...

Re:This will just make them phase out CD's faster

[Phroggy]

If Apple Lossless is an option on the table, you can convert DRM'd AAC to Apple Lossless with no (further) loss of quality (beyond the loss incurred by Apple's original AAC encoding, before they sold it to you). Unfortunately it's a cumbersome process and requires burning to audio CD and re-ripping, but the result will sound identical to the original file you downloaded, with no DRM (of course using a lossless format will result in a much larger file size).

Will never catch me buying digital music

[Anonymous Coward]

And why should I?

Most of the songs I download, although this doesn't apply to most people, are remixes of existing songs or completely free to begin with songs. Basically: stuff not available on any music store. Starting up as a DJ, I can't settle for the most mainstream of the mainstream - people don't want to hear that in clubs. The rest of my music is from CDs I have bought (featuring tracks that I HAVE listened to prior to going through with the purchase - omg oh noes!!1!)

Ok, now going on to a point that most others will also share: the last time I settled for any song at 128kbit encoding was back when I had DIALUP. I can't even stand to listen to internet radio below 192kbit rates. There is a big, noticeable difference in quality in all rates leading up to 256kbits, above that there is arguably barely any difference at all. It's like they expect you to only listen to your music via small earbud headphones. ew. And the lack of any kind of advanced audio controls (hello, equalizer anyone? Only every other free audio player has one) on iTunes isn't exactly very attractive either.

The point I'm trying to make, although it's late and I skipped some logic in between. is: you would not catch me, or anyone who listens to music for any reason other than to have "white noise" to prevent them from having to listen to their own thoughts, using the iTunes store as a primary choice for acquiring music. Today my music downloads average right around 256kbits, although sometimes I'm lucky to score a bunch of 320s, or a VBR right around there.

But why should Apple care? The market that actually buys iPods consists of anything but DJs, techheads, /. users, anyone who is not a below-17 year old high school student... basically their market is everyone with a myspace - Why should they care about their bitrates when their userbase can't even spell DRM, let alone know what bitrate is.

Re:Will never catch me buying digital music

[CyDoxin]

Umm...not sure if you know this or not but iTunes DOES have an equalizer built into it. Just go to the view menu item.

New music Tuesday is a good day...

[TheRealStyro]

While I don't doubt that a lot of PMP (personal media player) owners get music on the players via the old tried-and-high-quality methods of ripping CDs, I still like downloading from the iTunes store. Yes, sometimes the sample of the music is too short or was taken from a poor section of the recording (solution would be to allow three 30 second samples per track as long as song is over 2.5 minutes long), and the quality is somewhat low for complex pieces (for example, always rip Pink Floyd and The Crystal Method - PF deserves it and TCM requires it), but the price is right for legally purchased tracks.

I look forward to new music Tuesday to listen for new tracks by my favorite artists and for trying to find artists that deserve my attention. With radio being as commercial as possible, iTunes is about my only source for new and fresh music.

Why to buy CDs

[mitchell_pgh]

There are a number or reasons to buy CDs over iTunes (or any other DRM music)

- Audio quality - I can't tell the difference, but many can.
- Usability - My iPod is great, but what about my phone, media box, PSP... they love MP3, but aren't DRM friendly.
- Backup - When you buy a CD, you automatically have a VERY high quality back up.
- Future-proof - When the next amazing codec comes out... I can simply re-rip my collection.

I have a number of iTunes albums, but I keep it to a minimum.

Re:Why to buy CDs

[Tim Browse]

The backup feature is key for me - especially given Apple's "Well you can just buy all the music again if your hard drive crashes, Sir" attitude.

Also, buying a CD is a good quality backup, because I'm guessing that a commercial audio CD pressed from a glass master is going to outlast most burned CD-R discs - cf. the periodic "most CD-Rs degrade after a couple of years" stories that surface annually on slashdot. (I've bought 100s of audio CDs since about 1986, and I think I can remember one that has failed.)

The DRM is also a pain. I bought a couple of albums on iTunes, just to see if Hymn etc worked. It did, but it was just too much hassle. I generally don't need music right now so I just click a few buttons on amazon (or whoever's) website, and the CD turns up in the post a few days later. Modern PCs rip CDs so fast now it's not a chore to rip CDs when you buy them.

And I decided years ago that mp3 was the format for me, because I would always be able to play them. Car stereos that play CDs with mps will work fine. How do I play iTMS music on my Windows Media Center PC? You probably can, but I don't want to know (because it will mean installing QT on a machine I want to be stable, for a start). I just dump my mp3s on a NAS drive, and MCE can play them, no problem. As can just about any other digital music player. (The same goes for DRM'd WMA files btw - totally not interested, for similar reasons).

Re:Why to buy CDs

[tf23]

"Well you can just buy all the music again if your hard drive crashes, Sir" attitude.

I have seen plenty of posts by people who've lost it all, contacted the iTunes Store, and Apple let them re-download everything they'd purchased.

iTunes Music Store Says "In the event that a customers entire music library is lost, the iTunes Music Store does re-grant the purchases history. Please keep in mind that Apple does not offer protection against the loss of purchases, so this is a one-time exception."

Their TOS says they do not _have_ to let you do this. But it'd be a publicity nitemare if they didn't. However, it's obvious why they don't want many people doing this - bandwidth cost. Your single purchase covered all their costs (and the cost of the download). Now you're wanting to download again. Bandwidth ain't free.

Moral of the story. Backup!!!

Re:Why to buy CDs

[Tim Browse]

I don't need to backup. I already have backups on commercially pressed CDs, some of which are nearly 20 years old and still readable :-).

amen

[MarcoAtWork]

as things stand now the only songs I bought on iTunes were songs I needed to practice for my (cover) band, there is no way I would ever buy anything for myself: amazon.com is just as convenient as iTunes, sometimes comparable in price, and in general not that much more expensive, it has a MUCH larger selection (esp. in classical) and I can actually get uncompressed songs.

Unless iTunes moves to apple lossless (for the same price) across the board (not to mention increase a lot their catalog size) I'll continue buying real CDs, thank you very much.

This is ridiculous

[Overly Critical Guy]

From the summary:

Given the outright failure of other music services, it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it.

I love Slashdot. It injects its agenda into every story. Nothing implies or suggests that CD sales outnumber iTunes sales because users are buying music that is "DRM-free." More likely, it's simply because online music sales are still a very new market, CDs are still a much more well-established medium, and you also get printed cover art and a CD booklet, often with lyrics.

Every comment in this discussion that will be citing this as proof that consumers are rebelling against DRM will make me smile. You see what you want to see. This isn't even getting into the fact that iTunes DRM is the most liberal DRM scheme out there, so liberal that you never notice it's there (I certainly never have), can freely make as many backups of your music as you want (so the right to fair use backups is fulfilled), and so forth.

Like I said, you see what you want to see. I posit that the vast majority of consumers not only don't care about iTunes DRM but don't even know what iTunes "DRM" is or means.

Re:This is ridiculous

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Ah hah, we spar again, OCG!

Errr... no, this time I agree with you completely. This was my first thought when I read the story.. none of this proves any preference of freedom over DRM. Just that people are still more familiar with CD's.

not only don't care about iTunes DRM but don't even know what iTunes "DRM" is or means.

Bingo.

Re:This is ridiculous

[cubicledrone]

iTunes DRM is the most liberal DRM scheme out there, so liberal that you never notice it's there

Winner. Thread over. Drive safely.

Re:This is ridiculous

[dynamo52]

Like I said, you see what you want to see. I posit that the vast majority of consumers not only don't care about iTunes DRM but don't even know what iTunes "DRM" is or means.

Just wait until apple no longer has the "best" player on the market and they want to upgrade.

Re:This is ridiculous

[tpgp]

so liberal that you never notice it's there

The number of Apple shills defending Apple's liberal DRM on slashdot is fairly sad. I take it you don't work in education / you're not a creator / you don't own non-apple playback devices?

If you did, you would notice it.

Re:This is ridiculous

[ejp1082]

To be completely fair, the impact of filesharing is still an X factor with regards to how it impacts sales of either CD's or Digital Music Stores. And even with the RIAA scare tactics, P2P sharing of unencumbered mp3's still dwarfs the whole digital music industry by leaps and bounds.

It's hard to say whether consumers are accepting or rejecting DRM because there's simply no way to isolate the variable. iTunes, CD's, and P2P networks all offer a different combination of price, quality, value, convenience, and DRM.

As to the impact DRM has, it would appear that Yahoo has done the market research and concluded that their DRM is hurting sales, based on some of their public statements in recent months, although their pressures are somewhat different from Apple's, not having the iPod. But even in Apple's case, the DRM does inhibit one of the critical things people want to do with their music, which is share it with friends. People have done that since the first cassette recorders came onto the market, and later with CD Burners (much to the RIAA's shagrin). Apple's DRM hinders that, even if it doesn't make it impossible, thus lowering the value of Apple's product in some consumers minds. People are also aware - even the average joe - that iTunes music only works on iTunes and the iPod. Consumers are generally wary of lock-in, at least when other options exist.

But that's not to say that other factors might not be hurting it more. It could simply be a case of "established" vs. "new", as you point out, or it could be "free" vs. "not free" as the RIAA likes to argue when it comes to filesharing. It could be that CD's offer better value because most people still have CD players in addition to iPods. It could be that iTunes requires a credit card, which is still a barrier for a lot of teenagers. It could be that the impetus to buy when you're using iTunes is different than when you're standing in a store. Or maybe, despite evidence to the contrary, people do generally prefer to buy albums over individual tracks, and an "album" in their mind is something that comes on a CD. Or, most likely, it's some combination of all the above.

As a side note, this breakdown is misleading. I'd wager, the vast, vast majority of iPods have no iTMS music on them at all. Those that do probably have much more than 20 tracks. Some consumers obviously like Apple's service over other ways to get their music. Other consumers, the vast majority of them, have nothing to do with it. Whether that's because of DRM or some other factor or combination of factors is something no one here has enough information to say definitively.

Re:This is ridiculous

[WilliamSChips]

so liberal that you never notice it's there

I almost agree with you here. I would completely agree with you if there were a Linux version of iTunes.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Shihar]

This isn't even getting into the fact that iTunes DRM is the most liberal DRM scheme out there, so liberal that you never notice it's there (I certainly never have), can freely make as many backups of your music as you want (so the right to fair use backups is fulfilled), and so forth.

I had an iPod. It eventually broke. Instead of buying a new one, I got a Creative Vision M which I have been very happy with. Thankfully, I was not a fool while I had my iPod and so bought nothing from the iTunes music store. If I had, my entire music collection would currently be junk.

I'll absolutely never buy DRMed music. It is stupid. It is doubly stupid if you buy it from Apple. That music will all be junk the second you decide you want a new non-Apple MP3 player. I, like most people, and not eager to hand my balls into the hands of Apple from now until the end of time by making my music worthless bits if I ever decide to get a non-Apple MP3 player. If you have implicate faith in Apple from now until the end of time, go ahead and lock yourself into their proprietary DRM.

I got caught up in the hype

[linuxpng]

I probably bought 20 or songs, which when I couldn't break the DRM (yeah I know I can now) I just went and got illegitamately and replaced the itunes version. Now that I realize I was a moron, I'll continue buying CDs.

Re:Let's be honest here

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people I know with iPods have infringed on copyright to get at least some of the music on there. In fact, I can't think of a single person that I personally know who owns an iPod and hasn't downloaded the vast majority of their music collection from some P2P app. Maybe the people I associate with are in the minority, but those who have large enough digital music archives to justify something like an iPod didn't purchase each and every song they have. That's not to say that we don't also legally purchase a large amount of music... my friends just enjoy listening to a LOT of different types of music, alot of which we would never be exposed to listening to some top 40 station or even college radio. I personally purchased the most music when WinMX was still a functional piece of software... I found out about a whole lot of music that I love by browsing through the libraries of someone who I noticed downloading from me at a high speed and just trying out bands that I have never heard of before. If I really like a band, I will then support them by going to their concert when they go on tour, often buying their CD at the show even though I usually don't actually listen in that format often only cracking the jewel case open to read the liner notes, as I already have the music.

