I dig it too... anytime you can combine a good legal explanation, some snark, and top it all off with "oh balls", i'm happy.
Keep it up Engadget.
P.S. I doubt locking down the ability to turn previously owned songs in to ringtones is any more complicated than this: The record companies did not want to provide consumers with an EASY tool to turn their Limewire downloaded music in to ringtones. Its easy enough to steal music, but making it easy to turn in to ringtones cuts another revenue stream.
P.P.S. What kind of world are the record companies clinging to when they licence their songs to itunes and sell them for a buck, knowing full well consumers can only transfer them to an iPod? Apple just released an iPod that holds FOURTY FREAKING THOUSAND SONGS. At a buck apiece? Apple isn't releasing these things for no reason... somebody wants 160 gigs of music in their pocket. But i doubt anybodys gonna buy the 300 dollar music player with the intention of droping FOURTY FREAKING THOUSAND dollars of music in it.
Subscription, guys. Its the only way you'll stop the stealing. Wrap your head around it, find some new revenue streams, and let this dollar a track thing go. Apple, your customers, and everyone else already has.
Andrew - an iPod can be used to hold more than just music, you know. With disk mode, it's a practical portable hard drive. Since my computer is filled with, uh, files, storing ripped DVDs or some old pictures and movies that I can't part with on the iPod is an answer.
No one in their right mind would put $40,000 worth of music on their iPod. Songwise, 5,000 tops. But when you throw on videos and pictures, the GB's rack up.
Ummm...160 GB isn't 40k good quality tracks. At best, if you're using a variety of decent (not even lossless) encodings, you're looking at 20k, tops. I have just over 21k songs on this computer, and it runs up to 130 GB. Sure, if you're going to through the pathetic tripe that Apple spews out of its store onto your iPod, exclusively, then you might get 40k, but anything you rip yourself should be a much larger file size, and a much higher quality.
Brian and Zennalathas... you are missing my point.
I'm fully aware you can put other stuff on iPods. Apple sells a lot of that too. But lets say you are going to put movies on that thing... High School Musical, for example. $10 bucks, just over a gig. To fill your hard drive going this route, you are looking at $1600.
If anything you guys MADE my point. I wasn't arguing that its redic that iPods can hold so much, i like that. I was arguing that the record companies & iTunes model of a buck a song (or $10 per movie) is useless. Apple knows this. They know they haven't sold enough songs to fill all of those iPods. And they know they aren't selling high quality enough songs to fill them up more quickly than the advertised numbers.
They know full well we are all pirating the crap out of the very record companies they work with. They don't care cause they don't make a thing on those songs or movies. They make money on iPods though... So they have no real incentive to break the iTunes and iPod system for one that makes more sense, like a subscription model.
The people on this blog know you can throw your homework, some movies, some great high quality lossless music and more on there. Most of us don't want to, because we have thumbdrives on our keychains and we understand that the highest quality music in the world isn't gonna sound great coming out of a quarter inch ipod jack going in to earbuds.
And the rest of the world? They know the ipod is the best player, and they know how to fire up LimeWire to fill it up.
Like i said, you both basically made my point while trying to argue it. Nobody in their right mind would put 40k in to their music. So why is music still a buck a track when we can carry that much in our pockets?
Andrew, subscriptions may work for some people, but they will NEVER replace actually buying the songs - via download or the CD. Why should I pay for a subscription to listen to songs I don't like when I can just buy the songs I DO like for a lot less $$?
Maybe you'll listen to whatever garbage gets released day to day, but I have better things to do with my ears - and my money.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
eckndu @ Sep 7th 2007 12:25PM
i like this new serie, better than those give away rounds..
Andrew Stone @ Sep 7th 2007 3:07PM
I dig it too... anytime you can combine a good legal explanation, some snark, and top it all off with "oh balls", i'm happy.
Keep it up Engadget.
P.S. I doubt locking down the ability to turn previously owned songs in to ringtones is any more complicated than this: The record companies did not want to provide consumers with an EASY tool to turn their Limewire downloaded music in to ringtones. Its easy enough to steal music, but making it easy to turn in to ringtones cuts another revenue stream.
P.P.S. What kind of world are the record companies clinging to when they licence their songs to itunes and sell them for a buck, knowing full well consumers can only transfer them to an iPod? Apple just released an iPod that holds FOURTY FREAKING THOUSAND SONGS. At a buck apiece? Apple isn't releasing these things for no reason... somebody wants 160 gigs of music in their pocket. But i doubt anybodys gonna buy the 300 dollar music player with the intention of droping FOURTY FREAKING THOUSAND dollars of music in it.
Subscription, guys. Its the only way you'll stop the stealing. Wrap your head around it, find some new revenue streams, and let this dollar a track thing go. Apple, your customers, and everyone else already has.
Bryan T @ Sep 7th 2007 3:48PM
I'm liking this new series as well.
Andrew - an iPod can be used to hold more than just music, you know. With disk mode, it's a practical portable hard drive. Since my computer is filled with, uh, files, storing ripped DVDs or some old pictures and movies that I can't part with on the iPod is an answer.
No one in their right mind would put $40,000 worth of music on their iPod. Songwise, 5,000 tops. But when you throw on videos and pictures, the GB's rack up.
Zennalathas @ Sep 7th 2007 4:10PM
Ummm...160 GB isn't 40k good quality tracks. At best, if you're using a variety of decent (not even lossless) encodings, you're looking at 20k, tops. I have just over 21k songs on this computer, and it runs up to 130 GB. Sure, if you're going to through the pathetic tripe that Apple spews out of its store onto your iPod, exclusively, then you might get 40k, but anything you rip yourself should be a much larger file size, and a much higher quality.
Andrew Stone @ Sep 7th 2007 4:44PM
Brian and Zennalathas... you are missing my point.
I'm fully aware you can put other stuff on iPods. Apple sells a lot of that too. But lets say you are going to put movies on that thing... High School Musical, for example. $10 bucks, just over a gig. To fill your hard drive going this route, you are looking at $1600.
If anything you guys MADE my point. I wasn't arguing that its redic that iPods can hold so much, i like that. I was arguing that the record companies & iTunes model of a buck a song (or $10 per movie) is useless. Apple knows this. They know they haven't sold enough songs to fill all of those iPods. And they know they aren't selling high quality enough songs to fill them up more quickly than the advertised numbers.
They know full well we are all pirating the crap out of the very record companies they work with. They don't care cause they don't make a thing on those songs or movies. They make money on iPods though... So they have no real incentive to break the iTunes and iPod system for one that makes more sense, like a subscription model.
The people on this blog know you can throw your homework, some movies, some great high quality lossless music and more on there. Most of us don't want to, because we have thumbdrives on our keychains and we understand that the highest quality music in the world isn't gonna sound great coming out of a quarter inch ipod jack going in to earbuds.
And the rest of the world? They know the ipod is the best player, and they know how to fire up LimeWire to fill it up.
Like i said, you both basically made my point while trying to argue it. Nobody in their right mind would put 40k in to their music. So why is music still a buck a track when we can carry that much in our pockets?
ulovemikeroch @ Sep 7th 2007 10:51PM
"They know the ipod is the best player" You're kidding, right?
yoshi @ Sep 8th 2007 12:41AM
Andrew, subscriptions may work for some people, but they will NEVER replace actually buying the songs - via download or the CD. Why should I pay for a subscription to listen to songs I don't like when I can just buy the songs I DO like for a lot less $$?
Maybe you'll listen to whatever garbage gets released day to day, but I have better things to do with my ears - and my money.