If you look at 4.0's help files, it states that sharing is only on local networks (you'll have to go through the package contents as Help will fetch the newer stuff off the net)
Yeah I do the same thing, when ever I can (not all junk mail have return envelopes)
Obviously, the cost of junk mail is probably much less than spam in the long run (depending on how much you get of each), but neither is truely 'zero'.
"Email spam cost us money and bandwidth on our end, bulk mail dont"
Not entirely true. Most cities (including mine) have a recycling program (and most likely a cost-per-bag for garbage); every pound of recycling will end up costing you something in your taxes somewhere, so the more you have, the more cost to recycling, the more of your money in taxes.
So while bulk mailers pay for sending it, it's still costing you to dispose of it.
I stand (and have stood) corrected, but, geez, you don't need to be so nasty about it (at least that's the way I see it from the way you wrote the response).
and besides: - this wasn't announced outright (god knows why, it's a better selling point than $.99/song) - Apple's site wasn't available in any tangible way for about 1 1/2 hours - and (with 1 above), this wasn't mentioned in the original story post, the keynote (it seems) or any of the initial reports elsewhere on the net (which seems were based off the keynote).
I don't look at it at a point of view of single songs because to me the 'other stuff' is important, and those are not included in a download. To me, this has value, which isn't included in a download costing the equivalent price.
Song-for-song, buying this way is a definitevely better deal.
[Obligatory warning: I'll be talking about the price as compared to a complete album, not individual songs]
At $0.99 (US) a song, this is still expensive, considering you still don't get original quality of the song (yeah yeah, sounds
the exact same, blah blah; but there are times it's better to have the hi-quality original then a compressed format when
doing editings, etc...), or a physical media, or the physical cover/lyrics, all in a jewel case...
Considering I'd have to add another $0.25 (I'm guessing here, I'm in Canada) for a CD-R, I still would be missing 2 things above at the same cost, especially considering some CDs have 'extras', which I do like. The 'convenience' factor doesn't
make up for that either; I can still just drop by the retail shop next door when doing my grocery shopping (or the used store
across the street).
If it was 2/3 that price, then I'd definitely say it's worth it. But for now, I think they missed their own mark.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one thinking "Yeah, riiiight" here?
What about the added cost of putting those thingies on the pumps? Who'll pay for that?
on a previous story
and how!
I mean, the arguments/opinions in these articles do go against goverment policy; doesn't that equate to terrorism in the goverment's eyes?
... I thought it meant it didn't have any of my contact information. Oh well...
If you look at 4.0's help files, it states that sharing is only on local networks (you'll have to go through the package contents as Help will fetch the newer stuff off the net)
And you'd think tuition was already expensive enough!
Gee, renting DRM crippled songs, or buying DRM crippled songs.
I'll take buying. Still the better deal of the two, and I'm not helping to support a monopoly.
This thing only runs on Winblows.
I guess they don't realize that to some content people, cross-platform availability is more important to smaller file size.
Yeah I do the same thing, when ever I can (not all junk mail have return envelopes)
Obviously, the cost of junk mail is probably much less than spam in the long run (depending on how much you get of each), but neither is truely 'zero'.
Not entirely true. Most cities (including mine) have a recycling program (and most likely a cost-per-bag for garbage); every pound of recycling will end up costing you something in your taxes somewhere, so the more you have, the more cost to recycling, the more of your money in taxes.
So while bulk mailers pay for sending it, it's still costing you to dispose of it.
and besides:
- this wasn't announced outright (god knows why, it's a better selling point than $.99/song)
- Apple's site wasn't available in any tangible way for about 1 1/2 hours
- and (with 1 above), this wasn't mentioned in the original story post, the keynote (it seems) or any of the initial reports elsewhere on the net (which seems were based off the keynote).
song-for-song, .99$ is definitely worth it if you're only looking for the individual songs themselves.
.60$/song on average), my original point is kinda moot. :)
Actually, now that I know albums are $10 (about
"You started with:
... in the context I spoke of: ie. 17-song $18 album vs $0.99 x those 17 songs (that doesn't have the stuff I want)
:)
Obligatory warning: I'll be talking about the price as compared to a complete album, not individual songs]"
Yes, as in I'm not comparing song-for-song, but album-for-album
"You then ACTUALLY talked about
At $0.99 (US) a song"
Apply a little bit of logic skills, man!
apparently it is 9.99 an album. Sweet.
yeah... it's other stuff THAT I WANT.
P.S. Trouble with your reading? I did have a clear warning at the top of the post.
Didn't know about the 'whole-album' discount. This does make the per-song cost lower to what I'd be willing to pay.
he he... Was never any good at math.
But seriously, what is the going price for the cheapest CD-Rs in the US? Here it's about $0.35 +tax.
I don't look at it at a point of view of single songs because to me the 'other stuff' is important, and those are not included in a download. To me, this has value, which isn't included in a download costing the equivalent price.
Song-for-song, buying this way is a definitevely better deal.
Didn't know about the whole-album discount.
Who said anything about stealing?? RTA. I'm talking about buying onlive vs buying the actual CD.
At $0.99 (US) a song, this is still expensive, considering you still don't get original quality of the song (yeah yeah, sounds the exact same, blah blah; but there are times it's better to have the hi-quality original then a compressed format when doing editings, etc...), or a physical media, or the physical cover/lyrics, all in a jewel case...
Considering I'd have to add another $0.25 (I'm guessing here, I'm in Canada) for a CD-R, I still would be missing 2 things above at the same cost, especially considering some CDs have 'extras', which I do like. The 'convenience' factor doesn't make up for that either; I can still just drop by the retail shop next door when doing my grocery shopping (or the used store across the street).
If it was 2/3 that price, then I'd definitely say it's worth it. But for now, I think they missed their own mark.
I'll pass for now.