Re:Maybe they aren't total iPodiots after all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "better."

I bought an iPod because I liked how the interface didn't get in the way of my music listening experience. The fact that iTunes is simple to use and doesn't have a horribly clunky UI is an extra added bonus. Interacting with it is a joy - so better isn't there.

Does better mean that there's a radio tuner/voice recorder/calculator/web browser/kitchen sink? I'm kind of a unix-y guy. I like things to do one thing and do them reasonably well. My phone's a phone. My iPod's a music player. (I have a nano, by the way - The idea of movies on my iPod doesn't appeal to me, and, though I have a music collection in excess of 80gb, I have playlists.)

Your value of better must be different than mine.

Re:Let's be honest here

[Anonymous Coward]

My music is almost entirely "pirated".

Posted AC for a reason.

I'll buy music when I can download lossless, DRM-less files.

Plastic is bad for the environment, and DRM is bad for me. CDs and DVDs are no longer need now that we have the infrastructure in place to distribute the content without manufacturing TONS of inefficiently oversized plastic discs per year.

And the obligatory... fuck the RIAA and MPAA for making sure the status quo remains intact.

Playing devil's advocate...

[supersat]

I agree that DRM'ed music should sound no different, but let me play devil's advocate for a minute.

It might be possible that the decryption algorithm introduces some jitter by taking a varying amount of time to decrypt a chunk of data. A poorly-engineered system might pass this jitter through to the DAC, resulting in degraded audio quality. It might also be possible that the decryption operations cause the CPU to introduce additional noise on the power rails, which might also impact audio quality in a poorly-engineered system.

So, I don't think it's impossible that DRM affects sound quality. I'm just not convinced that it actually does.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[Al Dimond]

It's called a buffer. The decrypted data is written into this buffer. As long as the data makes it into the buffer fast enough to stay ahead of the DAC (this is not difficult, audio rates are very slow compared to CPU speeds these days) there won't be any "jitter" caused by varying amounts of time to decrypt things. At any rate, in a computer system there would always be varying lengths of time involved to get a chunk of audio data into the buffer, because of disk accesses and other processes running on the system. Other than buffer underflows, which are far from subtle, there are no "jitter" effects.

As for the CPU introducing noise, I can buy that, especially when audio hardware and CPU are physically close to eachother. On my computer when I record with my onboard sound card you can hear noise in the recording whenever there is CPU activity. It's not a problem during playback, but it could be on some boards.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It might be possible that the decryption algorithm introduces some jitter by taking a varying amount of time to decrypt a chunk of data."

Very unlikely. We have buffers to deal with this kind of thing.
If the CPU was too slow to decrypt the audio in real time then you might get missing data, or gaps in the playback, but not jitter.

Jitter from a DAC is in the order of nanoseconds, less than a single sample in size.
Data is sent to the sound card in chunks of a thousand samples or so and momenteraly stored in tiny buffers in the sound card. It won't effect the timing of single samples.

I agree that the CPU might put some hash on the power rails though.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[zarlino]

Have you ever heard of something called "buffer"?

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[supersat]

I agree that buffers should prevent decryption jitter from being a problem. In fact, the data still needs to be decompressed before it's passed to the DAC, and that would probably add its own jitter. However, I could see a very paranoid design, with a seperate CPU and audio chip, re-encrypting DRM-protected content before it's sent to the audio chip. A really bad design might not have any buffer before the DAC.

Again, I doubt this actually happens in practice, but it seems plausible.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[Taagehornet]

It might be possible that the decryption algorithm introduces some jitter [...]

No, not really. The rate at which the ecryption algorithm is able to feed you data will vary, but for several reasons. Picking a few from the top of my head: You'll have to wait for the harddisk to get to the data, other devices sharing the PCI bus will delay getting these data to system memory, as the encryption runs your CPU will be fed partly from the cache (fast) or from system memory (slow), and task switching will give you varying amounts of CPU time. "Jitter" caused by the "varying amount of time to decrypt a chunk of data" won't add anything of importance at this point, and data still has to travel trough a decoder module, through the dense traffic on the PCI bus on it's way to the sound card, etc.

Because of all this, the audio stream will be buffered and resync'ed on your sound card removing any "jitter" introduced along the way.

The word "jitter" is too often used to legitimize a theory completely out of touch with reality, some kind of catch-all "argument" to end any insightful discussion of digital audio.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

A really bad design might not have any buffer before the DAC.

I'd say the problem is a bit more complex. SP/DIF is a really lousy protocol in that the timing information and the data are transimtted with the same signal, and most receivers do a rather shoddy job of recovering the timing information, making only feeble attempts to provide a stable clock to the DAC. Most SP/DIF receiver circuits are so bad that their output timing will vary depending on the signal level or even the steepness of the signal flanks they reveive. Therefore, if the source is just as cheap (and, since we're talking abut consumer electronics, 99.9% really is, and this includes much of the so called "high end", because the manufacturers invest more in marketing and good looks instead of proper engineering), it will have a cheap or badly designed power supply and the supply voltage to the SP/DIF transmitter will vary depending on the power the CPU needs to decrypt the input data, or (in a CD/DVD player) how hard the drive needs to work to properly read a marginal/dirty/scratched disk. Even if there is a buffer, the use of the buffer itself may introduce some timing or voltage fluctuations, since the buffer circuitry may need more power or time to adress data at 0xffff that at 0x0000.

Now, since jitter doesn't really change any bits, and therefore the values that the DAC will output, but instead the time at which any given value appears at the DAC's output, the audible result of even large jitter values is hard to describe. However, I have a Denon 1600 DVD player, and I cannot use it to play DTS 96/24 DVDs, because its jitter upsets my receiver so badly in its attempt to produce a 96kHz clock from the 48kHz input that the sound gets garbled. If I take the same signal that just failed to reproduce when played with the DVD player, record it with a good sound card from the digital output of the receiver, and play it back with this same soundcard, it will play flawlessly. The manufacturer actually admits that this is a problem with the DSP-board, and they do have a fix available that would make it more resilient to jitter. The sound card probably had better output circuitry than even most "quality" DVD players since it has separate quartz clocks for 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz and doesn't have to derive that from a video clock.

There are better protocols to transmit digital audio, some using two CAT-5 cablees, one for data, one for clock, or at least workarounds feeding back the clock of the DAC to the source, e.g. with a Wordclock, but none of these have cought on. I'm not certain if audio transmission via HDMI will fix this problem, but I've heard some claims that it actually could.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's so bad, then it would suck, and people won't buy -- market magic.

I'd say the devil had a pretty weak advocate.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

In computers from 1984 this might have been a problem. In modern systems though, the decryption is done almost asynchronously (perhaps actually asynchronously if you have 2 CPUs), the results are buffered in RAM. Later this decrypted stream is decoded (AAC, MP3, whatever) and those results are double-buffered in RAM in whatever raw audio format your system uses. FInally the sound I/O system reads from one of the two raw-audio output buffers -- the one not currently being written -- and sends it off for output processing.

In short, if you were overloading the CPU by decrypting you might get stutter, but it would be stutter between the double-buffered output sections, not between individual raw audio frames.

Re:Playing devil's advocate...

[dfghjk]

jitter is clocking inaccuracy in the DAC and was once a problem because the DACs were self-clocked by the data stream. What you are suggesting is impossible as there isno such thing as jitter in a strictly digital system. Once the data appears at the DAC any DRM is long gone.

Everyone is missing the point!

[singularity]

The survey apparently compared (iTunes purchased songs) and (every other possible way of getting a song onto your iPod)

My entire music collection is legal, but I can tell you one of the major way my friends get music - from their friends, through sharing their music collections.

Everyone here on SlashDot seems to be saying "This survey shows that people would rather buy CDs than music online! This probably says they do not want DRM!"

I think the article is saying "People will take *free* music their friends recommend over paying for music online."

This is not at all surprising, and really does not speak to people's views on DRM.

Re:Everyone is missing the point!

[moneybuystrophies]

exactly! the article says nothing about DRM, and it is a big leap to assume that DRM is the driving concern of people who do not buy digital music. In fact I would bet that only a small percentage of the people studied even knew what DRM is. I agree that DRM is a short-sighted and overly-restrictive practice, but talk about reading what you want into a study.

Higher Profits from What?

[SpectralDesign]

Well it's true -- and it's been repeated many times, and the *IAA obviously would prefer to ignore the evidence, so just to add my own experiences on the issue:

A while back I worked as a sysadmin for {censored} and the boss allowed us to setup a fileshare from which to stream MP3s to our workstations. Everyone ripped some music from their personal collection, and everyone was able to browse the entire "catalog". If I listened to something a coworker had ripped but I didn't own, I'd buy it if I liked it. If I didn't like it, I didn't listen to it again.

I rarely (although do on occasion) buy music that I've heard on the radio -- I'd say about one CD per year (at the most) I purchase because I heard the artist on the radio. Mostly, I just don't like the garbage played on the airwaves.

When I'm in a music store, however, and they're playing something original I always ask what they're playing. Compared with one CD purchase per year from radio exposure, I purchase one newly discovered CD for about every 5 times I go into a music store.

The bottom line is -- the more you let people sample the music (and I'm not talking about the top-20 that get's pushed onto the airwaves) then the more music people are going to buy. Yes, sure -- there may also be a rise in piracy, but refer to the former point and you'll see that the process feeds itself... more music floating about (no matter how it got there) means more profits for the "artists".

I wonder if the industry will ever take their hands off their ears/eyes and figure this out -- I suppose it's *not* in the interest of the *IAA to admit this, however, because it'd put them out of work.

kdawson, welcome to the Trolled By Twitter club!

[Keith Russell]

There is nothing in the linked article that suggests that DRM has anything to do with the findings.

This submission is just the latest in a long line of irrational, hate-filled postings by twitter. Please, stop enabling him!

Don't overanalyse

[Anonymous Coward]

17% of iPods have iTunes-purchased music on them. 17% of sixty million iPods is a big number.

CDs took quite a few years to catch on. Give it time. CDs came out in the early 80s, but when I got my first CD player in 1992, I was among the first people I knew who had one.

Same for DVDs. Didn't really reach critical mass until maybe 4 years ago. I had my first DVD player in 1998 and knew no one else with one.

iTunes Music Store has been out only three years.

I know LOTS of people who don't have iPods but buy music from iTunes. With iTunes Music Store being the fifth largest music retailer in the USA, people must be buying.

Re:Maybe they aren't total iPodiots after all...

[Buran]

People are idiots for wanting something that works with their computers, software, and car headunits? People are idiots for liking the interface of the iPod and/or itunes? It's really unfair to blatantly claim that you're an idiot just because you choose to buy an iPod.

I guess that makes me an idiot, then. Oh, wait. I'm not. I'd be an idiot to buy a player that didn't integrate with my Alpine headunit, that didn't work with my chosen music software, and didn't play nice with the occasional track I download from iTunes and/or eMusic.

Re:Let's be honest here

[AusIV]

There was a time when that may have been true, but I doubt it is today. Back in the days of Napster when there was an easy way to download MP3s without getting tons of spyware, lots of people downloaded music. Then Napster was shut down, and Limewire, Kazaa, etc. popped up. I've known lots of people whose windows installations were trashed by spyware affilliated with those programs. Bit Torrent is available today, but most average users I know were scared away from file sharing because they link it to spyware.

Today I think the average iPod owner does a lot less file sharing. I don't think its uncommon for people to trade CDs and rip them, but four or five people sharing a CD is going to do a lot less damage to the music industry than people sharing their entire music libraries to anyone on the internet (and I'm not currently aware of the RIAA ever hunting down people for sharing CDs, but I certainly wouldn't be suprised to hear about it).

I would guess that most of the music bought by iPod owners came from iTunes, a CD they own, or a CD a friend owns. I'm not quite sure what your definition of "wasn't bought" is, but I think most people's music collections are a lot more legitimate than you'd expect.

Re:Let's be honest here

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever someone makes the comment that most iPod owners got their music illegally, one or two people always post replies like yours, saying "No way, I'm completely legal!". Well I'd like to admit, I have tons of MP3s on my harddisk, and only 3 or 4 albums are ripped from CDs I own. Everything else? Illegally downloaded. Spacenight, Cafe del Mar, the Corrs, Moby, and gigabytes of lounge/ambient. Dorm-network file sharing made it easy, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is in colleges all over the US and Europe, with poor students who'd rather spend their money on something else. I know it's not fair to the artists, but hey, I (anybody else?) rationalize it by saying, all the money goes to the RIAA anyway, and the artists earn enough and are still richer than us. As for budding musicians? Why don't you go to college like the rest of us and get a real job! ;)

The next thing you know

[Nybble's Byte]

they'll be buying vinyl.

Betcha thought I was gonna say "old Jed's a millionaire".

You fed the troll. Good job.

[norminator]

Does someone have to actually explain to you that the GP is a joke/troll? Just because someone includes technological jargon like signaling or if they discuss their career, doesn't make that person serious. Anyone who has the slightest concept of a bit won't really believe that a computer would play a bit-for-bit copy of a song any different from the original. Of course an encrypted file has to be decrypted at some point in the process, at which point it is exactly the same as the original (someone else replying to this troll mentions "lossless encryption"... they showed that they know less than the original troll, as encryption has to be lossless. It's not the same as compression.) The computer doesn't know that the one file was ever encrypted. The GP knows that. Most of us here on Slashdot know that.

Congratulations to all who bit at this troll, and took it hook, line, and sinker.

So you are not a typical iPod user.

[twitter]

Why do I need to buy all those again, if I buy, I'll probably buy via iTunes, but I've got a large catalog already purchased. This isn't shunning.

Take it up with the BBC, or pay for the report and take it up with Jupiter, but they say that people who buy portable music players purchase more music than other people and they are purchasing it on CDs. They were clear about it, I'm sorry if my summary was not.

I imagine that people who own portable music players and reasonable jukebox software, such as iTunes or Amarok enjoy their music more than others and purchase more of it. You know, that whole Napster effect thing all over again. Music fans will buy music even if they can get it for "free" of some network. Of course, it's easy to buy more music than average if the average is zero.

Thinking of free music, I have to point again to the internet archive, where anyone wanting to build a great collection should start. Be sure to check out one of my favorites, the New Orleans Radiators and rock on.

Re:So you are not a typical iPod user.

[The Bungi]

twitter, did you notice this article is tagged as 'FUD'? The irony in that just kills me =)

conclusion jumping perhaps?

[briancnorton]

it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it

TFA certainly doesn't back up this kind of claim. I'm not casting doubt on the claim itself, but this study doesn't support it. There are plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't want to use iTMS aside from DRM.

• it's expensive
• payment is a hassle
• no feeling of "ownership" of the music
• it won't play in your car
• you can hear singles on the radio, but can't justify spending on the b-sides
• you don't get the liner notes.
• iPods are built crappy and break easy, CDs are tough
• something like half of all iPod owners haven't used them in the last year anyway

My point is, let's not jump to conclusions about DRM's market palettability. ANY service is a tough sell, and something as esoteric as music just doesn't have a mental "value" like something physical that comes in a box.

My gripe with Itunes

[British]

Is that you need a credit card, even if you just want free album artwork, etc.

Re:My gripe with Itunes

[mh101]

From Apple's perspective, they likely consider it to be a value-added service available to their customers. If you don't set up, or already have, an account, you're not an iTunes customer.

Re:My gripe with Itunes

[Phroggy]

Is that you need a credit card, even if you just want free album artwork, etc.

Is this true now? I used the iTunes Music Store for at least a year before I ever gave them a credit card. I downloaded free tracks (almost) every week, and won something from their Pepsi promotion way back whenever that was. I would expect free album artwork to work the same way. You do need a valid e-mail address, but shouldn't need a credit card.

Someone let me know if this has changed.

0s and 1s everywhere! I think I saw a 2.

[dangitman]

It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.

Re:0s and 1s everywhere! I think I saw a 2.

[Isotopian]

Ever plug the number on Bender's apartment into an ASCII table? It's the dollar symbol!

Re:0s and 1s everywhere! I think I saw a 2.

[dangitman]

Bender's got bling, baby, and you know it!

Re:0s and 1s everywhere! I think I saw a 2.

[ConceptJunkie]

To quote the prophet Jerematic:

One, zero, zero, one...

Re:kdawson, welcome to the Trolled By Twitter club

[The Bungi]

The twitter experience is always good for comedic value, but aside from the usual "M$ Winblows is teh finished and everybody hates me, install Mepis on a 386 and you'll be happy" mantra, lately he seems to be hell bent on convincing humanity that the iPod sucks, iTunes is evil and Amarok and Ogg are the answers to everything. Of course he usually gets nailed for his trolling:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196201&cid=160 76597
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=195046&cid=159 83473
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193196&cid=158 50849

I love that "I'm evangelizing but I'm your friend, really... let me tell you how it is" petulant tone.

Re:You fed the troll. Good job.

[Yaztromo]

Congratulations to all who bit at this troll, and took it hook, line, and sinker.

Let's ignore your assumption that this person is a troll for a second (something which I do not necessarily believe, although I also can't discount it as a possibility). When a technical falsehood like this goes unchallenged, those who are less technically inclined are likely to believe it, and pass it on as truth.

Slashdot is known as a technical site. If such claims do not go unchallenged, there is a very good chance that someone out there is going to read this, and relay it to their non-technical friends and family as the truth, because they read it on Slashdot.

I routinely have to explain reality to far too many people around me because they read something that is physically impossible on the web, and then believe it (and pass it on). Certain family members in particular are highly susceptible to such claims. They wouldn't be able to spot it as a troll, however dozens of posts from respectable, knowledgeable people pointing out the falsehoods may cause them to question the veracity of the trolls claims.

Troll or not, falsehoods need to be challenged, especially in the technical realm, which is really just "magic" to the layman in the first place.

Yaz.

The CD is dead. Long live the CD!

[FuturePastNow]

I've "purchased" exactly eleven tracks from the iTunes music store, all through a Pepsi promotion years ago. I also stripped the DRM off them years ago.

Although I don't own an iPod, and I like using iTunes to organize my music, all of it is now normal MP3 and AAC files, so switching to another music-organizing program would be only a minor annoyance for me.

I will only buy music on CD. I can re-rip it into any format and quality level, play it in (almost) any car. I found a used record store that also sells CD's from local bands (no more cash for the greedy bastards at the RIAA).

Re:Let's be honest here

[wombert]

That's the lamest justification I've ever heard. You're a cheapskate, not an environmentalist.

I hope you've switched entirely to eBooks, too, since you know how those inefficiently oversized paper versions kill trees.

Re:Let's be honest here

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The majority of people I know with iPods have infringed on copyright to get at least some of the music on there. In fact, I can't think of a single person that I personally know who owns an iPod and hasn't downloaded the vast majority of their music collection from some P2P app.

Ok, here's one. My girlfriend has nearly 2,000 songs in iTunes, some purchased, the vast majority ripped from CD's. She has never once used a P2P app.

All this means is that nobody can accurately use the phrase "the majority of iPod users are infringers" because there's seriously no basis for such a statement. If an actual study is done, maybe then.

Re:Let's be honest here

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I should have been more specific - ripped from HER CD's that she purchased at a store (not borrowed from a friend and made copies.. in fact, that's interesting, she's not got one song on here that's not from one of her discs or bought from iTunes).

Cost vs Time

[Bones3D_mac]

Playing around with my new 80GB iPod, I've learned quite a bit about everything involved in producing efficient rips of data stored on protected media like DVDs. Depending on the intended use of the content in question, you may actually find it more efficient in terms of time vs cost to simply buy iTunes video content than to attempt a rip yourself.

I've been sampling different methods of DVD ripping since yesterday and have discovered the most efficient way to rip a DVD while retaining overall data quality is to go through a series of three different applications... at least on the Macintosh side of things.

  - Mac The Ripper

It seems there is a huge issue with trying to rip directly from the optical drive that often results in several hours of time used to obtain potentially buggy and incomplete data from a DVD. By using this utility to copy the raw DVD data directly to your hard drive, you'll find your DVD ripper will function much faster and much more reliably in a single pass, than it would with ripping straight from the DVD media itself. A 90 minute movie can be copied in about 10 minutes, and then ripped in realtime... rather than taking upward of three hours to obtain the same results.

- Handbrake

This utility converts raw DVD data to a Quicktime-compatible format of your choosing. To ensure easy compatibity with the iPod, try out the new Instant Handbrake software. Despite being a bit buggy and in the beta stages, the results it produces are impressive. When used with raw dvd content stored on a fast hard drive, you can achieve a complete conversion in realtime or faster.

- iSquint

This utility simplifies the process of ensuring your ripped files are in a format that conforms to iPod-playable standards. Depending on the intended use (portable viewing or viewing on a TV screen) you can store a full 90 minute movie using H.264 encoding within 250-500MB of space with very little loss in visual quality. This may add about 2 hours to the ripping process, but is easily worth it for the assurance you've performed the process correctly on your first attempt.

All three of the above utilities are freeware/open source and readily downloadable at any time.

As for CDs though, the ripping process is so trivial, there's no point in not buying a CD of a band you like, when you might well end up spending just as much on the individual DRM-infected tracks.

Re:Cost vs Time

[faedle]

Handbrake: Great program, but every time I use it, the video comes out "jerky". Anybody else have that problem?

Re:Cost vs Time

[Bones3D_mac]

It sounds like a configuration issue. I'd recommend giving Instant Handbrake a trial run. Less setting adjustments involved.

Also, as I mentioned in the parent post, I strongly recommend using MacTheRipper first so you aren't getting lag issues from the optical drive.

Re:Cost vs Time

[faedle]

I'm actually using exactly that system: ripping with MacTheRipper, and encoding with HandBrake.

I'm trying to use HandBrake to encode to mp4 so I can view movies from a file server. If I read properly, Instant HandBrake won't do what I want.

Silly

[cubicledrone]

This article is silly, misleading, and biased.

[T]he only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music -- especially CDs.' This is despite years of iTunes promotion and apparent success.

The word "despite" in this quote implies all sorts of total nonsense. Are we to believe that promotion of iTunes was intended to discourage people from buying music or CDs?

"Apparent success?" Sounds like the average "what else ya got?" middle management fuck. "Sold a billion five eh? Not good enough. What else ya got?"

iTunes is a success, and it will continue to be a success, despite the constant drumbeat of anti-Apple bias.

One question

[cubicledrone]

Why are people buying CDs if they can get the songs for free off file-sharing sites?

PWNED

Lies, damn lies and statistics

[houghi]

This means nothing, exept that perhaps 17% of the ownlers DO buy digital music regularly. That still is a huge amount of people and of songs.

I wonder why they have singled out the iPod users. Many people have just regular MP3 players. How do they compare? It is as if I were only to study inmates and conclude that breastfeeding is bad, because 83% of the prisoners got breastfed.

Probably when you look at people in general, iPOD owners might be buying MORE music on avareage then other people.

As an aside:
They also talk about 'only 20 songs' and that shows just how old I am getting. In my youth most of my friends did not own any records and those who did owned about 15 albums. I was an exeption and had about 100.
That still costed me an arm and a leg and I did not have to wory about where I would get money from to pay my phonebill.

So on one side we have the companies telling us we can not live without whatever prodeuct they are forcing up on us and on the other side you can only have a limited budget to your disposal. The fact that you get a loan nowadays does not change that budget, it limits it.

I wonder how people could live before the "Walkman" and without owning every piece of music sang in the history of ever.

On the subject of 128kbps AAC

[Xyde]

The amount of slamming of 128kbps AAC encoding on here is amazing. I'd personally like to see some double blind tests of AAC vs CDDA as I don't believe most of you people know what you're talking about. When I hear things like "less of a soundstage, less twinkle in the high end, instruments not as well defined" and all the rest of the audiophile rubbish, it makes me cringe. None of this sounds like a compression artifact at all. Even with this being a very technical board, I think the placebo effect is bigger than a lot of you realise - especially when it comes to sound.

Re:You fed the troll. Good job.

[Lars T.]

Just because someone says something that makes no sense whatsoever, doesn't mean that person isn't dead serious.

Through my own use, I beg to differ

[firebird06]

Through my own use, I beg to differ. I have bought (at time of this posting) 366 items from iTunes, and I have no intention of ever buying another CD, save to back it all up. I work at a fairly small Wal-Mart, and I notice that I can get most albums for around $3-$5 cheaper from iTunes. I also hear no differences between CD audio, played-from-the-radio audio, or digital audio. I support the DRM technology because it defends creativity from pirates. Essentially, that's what music is. It never ceases to amaze me how we can idolize a painting or tapestry as a work of art, and yet we distribute music as though a newspaper. Also if you look at the article, doesn't it onyl talk about European iPod users? I would like to see some US Statistics.

Permanent Backup

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Having a permanent backup you can store in a cupboard has something to do with DRM. Not everything, but certainly something.

Back on topic

[ben there...]

Except that if you allow a higher bitrate for WMA, you either are losing storage space to get the same quality, or you could get an even higher quality for the same higher bitrate.

In both cases, WMA loses.

And neither option is available with iTMS.

In both cases, iTMS loses.

iTunes 7 in the background

[avasol]

I was happy with iTunes up until v7. I have a fairly powerful computer, but now I can't play Wow with iTunes in the background cause it freezes Wow from time to time and CPU usage for a "player-app" is ridiculous. Not to mention all the information being forwarded to Apple across the Internet. Went back to WinAmp Lite - and all of a sudden it feels like my computer has gotten a mem-upgrade. Boycott bloatware!

And they should, too

[RAMMS EIN]

iPod users shun iTunes, and as well they should. I'm writing an essay about the lock-in game Apple (and Microsoft) are playing in the digital music world (the essay isn't completely finished yet, but it's relevant to this discussion, so I've uploaded it so that interested people can read it). By avoiding iTunes and buying music on CDs, iPod users avoid getting locked into Apple's proprietary technology, and retain full choice over what they do with their music, including what formats they convert it to.

That's one read.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"Given the outright failure of other music services, it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it."

...OR, this data could suggest that when people want to pay money for music, they want to see a physical copy of it in their hands.

...OR, it could be that they prefer a lossless CD-quality copy of the music to a compressed AAC copy (which is a difference unrelated to DRM, as has been copiously discussed on this thread).

But no, I'm sure all those millions of iPod owners out there are just as concerned about their "consumer rights" as the readers of Slashdot.

WTF?

[LKM]

I hope you're joking. Do you realize that if you encrypt and then decrypt a file, you get the exact same file as the one you started out with? I mean, every single bit will be exactly the same. Double blind tests have shown nothing like your claim at all.

I really hope you're just trolling.

Re:WTF?

[maxwell demon]

Well, I've tried to encrypt/decrypt data as follows:

Encryption: Store each bit in a float, and divide by three.
Decryption: Multiply the received float by three, of course.

I've found that my ones came out slightly different from one, so there's obviously some loss even in this very simple (and admittedly not very secure) encryption algorithm. So what may be the losses in more advanced algorithms? :-)

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lossage in your algorithm is between your ears.

If the concept of precision in floating-point representation still eludes you, you're no programmer at all. And if the algorithm you outlined is something you consider "encryption," your grasp of crypto is just as weak.

Re:WTF?

[maxwell demon]

Woooosh!

Re:WTF?

[undercanopy]

Apprently you know absolutely nothing about encryption.

Fortunately the people who have created real-world encryption schemes are far far smarter than you and have worked out the 'miracle' of lossless encryption.

How about trying your example with pgp or idea instead of some half-baked BS straw-man example like the one you demonstrated?

OMG i can't believe i just fed that troll

Re:WTF?

[maxwell demon]

Apparently you know absolutely nothing about humour.

Fortunately the people who have created real-world humour schemes are far far smarter than you and have worked out the 'miracle' of lossless humour.

Or, to make it short: Woooosh!

Re:WTF?

[mjpaci]

I wish I had mod points. Good job, one of the funniest responses I've read in a while...

Please...

[LKM]

It's my job to know what sounds the same and what sounds different

In that case you should start looking for a new job.

Please.

Depends on the format

[LKM]

you can definately tell the difference between a 128kpbs song from iTunes and a song that you ripped yourself at 192 or more kbps

I actually did some blind tests about a year ago. I encoded a music piece in different formats at different bitrates, jumbled the names and tried to figure out which one was which. It's definitely possible to hear the difference between a 128 MP3 and a 192 MP3. Interestingly, I wasn't able to hear the difference between lossless, 192 MP3 and 128 AAC. Now I'm not saying that with better stereo equipment and/or better ears than mine, you couldn't hear it. But for me personally, 128 AAC is quite simply good enough.

Re:Depends on the format

[Simon Garlick]

I've almost reached the point where I don't care. Or rather, I care about the music rather than the reproduction. I'd rather listen to a third-generation dubbed mono cassette tape of Glenn Gould playing Bach than a pristine CD of the Pussycat Dolls or whatever shit the "music" industry is selling these days.

Re:Depends on the format

[ejp1082]

For me it depends on the track. I don't hear a difference on a typical rock track, but on classical music it's pretty obvious (to me at least) if it's anything less than lossless.

Re:Depends on the format

[Petrushka]

Interestingly, I wasn't able to hear the difference between lossless, 192 MP3 and 128 AAC.

At that point it basically depends on the quality of the reproduction equipment. The people who claim that they can tell the difference between 128 kb/s AAC and 160 kb/s AAC either have unusually good quality speakers/headphones, or are deceiving themselves. I use some fairly nice Sennheiser headphones with my portable audio player and I only very rarely notice deficiencies with Ogg at quality 4.25 (about 135 kb/s).

Consider: eight years ago, standard reproduction equipment wasn't as good, so an MP3 at 128 kb/s really did sound as good as the original CD. Nowadays MP3s at that bit rate are a little bit painful -- not because the standards of our ears have risen, but because the standard of the equipment has risen. Someday, who knows? maybe the standard of equipment will get good enough so that everyone can easily hear the deficiencies in 44.1 kHz sampling.

Re:Depends on the format

[HuguesT]

Exactly, I'm with you here. My personal favourite is a 1950's mono recording of Beethoven's 7th symphony with the Berlin SO, with Furtwaengler as the conductor. The audio quality isn't great even though it's a Deutche Gramophon recording. However the music is *splendid*.

I sometime play this recording to friends, compared with a recent, all digital, noiseless recording of some professional orchestra, which shall remain nameless. Then I ask them which they prefer.

Shunning the system

[Kuvter]

Many people just want the physical media, because it gives them more of the feeling, or illusion, of ownership. Secondly the audio quality is severely limited on mp3, or whatever other formats you'd get on iTMS. You're getting so much less because of compression with the iTMS, but you're paying the same amount. Regardless of physical media, I'd still shun any online music store unless I can get at least CD quality audio.

Frequency response: 20Hz to 20,000Hz

[cheekyboy]

Since the ipod can only do 20000hz max, the AACs and mp3s therefore should be encoded to be max 40000bps, not 44k. But since the
originals are 44k, then this is distorting the original. Unless originals are at 96k, it would be nice to have 96k files from apple.

Re:Frequency response: 20Hz to 20,000Hz

[dangitman]

It's pretty unlikely that you can hear many frequencies above 20,000 Hz. Plus most audio equipment has difficulties in that range. And what does the sampling rate have to do with frequency response? Using 96k audio files is not going to change the top end response of the hardware. I'm not sure what your point is.

Oh dear.

[jb.hl.com]

Given the outright failure of other music services, it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it.

The article submitter's previous FUD-spewing and bullshit aside, this is a very stupid assertion, and very dishonest. He links to an example of ONE very small localised music service failing, assumedly due to DRM. However, he conveniently ignores iTunes, Yahoo Music, Napster, MSN Music, HMV Digital and many many others which are still going strong.

This is not to say I personally like buying from DRMed places (I don't, CDs for me ta, even if they get ripped into the same format) but just that the submitter was being a twit.

No choice where I live

[Kapiti Kid]

As another result of the stupid regionalisation of the world brought about by DRMs and their like, Apple will not sell music to New Zealanders. Not unless they have a credit card with a billing address in another country, such as Australia. But I don't mind -- I've got 22 GB in my iTunes library so far. If Apple ever relented, I probably wouldn't use their store now. No need for it.

Re:Let's be honest here

[AaronLawrence]

Exactly, and I'm personally betting that it is NOT as bad as some people think. There is certainly a section of the population (ie. teens) who download most of their music, but I'm thinking there is probably a large percentage who mostly bought their music on CD.
So I would say that assuming the majority of music on ipods is illegal, is not at all certain.

Why do people avoid DRM?

[alizard]

Probably the pain in the ass factor.

If I rip a track off one of my own CDs, the MP3 can be played anywhere. DRM-crapified files can only be played back on special computer players or hardware players with DRM implemented.

Music isn't the only place where DRM has been tried. The publishing industry has been trying DRM-contaminated e-books for years. Nobody seems to want them. If I can only read a book on my computer, I tend not to bother buying it.

The only mass-market publisher who is making money on e-books that I know of is the SF publisherBaen Books. Their e-books are DRM free and available in multiple formats (RTF, html, pdb, etc.) , which saves me the trouble of converting for my Palm PDA where I do most of my offline reading these days.

They even give away free content at the Baen Free Library, large chunks of their backlist from name SF authors. If one reads 6 books of a series, it's hard to justify not buying the 7th book in a series.

It's convenient. Pay online and immediately download, unzip, and if one is reading on a PDA, upload to it. (you could even print from OpenOffice, though at that point, it's cheaper to order from Amazon) They even make advance copies of some books available for people who don't want to wait for the release versions.

They've got me buying books again, I spent over $100 with them last year.

Perhaps the record industry could learn from their example, if they were capable of learning.

Tangibility

[Anonymous Coward]

The DRM issue doesn't really enter into it for me, as the iTunes DRM isn't too restrictive in practice for me. I doubt most people even know or care about DRM until it affects them hard.

Why don't I use iTunes? A few reasons. Firstly, it's sheer laziness - I've maybe hopped on a couple of times, browsed and then hopped off without buying anything. Secondly, I prefer a tangible CD - with the cover artwork, the booklet / liner notes, and, more importantly, the album as a complete entity. If you buy generic pop, sure the album is a few singles with some filler tracks, but for music with a bit more depth, the album is often a single work of art consisting of separate musical passages which may or may not be linked conceptually. Having the CD allows me to rip at the quality I want, in the format I want, and play it everywhere I want, be that a CD player or ripped to my iPod. I don't have to worry about backing them up or accidentally deleting them.

As far as buying music online, iTunes seems far above the rest in terms of being well-thought out and not very restrictive. I just don't really have much of an urge to download music, free or paid. Interestingly, looking around at friends both technical and non-technical, almost no one I know buys music online - they buy the CDs instead for almost the same reasons I do. It's all about the tangible product.

Analog CDs?

[evilviper]

From the /. summary:

83% of iPod owners do not buy digital music regularly... only 5% of the music on an iPod will be bought from online music stores. The rest will be from CDs

Ah yes, good old ANALOG CDs...

From TFA:

only 20 of the tracks on a iPod will be from the iTunes shop.

Well no-shit. CDs have been around for decades, and most everyone owns dozens, if not hundreds, of them by now. Meanwhile, Itunes has only been around for a few years... It seems pretty significant that in that short time, they've sold so many songs as to bring decades of CD sales down to only 80% of the tracks on an iPod... though that could have something to do with people listening to OLD CDs less than new tracks.

What does it matter?

[Secrity]

What does it matter whether whether Apple wanted DRM or not? It down't matter who is to blame for the DRM on iTunes, the fact is that the content on iTunes is DRM'ed.

Thanks for pointing out Pandora

[Mr. Droopy Drawers]

Hey, thanks for pointing out Pandora. Though my wallet thinks differently! I like the idea of suggesting favorite artists and have it provide others. It needs work though. I suggested Chris Tomlin and Lincoln Brewster. It gave me "Robert Downey Jr.". Maybe it just needs to be "tuned".

Re:Let's be honest here

[mei_mei_mei]

Most people only buy an iPod because they know they can take advantage of 'stolen' music.

iTune Store Is Not Available In All Countries

[jack_csk]

In addition to the DRM, iTune store is not available in all countries. (Ya, even though they are in "major" ones)

And then I don't like the idea that my music is not playable outside the country that I bought it in - you don't have such limitations on CD (yet).

Listening tests

[eddy]

Then go to Hydrogenaudio and check out/join the [discussions on] listening tests.

You're Awesome!

[CheeseburgerBrown]

This is such a fine, fine passage of baiting I wish I could mod it +1 Troll Art.

Get off the DRM Hatewagon for just a moment

[Hercules Peanut]

I don't like DRM any more than you do but it is not the cause of every single consumer ill. Many people (read enormous numbers) do not know what DRM is and why it is bad. There are still plenty of reasons to not buy online music. Here are some:

1. Fear of buying on the Internet. Everyone isn't a slashdot nerd.
2. Relatively low quality. 128kbps mp4 3. Fear of viruses/malware destroying system. No it doesn't have to come from the music to make you lose everything. Backups are not that common among the masses. I think I read a slashdot submission discussing this recently.
4. Built in backup system in the CD. For whatever reason, it's great to have a backup and the original CD makes a good one.
5. $.99 isn't that great of a price if you want most/all of an album. It solves the problem of having to pay $15 for an album to get a single song but considering the above, it isn't exactly cut-rate pricing.
6. Selection. There is still more available on CD than itunes.
7. Sony. They make me never want to buy anything legit again.
8. XXIA. See 7 above. I know 7 and 8 sound like DRM issues but they aren't here. It's not the DRM infestation, it's the business practices. I can live with Fairplay, not with these guys.
9. Trust. While I don't recall Apple breaking it (have they?), many have. Will my purchases be tracked? Will the music I play in my computer be sent to Real?
10. Format. Sure, mp4 is the flavor of the month now but what's next? I can always re-rip a CD (been there, done that) into the newer better format but my $.99 music is stuck for life.

There you go, ten reasons I can think of while my oatmeal gets cold that DRM shouldn't be blamed for market share. Perhaps ten reasons also why people who get p2p music are still trying to get what they want in a world that has turned their backs on the consumer.

O.K. Have at it.

I always buy for iTunes

[amichalo]

Unless I cannot find it, I always buy from iTunes first.

- I do NOT want physical media (takes up space, landfill, etc)
- I do NOT have super-human hearing and cannot tell the difference in quality
- I do NOT enjoy going to the mall and shopping for music BY THE ALBUM ART (itunes lets me listen)
- I do NOT find the DRM "evil" so I don't care about it
- I do NOT find $0.99/9.99 "evil" so I don't care about it

For me, iTunes is great. Do I need to write an article to refute this one?

Re:I always buy for iTunes

[OrangeTide]

Apple is managing to make money doing this, so I assume there are thousands of people out there just like you.

The DRM Apple has setup is willing to compromise too. You can burn a CD of your tunes (and then rip it later if you want). And you can have up to 5 computers authorized to play the music.

About the only flaw is that Apple doesn't offer an iTunes storage service where you get to "store" your iTunes purchases to be downlaoded at any time. And then as an enhancement allow you to upload songs you didn't buy off itunes into your private storage account, but then require a monthly fee to continue using the service or something like that. (apple are you reading this?)

Re:True, but...well they should just sell 192kbps+

[Anonymous Coward]

i know they can't sell non drm. but simply upping the bitrate to 192 or higher as an option should have arrived by now. after all they sell video online now, bandwidth is not an issue, its silly to even pretend it is these days. many of us have stayed away from itunes because of the absurd 128kbps bitrate, its just too low. cd quality is already not the best with sacd/dvda showing what could be sold to us, so the product should at the very least be transparently cd quality..which would simply be 192kbps ish or so. i mean after all just look at places like allofmp3 that sell at whatever bitrate you want. i know they are not legit but it shows it can easily be done. people don't want to buy temporary music after all, they want it to be good enough for many years into the future, music is a cherished thing, it doesn't make anyone feel good that if they playback these itunes on a very nice system they have now or dream of having in the future they will be dissapointed. so "good enough" for the ipod earbuds is a poor value, they should really see that.

Uh, yeah.

[nateziarek]

I didn't read the article; the review was worthelss enough.

Two points -

1. I personally dislike most of the popular music these days. Or, if I do like it, I like a single catchy song and I buy just that. My tastes are not "out there" at all. I like Coldplay and Counting Crows. Once I've purchased their CDs, I don't have a lot more to buy. I do almost all of my buying from iTMS (iTS, sorry), and still that only amounts to maybe 10 songs a month.

2. No one is going to repurchase music they've already got on CD, and CDs have been around for quite a bit longer than the iTS.

So, my personal collection (and I realize I don't account for the everyone) is probably 95% ripped and 5% iTS, even though I haven't bought a CD in at least a year. There is no preference for one over the other, I can't hear the difference and I've never bumped up against the DRM restrictions. Maybe the slashdot crowd has, but I can't imagine (warning: speculation ahead) that most of the world really cares about the DRM issue, as long as it doesn't interfere with how they are using their music.

Wikipedia says that the CD cames out in 1982, some 24 years ago. Let's give iTS 24 years and then decide which format people prefer.

Not All Music Consumers Are Apple Lemmings

[cannuck]

The Apple/Jobs Monopolist Machine thought that they could Brand anyone who bought an Ipod - just like they branded people who bought Mac computer hardware. Well it turns out that ipod buyers are not lemmings. (Three Cheers 8^0, 8^0, 8^0)

And it looks like Apple's Quicktime lemmings are revolting and refuse to be lemmings anymore. Apparently Quicktime 7.1.3 retooling stops the average user from seeing Flash/Quicktime stuff

Seems like Apple/Jobs focus is on selling video online using iTune/low level H.264 .

According to Cringley Apple/Jobs is all about "hustling razor blades to sell razors". In other words Apple/Jobs is reaaly just all about selling Ipods (not music video). Apparantly WalMart dictates as to what Apple/Jobs does or doesn't do.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060914. html

Margins

[jscotta44]

No one here is specifying whose margins they are talking about. Apple? The Labels? The Artists? Don't have time to find the links to the stories that specify the breakdowns. But the Labels are the ones making the vast majority of the money from the downloads. I seem to recall that Apple gets about 6 cents per song and still has to pay for the infrastructure (storage, promotion, bandwidth, etc.).

The Labels are the ones making any profit off downloads. But they had to risk giving up control to Apple - profit being the only reason they acceded. Now they are worried because they cannot see a good way to get the control back. But they keep cheering for the efforts like Microsoft's Zune and accompanying download service because if they can get one or more to become successful, then they can erode Apple's control.

Apple I think has a back-up plan for what they know will eventually happen - erosion. I think that they are carefully courting the Independent label and artists. If they can build up a strong Independent base, then they will have what the Xbox has - a place where you can only get something that you might want. And here the artist gets more money, which is something most of us want. Perhaps they even get a fair share of the income from their creative efforts.

Not a political argument, it is about money

[polyex]

From the original posting... "it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it.". Perhaps this is true, but I am not convinced. People not using iTunes or other download services may have more to do with the PRICE+DRM being almost on parity to the price of a CD without DRM, which also comes with physical media and packaging, remember DVD's have copy protection as well and I suspect you will see the same disproportionate sales of physical media vs online. A little less greed on the price of online downloads (especially movies) may go a long way to selling the public to the idea of DRM, especially the DRM and what it allows provided by Apple.

CDs are nearly the perfect format

[hattig]

They're a nice size, the cases aren't over the top, they have decent liner notes, the quality is good enough (although we'd all like 192kHz 32-bit audio these days heh) and they're DRM free. Quite often you can get them very cheaply as well, even for 6 month old albums.

Online music store music (iTunes in particular) has no physical presence, no liner notes, the quality is lower than I'd be happy with, they have DRM, and the pricing is fixed forever, there's no sales, or reasonable price drops for less popular music (although the music companies would rather have price rises for popular music).

Since I've bought an iPod, my music purchasing has doubled, and it has all been CDs (apart from some free tracks from iTunes I got with Coke, which I used for pop songs that I'd never buy the album for, but I liked that particular song). Oh, I lie, I bought 3 albums from Magnatune, but that's because I could get them at high bitrates without DRM, and pay what I thought it was worth and know that the artist still got a reasonable cut.

Why has it increased? Simply because I consume more music because I have a portable player that I listen to quite regularly. Also iTunes makes it very simple to import music (although I'd like it to have a function to rip music in two ways at the same time - one for the iPod (default 128kbps VBR), and one for the home (default AAC lossless). The songs would show up as a single entity in iTunes, but when you synced an iPod it would put the iPod rips on instead of the high quality rips (which you could use with the forthcoming iTV, or with your home stereo system, etc).

iTunes order numbers tell a different story

[Froomb]

Judging from the growth in orders placed on the iTunes Music Store, the service is growing quickly in popularity. It's hard to comport these figures with a view that iPod users are "shunning" the service.

Year Orders
2004 25197527 100%
2005 91757221 364%
2006 266794136 1059%

The main point of iTunes

[goldcd]

is to keep people locked onto the iPod hardware - where Apple make their profit.
iTunes doesn't have to make money, it just has to get enough m4p files onto iPods for the user to take a hit if they defect to a rival hardware platform. 5% doesn't sound much, but if you've filled 5% of an ipods capacity with legit tunes - say it's a 20Gb drive (or 20Gb of music) 5% is a gig, allow a generous 100Mb an album. That's 10 albums. Not a lot, but it's going to cost you £80 if you want to rebuy it when you defect to a Zune - enough to make you think twice at least.

You have it wrong, Winkydink.

[twitter]

1. Most iPod user don't buy using iTunes,
2. Every other online music store is a failure

3. Therefore, people don't like DRM.

Number two is obviously wrong, only DRM'd music stores are a failure and all of them have failed. MP3.com was a success, Amazon.com is a success and many other online music stores without DRM are a successful. DRM costs everyone but the RIAA money and it's not going to make it. Listeners and vendors alike loath it. Jupiter's little study has show that not even iPod users are not going for DRM.

That iPod users don't go for it is significant because iPod users have already accepted artificial restrictions in their music but even they refused to be locked in completely. iTunes is the easiest, most integrated, in your face DRM music store. It even seems to work, though it has been shown to suck 25% of your battery life. The restrictions are significant and include the following:

The user must still use iTunes or a compatible third-party software to load audio, videos, and photos in such a way that they are playable and viewable on the iPod. Simply copying files to the drive will not allow the iPod to properly access them. ... iTunes cannot transfer songs or videos from device to computer, unless they were purchased from the iTunes Store and authorized for use on that computer. The media files are stored in a hidden folder together with a proprietary database on the iPod. While the hidden content can be accessed through the host operating system, practical recovery of the audio with correct file names, tag meta-data, and playlists requires the use of third-party software.

The practical upshot of that it's hard to share music with yourself, let alone others. There are limits on the number of times you can copy your music and how many devices you can have it on at once. iPod owners have put up with all of that but won't get suckered into iTunes music store.

It's the DRM and nothing but the DRM. They don't want to be locked in.

Re:You have it wrong, Winkydink.

[jb.hl.com]

Number two is obviously wrong, only DRM'd music stores are a failure and all of them have failed.

I stopped reading here.

Twitter, please read this carefully.

You get hounded by people for the simple and quite obvious reason that you talk bullshit, you spew FUD and you act like a 15 year old Linux fanboy. As soon as you stop doing those things people will stop harrassing you.

Re:You have it wrong, Winkydink.

[jb.hl.com]

Shit, I hit Submit instead of Preview. Damn. Continuing anyway;

The quote about all the DRMed stores failing, and the others about Linux and other free software having surpassed non-free some time ago and the "everyone knows that..." strongly hints that you are on a completely different plane of reality from the rest of the world. I'm sure even RMS, generally accepted as being just a teensy bit OTT, wouldn't go as far as you do; you hop directly into the delusional category.

Please, stop posting this bullshit. You don't help your cause one iota.

Re:You have it wrong, Winkydink.

[metamatic]

That iPod users don't go for it is significant because iPod users have already accepted artificial restrictions in their music but even they refused to be locked in completely.

What a bunch of crap. I'm not accepting any artificial restrictions in my music when I use my iPod. It's all LAME-encoded MP3s ripped from CDs. What restrictions do you think I'm accepting, pray tell?

Re:You have it wrong, Winkydink.

[WilliamSChips]

No, I seriously think that there aren't any actual people(except maybe you, and you seem to just be jealous of his wife) harassing him--there's probably just a script that gathers every single message of his and posts it on every single message of his.

Not a problem for Apple

[hey!]

Apple makes vastly, vastly more money on iPods than it does on the iTunes store.

It makes money on the iTunes store too, but an order of magnitude less. Not losing your shirt over a pay-for download service is an immense accomplishment in itself, but that's not why the iTunes store is important.

No competitor will be able to offer a service for the iPod that is remotely as convenient to use. For that matter, no competitor I've looked at has created a music service that's remotely as convenient to use, but that's neither here nor there. The iPod is the dominant player, and iTunes, athough very good in its own right, is joined at the hip to the iPod in a way that nobody else can match.

The reason that iTunes store is important is that its close integration with the iPod chokes the life out of any competitors. There is no question in my mind the era of being able to buy digital music without DRM will come to a close some day. It will be harder and harder for consumers with pre DRM CD players to find new content. They'll have to replace their player, and start buying new content. Since they are buying DRM'd content, then why not buy from an on-line store? Especially if the DRM scheme is reasonably permissive, and allows for enough space shifting for the average person.

The reason not to buy from an on-line store is that the store doesn't work with your player, which will probably be an iPod. Unless of course we're talking Apple's iTunes store.

iTunes is good for one thing...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...for buying those songs that are too embarassing to buy from a record store, or even have physically delivered to my house. For example, there's a Madonna song I downloaded...

Re:iTunes is good for one thing...

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

You could have gone to an out-of-town record store, wore some dark glasses and a stocking cap and bought that album. But no, you had to download it from ITMS, and now you're in a database of Madonna lovers. This fact is already being circulated to investigators, government agents, and companies who might have been future employers but for the fact that your love of Madonna had been lain bare. Nice going :).

Welcome me

[Tha Duderooni]

Hello, im new to this forum. Hope you like this bands music, I am promoting them.

Pssh audiophiles...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a friend that swore data was stored differently on audio cds than it was on data cds. On the data cds everything was converted to 1s and 0s and that screwed with the tune. There was no telling him different.

At that point he had been selling audio equipment for over 5 years and had his own mini-studio set up at home, and was preaching this nonsense to everyone that walked in the door.

Re:Pssh audiophiles...

[GWBasic]

I had a friend that swore data was stored differently on audio cds than it was on data cds. On the data cds everything was converted to 1s and 0s and that screwed with the tune. There was no telling him different.

Actually, your friend is right. The difference is in error correction. An audio CD can store MORE data then a data CD, but when errors occur, the player just interpolates to hide it. A data CD, on the other hand, devotes more space to error correction so that your files don't get corrupted. This is why an 80-minute CD, when burnt as a DATA CD can't hold an 80-minute, 16-bit, 44.100khz wave file.

Of course!

[JasonBee]

Much of what I really want to buy is no longer available, or was never available on CD or via iTunes. In many cases there are CDs out there that I want to buy/re-buy but they are out of print. How the f*ck am I supposed to get this particular music unless I troll the P2P networks?

I only have a 250+ CD selection and perhaps 350+ tapes (I started collecting music in about 1984-5) and it's a moderately sizeable collection of items that are in many cases alien to what iTunes has on offer. My DRM collection (iTunes) will contain a vasty minority of tracks compared to my actual selection of 3500+ MP3 tracks.

I think the recent addition of the album artwork downloader to iTunes is a neat addition, that while offering up to Apple info about your _real_ collection, actually helps them try to fill in the gaps. I found out that many Cocteau twins albums covers are available for albums that iTunes does not sell. Perhaps they'll go after partnerships with the owners of music that the fringe is interested in.

I'm not holding my breath for Stump [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_%28band%29] to makes its debut in iTunes...no matter how cool they were ;)

JB

*Checks Spreadsheet*

[sielwolf]

Some Statistics

Ok, maybe this isn't something Joe Average does but I have kept a spreadsheet of my music purchases for the last four years. Last year was the first year I ever bought anything online. There where four purchases totalling 50:14 in running time (mostly out of print Detroit electro singles). That was just 1.44% of the 67 albums I bought last year (60:11:46 total run time). This year I'm running way behind that rate (just 29 total purchases with only 29:45:39 total run time. I'm estimated to only buy ~41 albums this year) and only four online purchases but the total runtime is up (1:42:05 for 5.72% of my purchase runtime).

I also keep track of how much money I spent the last two years. Now I calculate how much per actual physical disc I spend a year and measure it against the RIAA 2004 estimate of $12.95 per CD. My number has actually gone up. Last year it was only $11.42 while this year its $13.44. But that doesn't tell you too much. I order a lot of CDs overseas because a lot of stuff is out of print/not distributed in the US and I pay a pretty price for it.

However, if you calculate the dollar per minute I've spent per year over all purchases (electronic and physical) and that number has actually stayed about the same: .2214 $/m last year, .2258 $/m this year. If you estimate that a normal CD is 45 minutes long, then using the RIAA estimate the $/m of a physical CD in 2004 was .2877.

DRM

Now... DRM. DRM actually doesn't play much into my purchases. I buy most of my MP3s from sites that don't DRM (Warp Records massive crosslabel site Bleep.com and ClickandBuy.com which a lot of UK e-tailers seem to use). Of course it might be DRM that keeps me from buying stuff from iTunes and the like. I have an MP4 that I haven't really listened to 'cause it's got that only-just-recently cracked DRM on it... so I couldn't put it on an MP3 data disc and listen to it in my car. Also Bleep is good for just browsing. You can listen to any song as much as you want (tho they cut it into 30 second chunks).

Also I prefer physical media. Why? I dunno. I can pull it out and play it in most anyone else's car, it's not rewriteable so I can take it to work and rip it onto machines in labs and that's much more convenient then YouSendit'ing it to myself. Also I only have to pull a disc from my mail and it can go right in my car. I don't need to find a box, rip and burn, to get to it. That's great if I'm on business travel, buy a disc and want to listen to it right away (which happened last week).

Blind Listening test?

[Midnight Thunder]

Have you done a blind listening test to really see whether this isn't simply psychological? Of course the music must be from the same source, such as one track with the DRM still intact and then the same track with DRM removed - for example something from the iTunes store and then the same track with PlayFair applied. Not using music from the same source just proves that one is ripped at a better quality, but doesn't prove that the DRM is a factor.

iTunes? I listen to netaudio from netlabels.

[ith(4mor3)]

I only listen to netaudio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netaudio) on my mp3 player. There are so many hobbyists and artists that are fed up with the music industry that they prefer to share their music for free. There are also those who see netaudio as a means to spread their music to land a deal; still, the music is free. Why bother with sharing or legally downloading generic music when there are musicians willing to share their music and experimentations with sound for free.

Netaudio is now big enough that there are many netlabels that deal only in such free music. Netlabels provide a level of quality control not available to other free music hosting sites, and 2 good directories of netlabels are available at the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype :collection%20AND%20collection:netlabels and (http://www.archive.org/details/netlabels) and at Phlow magazine's directory of netlabels (http://www.phlow.de/netlabels/index.php/Main_Page ).

Netaudio is the soundtrack of open source.

Mod baby, mod

[Mateo_LeFou]

Parent is the best post in a really good thread.

I'll buy that, but

[ScrewMaster]

... it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it.

This is news? All that means is that people don't like having arbitrary restrictions placed upon their behavior. Duh. Seriously, there really is no way to make Digital Restrictions Management palatable to people that actually understand the consequences. That's why most of the pro-DRM campaigns are pure spin, spin designed to make those restrictions appear not to be restrictions (you can "activate" your music on up to five machines! That's good enough! Isn't it, huh, punk?") Maybe this means that the users are waking up and smelling the DRM coffee, and finding it less than appetizing. I sincerely hope that's the case.

However, it is equally clear that the music industry is uninterested in what we want (even when it clearly makes them money) and would like to return to the days when it could simply tell us what we want and we'd be happy to oblige by opening our wallets. I have a message for any group of "capitalists" (and I use the term loosely) who think that way: "I don't want your product and I won't give you any of my money." And yes, that includes you, Apple Computer, Inc. I don't trust you to be reasonable any more than I trust anyone else in that business.

Holy Crap!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that cable studded with diamonds, or some meteor rocks?

Re:DRM is a hassle & costly I might add

[KnightMB]

I agree that DRM is a hassle, but a lot of people are still buying music for the format. I kind of see like spam e-mail. No one wants it, but enough people buy into it to keep it going. Any music you buy from iTunes, Wal-mart, etc that uses DRM only gives you a short term license to play the music anyway. So you have to download that DRM full of happiness file quickly or fork out more money for the same song. That's what really bothers me about how iTunes and all the others handle these DRM files they sell. I know a friend who spent thousands of dollars on iTunes songs. One day his computer had a HD crash and guess what, he lost all the music. So we rebuild his computer got iTunes back on and well crap he couldn't download those songs from iTunes again without having to repurchase them? WTF!

The only site that allowed him to re-download the file after a year was http://ind-muisc.com/ because 1) they don't sell DRM music and 2) they allow 2 years (yes years!) to download the file you purchased. I think even if it was 5 years you could e-mail them and get the files just because they hate DRM so much.

So DRM music is just like spam, no one wants it, too many people don't know any better, so it will continue to exist until people vote with their wallets and give business to the online music stores that sell DRM free music. Which plenty exist out there, they just don't have the advertising budget that Apple or Microsoft have.

one flaw with the analysis

[JohnnySoftware]

Brilliant.

Apple rakes in billions of dollars in music sales through the iTunes store and the authors make an observation that a lot of iPod owners are buying music from iTunes store.

Maybe the tooth fairy is slipping the money under Steve Job's pillow at night?

Everyone has a mouth but you do not see a Big Mac in every one of them.

Still, no one concludes that "McDonalds franchises are ignored by most people." If the bottom line matters, someone looks at the bottom line. Looking at how many people do not buy something only computes how much the potential customer base can grow if suitable changes are made.

AllOfMP3.com should be looked at seriously

[popo]

As much as its clear that AllOfMP3.com is breaking the law, the site should be looked
at very, very seriously by the industry because they are clearly on to something.

I've spent upwards of $500 on the site in the past year.

I should also say that I haven't spent $500 on music in the last 10 previous years combined.

If they've got me spending money on music, they're doing something right.

Re:AllOfMP3.com should be looked at seriously

[Petrushka]

FUD, or at least tendentious. AllOfMP3's legal status in Russia has been tested and has not been found to be illegal.

Concerning the use of their service by people in other countries, many allegations have been made (though only some of these deserve to be taken seriously), but the international legal status of AllofMP3 has not been tested, though proceedings are currently under way in the UK and Denmark. (At any rate it is hardly likely that any judgment coming from those proceedings will be legally binding on Russian soil.)

If you feel they are doing something immoral, that is another matter, and in that case you will doubtless need to re-evaluate how you spend your money on pain of failing to live up to your own moral standards.

On a related note, if the sibling post has any grounds for the allegation of involvement with the Russian mafia, I'd be interested to hear them.

Re:DRM is a hassle .. PS

[HiThere]

P.S.: I have a friend who was a classical orchestra conductor. He couldn't stand to listen to CDs because they lost overtone series that analog systems didn't. I couldn't hear the difference. Most people couldn't...and even thought that digital sounded better. But HE could tell. He preferred live, and could live with good analog recordings. The digital standard he found unpleasant. So they may be downsampling the recordings for internet transmission. That *would* yield faster download times, and many people wouldn't notice a moderate downsampling.

DRM is not the biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with music sold in downloadable format is not as much the DRM (yes, it is a royal pain in the butt), but rather the:

(1) low quality usually found on-line (no, lossy-encoded music does not sound the same as the CD it came from. THIS IS NOT AUDIOPHILE MUMBO-JUMBO. If you can't hear the difference, get your ears examined);

(2) fact that I cannot purchase downloadable (sp?) music from outside my country. I can go to european music stores and get a CD (or a DVD, for that matter) shipped to me without a problem, why can't I get the same music electronically? This is especially a problem when some artist's music is no longer available in physical format (no, I am not making this up). Music in downloadable format re-introduces the old barriers of old, when you had to go to your local music store and special-order that LP from Europe or Asia or..., pay an arm and a leg for the privilege, then wait forever until it made it to you. Usually, the only way people could get music from abroad (unless your local store was _good_) was to *physically* go there.

(3) the limited selection of music found on on-line stores. In the end, it's too frequently the same limited selection over and over. I have grown beyond your easily-found stuff, your top-10 hits sold by CD clubs. The music I want cannot be found on-line (except for a handful of artists, but again, there are not available in north-america!). My main sources of music have become amazon.com, towerrecords.com, fnac.fr and... eBay. Forget HMV or 99.9% of other local music dealers, they have drastically shrunk their music selection in an attempt to peddle DVDs and other assorted sundries. Urgh!

Now, if you are your typical anglo-american who only listens to the american top-40, then there are no problem, Madonna and co. are available everywhere. But if I overheard this portuguese (sp?) or french artist over shortwave or internet radio, and want to buy their music, I am SOL if I want to get it in downloadable format (but then, why would I want it? No physical support, lower quality...).

People kvetch too much about DRM when the biggest problem is *access* to what you want to hear & buy. We have not made progress, we all have regressed!

Look at eMusic.com first, dude.

[argent]

Because eMusic is doing the same thing, legally.

On a smaller scale, yes, of course, but it works just as well. Without the guilt. Without supporting the Russian Mafia.

You don't have to trust Apple.

[argent]

Back your tracks up to audio CD and they're out of the picture. Or to paraphrase their own advertising: "mix, burn. rip".

Re:You don't have to trust Apple.

[ScrewMaster]

Oh sure ... but from the perspective of the industry it's the millions upon millions of people that will never have a clue how to do that (or even that it is possible) that are the issue here. Those are the ones at which DRM is largely aimed.

"mix, burn, rip" ... I like that.

My music isn't "stuck for life"...

[argent]

Format. Sure, mp4 is the flavor of the month now but what's next? I can always re-rip a CD (been there, done that) into the newer better format but my $.99 music is stuck for life.

I burn my purchases as audio CDs. Always.

Now there's no more reason to worry about the flavor of the month. Plus, that's my backup.

MIX, BURN, RIP

Apple is in DENAIL about consumers' FREE WILL

[yubbers9]

This is their classic mistake. They think that brands and advertising can create profit out of thin air. They essentially deny the obvious (even if they never state their denial) that humans have free will.

http://malfy.org/

Re:Apple is in DENAIL about consumers' FREE WILL

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you hit denail on dehead.

Instant Gratification

[ProfessionalCookie]

and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it."

It's never been any trouble to rip a CD- and usually not even to get artwork. The only real appeal (for me) of iTMS over used CD's on Amazon is instant gratification. That means I get to listen to a song as soon as I decide to buy it. Some times a friend will com over and say "have you ever heard 'X' " then we usually muddle over how it went, then I usually plunk down my 99 cents to get it now on iTunes; even if there's a good change I'll buy the whole CD later.

Thats the total appeal for me. Same with the movie store- the appeal is that I can get it now.

-Ed Palma

"Other" Music Services DOing Fine, Expanding

[meehawl]

Given the outright failure of other music services

I think this statement is a mistake that manages to buy into Apple propaganda without thinking about any numbers. Yes, itunes clearly has the largest single share of the single-fee download licence ("downloads") market. However, it does not offer monthly download all-you-can-eat licences ("subscriptions"). Most of the other services (AOL, Yahoo Music Unlimited, Napster, Rhapsody, etc etc etc etc) offer hybrids with both forms of licence available. Their combined subscriber numbers are in the millions. That's several million people each month, paying on average $10 or so. Just 1 million people at $10 each over 12 months is $120m revenue. And that's before income derived from "downloads" or advertising. Both they and Apple pay vig to the music business and deduct expenses. However, for every subscriber that !Apple adds, Apple has to sell 10-20 tracks to derive the same margin.

Anyway, this is getting too in-depth. But my point is that if these "other" music services have been "outright" failures, why then are there more and more of them popping up? Obviously, many of these companies have run the numbers and figured they can make them work with limited downside or risk.

This analysis also omits digital satellite services that deliver subscriptions not using IP but using broadcast frequencies. Sirius and XM have healthy and large revenue streams.

Finally, all the music services (Downloads, subscriptions, and hybrid models) are still a blip when compared with the revenue from ringtones and mobile downloads. Maybe 10-20% of the entire "digital music" market. These figures need to be seen in context.

You seem to have gotten around them.

[twitter]

when I use my iPod. It's all LAME-encoded MP3s ripped from CDs. What restrictions do you think I'm accepting, pray tell?

The restrictions ordinary users face are listed in the blockquote from wikipedia. If you have gotten around them, more power to you. The average user would give you a blank look about toolame, alternate clients, rockbox and all that. Most bought into iPod because it's "easy" and they would not have to fool with it. They would be limited to all of iTunes conditions. Others might be interested in what you have done, if you can have the same music at home, work and on your laptop and how your iPod manages when you plug it into them all without self destructing. I'm not interested because it's is too much trouble to put into a portable music player when there are others that behave out of the box. If you can't copy your music with all of it's tags and metadata intact as many times to as many devices as you like using whatever device you like to move and listen to the music, the result of your hard effort is not adequate for me.

Re:You seem to have gotten around them.

[jb.hl.com]

So, how do you transfer to an OpenZaurus then? Please enlighten me, twitter. If it requires any special software, you automatically fail.

You can transfer from iPod to computer using EphPod and GTKPod. You can plug your iPod into your PC without "self destructing", you either don't have iTunes installed so it won't do anything or you click the "Don't Replace" button when iTunes pops up. So long as you didn't buy your music from iTMS, you can move it around as much as you like.

Twitter, you've never used iTunes, you've never used an iPod and you are babbling on about something you only superficially know about from Wikipedia. To put it succintly: SHUT THE FUCK UP. Let people who actually know what they are talking about participate in this discussion, you go and sit in the corner and talk to yourself.

Re:You seem to have gotten around them.

[twitter]

So, how do you transfer to an OpenZaurus then? Please enlighten me, twitter. If it requires any special software, you automatically fail.

By Compact Flash or SD and any music player or program that can write to such.

You can transfer from iPod to computer using EphPod and GTKPod. You can plug your iPod into your PC without "self destructing", you either don't have iTunes installed so it won't do anything or you click the "Don't Replace" button when iTunes pops up. So long as you didn't buy your music from iTMS, you can move it around as much as you like.

That all sounds so easy.... for you. No, I don't believe you over what I read in Wikipedia and what people who own the device have told me.

Twitter, you've never used iTunes, you've never used an iPod and you are babbling on about something you only superficially know about from Wikipedia.

That's true. A brief overview of how iPod works is enough for me to not want one. People I know have failed to push the right button at the right time and had to go through a "restore" process he described as a pain in the ass. I'm not giving my money to a company that makes things hard for me and I don't need to. The briefest of google searches pulls up all sorts of problems on iPod besides trying to make it work with free software.

• Having to format the hard drive or lose battery life.
• One of many copy and restore programs, because iTunes apparently does not do what users want.
• A failed restore
• Apple's trouble shooting recommendations.

SHUT THE FUCK UP. Let people who actually know what they are talking about participate in this discussion, you go and sit in the corner and talk to yourself.

No. The discussion I started here is about how people like you reject the iTunes music store. Why don't you tell me about how cool DRM'd music is and how long you have been looking forward to it? Tell me what a cool company Apple is and how all of their stuff does exactly what you want, without modification and how happy you are with your non free iPod. No? tell me about how easy it is to work with Apple and how supportive they have been of GTKpod and others.

Re:You seem to have gotten around them.

[jb.hl.com]

That all sounds so easy.... for you. No, I don't believe you over what I read in Wikipedia and what people who own the device have told me.

Thing is, I do own an iPod. And I've restored from it lots of times, including my (very small) collection of iTMS purchased songs. It takes a couple of seconds to start it working. You're full of shit.

People I know have failed to push the right button at the right time and had to go through a "restore" process he described as a pain in the ass.

First off, I want specifics. Exactly how do you fuck up an iPod so much you have to reinstall its firmware? That takes some doing, not just pushing the wrong button? Even so, reinstalling the firmware is hardly a painful task, it takes about 2 minutes at most.

Having to format the hard drive or lose battery life.

Also called "defragging it". It's what happens on file systems. Deal with it.

One of many copy and restore programs, because iTunes apparently does not do what users want.

Also called "the ephPod thing I was talking about before". Jesus christ.

A failed restore

Ever heard "the plural of anecdote is not data?" Cos it applies here.

Apple's trouble shooting recommendations.

You're pissed off that Apple offers support for a product it makes? Jesus twitter, you're insane.

No. The discussion I started here is about how people like you reject the iTunes music store.

You also managed to, in a reply to the discussion you started, talk a load of bullshit about "artificial restrictions", in which you managed to show off quite clearly that you are a moron and that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know what, I'll give you my opinion. I have maybe 20, 30 songs from iTMS, and I'm not altogether fond of it, for the simple reason that, impulse purchases aside, I prefer having the physical CD. I'll still buy from iTMS if there's a single or anything that I want off there, that's about it. My iPod DOES do exactly what I want, and more to the point doesn't break while I'm doing it (like my Archos GMini did a while back), and I'm happy with it, but I haven't had enough experience with other Apple products to make a decent judgement.

There. Happy?

Re:You seem to have gotten around them.

[metamatic]

Uncheck the option in iTunes to automatically sync. Now you can plug the iPod in to any of your computers, and it appears as another drive in iTunes. You can drag plain MP3s onto the iPod icon in iTunes, and they copy onto the iPod and are automatically indexed.

Select the advanced options in iTunes and you can choose the file format you prefer for ripped audio. Both MPEG-1 layer 3 (MP3) and MPEG-4 (AAC) are supported, as well as Apple Lossless. I only chose to use LAME because I find it's a better encoder than the one built into iTunes; sometimes when I'm in a hurry I've used iTunes AAC instead as it's way faster.

As to copying files off the iPod, open up a command line and they're all available; they just don't show up in the Finder because the folder's hidden. Copy 'em with the cp command, use the standard ID3 tags to file them away appropriately.

For example, I was away in Germany and bought some CDs. I happened to have an iBook with me. Put the CD in, ripped to AAC in about 5-10 minutes; plugged in the iPod, dragged the files onto it. No problems, even though I had never used the iPod with the iBook before, don't normally use AAC, etc.

Mod submitter down

[Deadguy2322]

twitter, the basement-dwelling jackass that submitted this is nothing more than a stallmanite shill who will attempt to spin any article like this into a screed decrying DRM, even though that's far from what this means. Most people own a bunch of CDs. They would rather rip the CDs they have than rebuy the same music from any download service. I, for one, will probably stop buying CDs entriely once I get my iPod. They take up way too much space. Fairplay is flexible enough for me to do what I need to with the tracks, so I will likely buy most of my music going forward from iTS. Of course, it will take some time to buy another 40GB of music to equal my ripped collection, so iTS music will be a smaller fraction for sometime, possibly forever. A lot of people feel the same. DRM is not a big deal.

Why Apple works to keep iTunes prices low

[DECS]

Apple keeps prices low because they want sources of content for iPod players.

Apple doesn't care if you fill up your iPod with CDs or even recordings you made yourself; they just want to sell iPods. That allows them to run the iTunes Store without a profit. They do profit some, and they obviously profit indirectly in many other ways, but they don't HAVE to profit. Apple worked to build support for podcasting, which makes them nothing - but gives iPods something to do, and users a reason to buy them.

That's different than anyone else. Microsoft & its WMA partners expected stores to make significant money. Why would MTV Urge care about enriching WMA hardware partners who don't share the wealth? It's a model that works very differently - or actually doesn't work at all. Without functional stores, there is not enough WMA content for WMA players to matter, particularly compared to iTunes.

It's all part of Apple's interconnected strategy for the iPod, which is connecting media downloads, wireless, and gaming into a mesh of markets that work to feed demand for each other. Whether you like Apple or not, its a good example of how to deliver a commercial product: grow it slowly, don't try to profit at every angle, and build for a future platform, rather than instant profits. Ironically, many of Apple's strategies are ones Microsoft used in building its own Windows platform.

10 Ways Microsoft Can Salvage their iPod Killer
Hacking iPod Games: How Apple's DRM Works
iTV: the Killer App for Wireless N
Apple's New Dual Processor Game Console
How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works
Why Apple is Winning in Media Downloads
The Apple iTMS vs Amazon Unbox Rivalry Myth
1990-1995: The Rise of Windows

Re:Why Apple works to keep iTunes prices low

[freedom_india]

For Apple, iPod is way to a means: Jobs is selling enough iPods to make sure he has enough money for his REAL war: Battle for Desktop.

iPod is NOT his real money-maker. Mac OS X is going to be.

His first shot across the bow was using x86 architecture.

The next shot is providing Boot Camp.

Now people have really a choice and reason for buying Macs.

In 5 years time, iPod will be an old hag, while Mac OS X will be in its prime.

DRM

[c0d3h4x0r]

I agree with what others have already said here (about "people must not be buying tracks off iTunes because they hate DRM" being a flawed conclusion), but I also have an angle of my own to add.

It's human nature to not care about something until you need it. Rights are unfortunately one of those things.

Most people have never even heard the term "DRM". Of those that have, only a minority know what it stands for and understand what rights it takes away. Those of us who hate DRM and everything it stands for are always depressed by how apathetic and uninformed most of the population seems to be.

But DRM is slowly starting to burn people -- ordinary people -- people who previously knew nothing about DRM and didn't care. People are finding out the hard way that when their PC dies, they can't copy the songs back to the PC off their iPod. They are finding out the hard way that they can't take that AAC song they bought on iTunes and convert it to a format that will import freely into other software or work with certain devices. As ordinary people increasingly run into these scenarios, they will learn about DRM the hard way. The good news is that they will also immediately dislike it and be pissed off about it.

Give it another 10-20 years, and I think what you'll see isn't a lack of DRM in the marketplace, but a huge amount of consumer awareness of it and hatred for it. That will set the stage well for things like changing the law, mass-scale piracy, or other methods of fighting back.

iTunes 128 kbps encoding sounds awful...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that iTunes has doubled the resolution of it's video up to 640 x 480,
it is time iTunes double the quality of its Audio files up to 256 kbps...

Buy CDs - then you always have a 'master' backup copy to fall back on, should you drop your iPod in a puddle of water...

AAC is NOT by Dolby

[reaktor]

Believe it or not, the same folks who created the mp3 created the aac format:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/aac/index .html

It is technically superior to the mp3 in all aspects, as well, it was created to be that way!!

The Fraunhofer folks intended it to be the successor to the mp3 in every aspect.

Backups and DRM and CDs, OH MY!

[GeoGeer]

The last time I started up iTunes on my wife's mac (I don't use it much myself), it gave me a little informative message suggesting that I make a habit of backing up all my music regularly. Uh, and what would I back it up onto? CDs? In that case, why not just buy a CD? Sure, a lot of people prefer to buy pop music a song at a time, but personally I buy mostly jazz and classical, and I'm not interested at all in buying single tracks.

Hmmm... how about an external HD? You can not only back up all your songs, but also the pictures from your digital camera, your spreadsheets, the recipe for your mom's apple pie, and even that strange internet video clip of some guy launching himself into space using Mentos and diet Coke.

Besides if your HD ever did crash, do you really want to go through the 3 week process of reloading all 200 CDs back onto your HD? I sure as heck don't!

Anyway, back on topic... the advent of the iPod and iTunes has changed my music purchasing habits. Because of this I have bought some songs online ~100. Additiionally, I have bought more CDs in the each of the past 3 years than I had in the previous 10 combined. I stopped buying CDs because I was tired of paying $20 for that one song I liked only to find the rest was garbage. Since I believe very strongly in not pirating music, I stopped buying music, period. Now, if I find 3+ songs on a single CD I like I'll go and buy the CD, else I'll buy the one or 2 worth buying on iTunes. I suspect most people are like me in this respect.

The DRM bit doesn't really bother me either. I know it is there. I also know I could burn those songs to CD and re-rip them. Alternatively I could use iMovie to remove the DRM if I chose to. No great biggie.

Well I'll be...

[Orig_Club_Soda]

A way to spin the "Apple going bankrupt" doomsday message. Its been 30 years. Give up. Just open your eyes, Apple is selling quite a bit of music.

Re:Well I'll be...

[Budenny]

no-one is now saying Apple is going bankrupt. What they are now saying is, they don't like Apple's behaviour, and they doubt others will over time. Its different.

Also, if you go back your 30 years, which would be 1975 by the way, you will find that until well into the nineties everyone thought Apple had a great future. Buying the stock was the making of at least one legendary reputation in fund management. However, there was a general consensus that when it started losing money hand over fist in the nineties that it was in danger. If you look at the net income numbers from 1996, maybe earlier, to 2003, the results were absolutely dismal. It really was in danger. Only an idiot would conclude there was nothing wrong and that it could go on like that.

The standard way in which all comments critical of Apple in any way are met by the recitation of three or four standard, mostly false, and mostly irrelevant mantras is more reminiscent of religious fanaticism than contributions to a reasoned debate on the issues, and is turning more people against Apple and its products than any other single cause.

Re:Well I'll be...

[Orig_Club_Soda]

30 years makes 1975!? Shoot, if you can't add and subtract, how can the rest of your opinion add up? George Bush has better math skills. And, nice fallacy appealing to fanboy.

The number of songs Apple sold speaks for itself. The ratio of CD to downloads does not spell impending doom. The CD "installed base" pre-existed iTMS. Check back after legal downloads have been available as long as CDs.

another thing

[botkiller]

I'd have to say that another reason for this (and I'm sure someone said it) is that you can easily give a CD to a friend for them to copy - if you're a average itunes user, you may not know how to get your music out of your library and to someone else's. It's nice to hear that people still buy CD's, although most of it is probably crap.

You've missed the point

[Rix]

The number of people buying CDs can't go up. All else being equal, that means the number of CDs being sold will remain equal at best. There's no reason to believe the quality of music will impact one and not the other.

Troll or post

[rwjyoung]

Ok I give Up, somewhere on this thread is a real good troll but I cant quite figure out who it is. Do they really believe the stuff they are writing and are just mistaken ...?
I would prefer to think they are mistaken but a few years reading slashdot says different.
So I decided to throw my Mod points away for this thread by posting cos I just cant make up my mind.

Best troll I have seen in a real long time.

DRM not the reason

[moracity]

Most people don't even know what DRM is...or care, so it's unlikely that has little bearing on whether or not music is purchased from iTMS.

The main reason is that the encoding quality sucks. I've purchased a few things, and it's just terribly low quality. I'm not an audiophile at all, but there is a clear difference between what is sold on iTMS and a 128kb AAC file encoded from one of my CDs.

The second reason is that people still want the hard media. People need something tangible when spending money.

total crap

[ClioCJS]

Captain -- bullshit meters are reading off the scale.

"I hate books that have been zipped. ZIPping up the TXT of a book makes the plot not as good. I CAN TELL, I'M A GOOD READER."

What a total fucking moron.

Poor interpretation, even poor choice in headlines

[Trillan]

I expect most users use the store a lot like I do: We use the store to test new artists and for the occasional song that there's no way we'd buy an artist's album for. Personally, I find it shocking that the iTunes store makes up as much as 5% of the music on an iPod, when you consider an iPod can hold thousands of songs.

But the slashdot spin on this story is even worse: People may shun the iTunes store, but I doubt most iPod users are shunning iTunes.

I also don't see any link to DRM anywhere in these numbers. It's an interesting theory and may even be true, but it lacks evidence. So far as I can see, the story submitter just tacked it on for the sheer hell of it. Better standards should be applied (and no, I'm not new here, I'm just always midly surprised at how low slashdot can go).

Good, back to why DRM sucks.

[twitter]

I have maybe 20, 30 songs from iTMS, and I'm not altogether fond of it, for the simple reason that, impulse purchases aside, I prefer having the physical CD. I'll still buy from iTMS if there's a single or anything that I want off there, that's about it.

Why do you prefer the physical CD? Would you be happy if Apple sold you the file and sent you a pressed and decorated CD with lossless but FairPlay encumbered music on it?

Re:Good, back to why DRM sucks.

[jb.hl.com]

I prefer the physical CD because I like having something in my hands when I buy something, rather than just a few bits on a hard drive. And the answer to the second question is yes, yes I would.

Re:You fed the troll. Good job.

[tbone1]

Just because someone says something that makes no sense whatsoever, doesn't mean that person isn't dead serious.

Hear hear! As P.J. O'Rourke put it, seriousness is stupidity sent to college.

U R Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the people I know who use iPods have Stacks and Stacks of purchased CDs - they pile up after a few decades of purchases.

That does Not include the stacks and stacks of ALBUMS (those funny looking big black plates that spin around) and store bought Cassette tapes. Anyone got a USB Turn Table ?

Now, how do I load up my 8-Track Tapes to the iPod?

- These Kids, they don't know life before the walkman...

You need to take more ironY pills.

[jotaeleemeese]

They will be good fo you, I promise.

It's the quality, stupid

[georgepgva]

Who wants the noise you can download. Listening to 128kps is intolerable. Digital is ruining our appreciation of what real music is. I use no compression for classical, and 320 kps for everything else. And since I have several hundred CD's, I have no lack of music.

DRM changes the sound, all right...

[zooblethorpe]

DRM does not change the sound of music. It does not sound any different.

No, but I cannot purchase from the iTMS songs that are encoded at higher rates. That was my point.

But dude, DRM really really *does* change the sound of music! Seriously! It turns them all into some strange cover of that old Simon and Garfunkel tune. I mean, how else would you be able to explain the simple fact that I can't hear anything when I play my wife's iTunes tracks on my Linux box?