Yep. Only Apple can get away with charging someone to an "upgrade" to the product they should have given away in the first place. Didn't Yahoo do this for free a year back?
Still one problem...those aren't MP3s they're selling. DRM free or not they're AAC music files that I wouldn't spend a penny on. Amazon seems to STILL have the best offering.
Why a problem with AAC? It's open, royalty-free, and has better sound quality than MP3. Quoting from DaringFireball:
"MP3 is ubiquitous, yes, but it is not a free standard. The rights to MP3 in most countries, including the U.S., are held by Thomson Consumer Electronics, and companies must pay them licensing fees for any hardware or software product that plays or encodes MP3 audio. Audio playback in hardware costs $0.75 per unit, for example; encoding costs $1.25 per unit.
AAC is not “unique” to Apple. It’s not even controlled or invented by Apple, or any other single company. It is an ISO standard that was invented by engineers at Dolby, working with companies like Fraunhofer, Sony, AT&T, and Nokia. Licensing is controlled by Via. For up to 400,000 units per year, AAC playback costs $1.00 per unit; for more than 400,000 units per year, the price drops to $0.74 per unit.
In terms of licensing costs, patents, and openness, AAC is very much comparable to MP3. MP3 does have the advantage of near-ubiquitous support in consumer electronics and software; AAC has the advantage of slightly better audio quality at the same encoding bitrate. Additionally, MP3 requires a royalty fee of 2 percent for “electronic music distribution”, AAC requires no royalty fee for distribution."
@Dave: The quality loss on Amazon's MP3s is very obvious, for me, so I'd rather have the more advanced AAC codec. It's easy to convert to MP3 or WMA, if you prefer. That said, I still only buy downloadable music if I can't find the CD anywhere.
So is this going to change how iTunes handles the library and transferring it? What about syncing iTunes with devices (like iPhone or iPod) - is there still going to be the same limitations with ensuring the library matches up with the songs on said device? This is the biggest pain in the rear for me - not being able to do anything with my library unless I'm plugged into my computer at home...
Higher bit rate? DRM-free? Not bad. So, now it's a case of MP3 vs. AAC and pricing.
Btw, has anyone tried accessing the iTunes store over 3G yet? I have and it works! Figured there would have to be an update to access it. Can't believe Apple has the ability to just "block" something like that. That's crazy.
Why not load RockBox onto your iPod if your iPod is compatible? That way you can just dump files on and off your iPod as if it were just being used as a hard drive and still be able to play the music.
You can... But expect a fairly noticeable drop in quality after you re-rip it. You're converting an MP3 -> Wav (burning), then Wav -> (lossy) MP3 again.. Some people would rather spend a few cents per track and get BETTER quality than before.
@LiqwidZero: "You could always burn a $0.15 CD-R full of tracks and then rip them as MP3s to your computer.
It's such a simple work around, really."
And a stupid one, too.
You're proposing that people take tracks that were encoded in a lossy format, expand them with all of the degradation from their lossy encoding, record them to a media with essentially no error detection and correction (Redbook audio CD), read them back off of that media as WAV files, and then encode them into a different lossy format adding to the degradation. Do you realize that psycho acoustic models on which lossy encoding are based rely on their being a single encoding from uncompressed to lossy (data reduced is the technically correct term for lossy)?
Now, even ignoring the stupidity of transcoding lossy to lossy, why would you burn a CD? Why wouldn't you just expand from AAC to WAV and then compress the WAV files directly to MP3? Did you figure that it would be better to get both audible artifact from the transcoding and the potential errors inherent in reading the CD?
The iTunes "plus" tracks I currently have all handle like regular files I would have imported off of a CD. I can burn them for friends without restriction, put them on multiple computers without having to go through the rather ridiculous "authorization" process, back them up in multiple places, and drag-and-drop them onto any DAP that supports the AAC codec (and there are a lot more of those than you think).
The main difference is that the file will have your e-mail and name attached to it's metadata to prevent piracy (in iTunes, right click on a song, select "Get Info", and it will list your personal info right along with the bit-rate and date modified/ imported information). So if you upload your "plus" songs to Bittorrent, don't say I didn't warn you...
Which makes me also think why can't there be an offer for a lossless version of the same music too? Lossy for portable use, lossless for serious music collectors and audiophiles. Sure, the rise in bit rate is pretty nice, but it's still going to be lossy no matter what. Might as well buy the CD, but that negates the purpose downloading it in the first place.
You iTunes folks are so silly... I didn't have to pay a dime extra to rip my CD's to Ogg Vorbis. Nor did I have to pay any extra to get DRM-free downloads from Amazon (on those rare occasions I wanted only a single song from an album).
You don’t have to buy the song or album again. Just pay the 30¢ per song upgrade price. (Music video upgrades are 60¢ and entire albums can be upgraded for 30 percent of the album price.)
"The main difference is that the file will have your e-mail and name attached to it's metadata to prevent piracy (in iTunes, right click on a song, select "Get Info", and it will list your personal info right along with the bit-rate and date modified/ imported information). So if you upload your "plus" songs to Bittorrent, don't say I didn't warn you.."
The metadata isn't signed or hashed in any way, correct? Editing metadata does not require a CS degree..
I think I'm going to start posting files on Bit Torrent with "Steve Jobs" and "steve.jobs@apple.com" in the metadata... ;)
I will NEVER buy another Apple product again. I feel like sleeping beauty who bit into the "poison" apple. They are the greediest corporation I know. Bought a laptop, screen got a crack in it, I was quoted $1,000 for the repair. Just got it fixed at Mission Repair for $200. The i-pods only last 1 year for the battery has no life in it. Now you have to re-purchase a song. NO.....there are plenty of other products that provide higher quality and are significantly lower in cost. Pretty soon they will be sending me another invoice for the laptop I purchased.
People send the corporate management a message don't spend money on any Apple products.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
So I have to pay for a song I already have?
yes, if you want twice the bitrate and no DRM.
Yep. Only Apple can get away with charging someone to an "upgrade" to the product they should have given away in the first place. Didn't Yahoo do this for free a year back?
Only if you want a legally DRM-free version of it.
Still one problem...those aren't MP3s they're selling. DRM free or not they're AAC music files that I wouldn't spend a penny on. Amazon seems to STILL have the best offering.
You could always burn a $0.15 CD-R full of tracks and then rip them as MP3s to your computer.
It's such a simple work around, really.
Why a problem with AAC? It's open, royalty-free, and has better sound quality than MP3. Quoting from DaringFireball:
"MP3 is ubiquitous, yes, but it is not a free standard. The rights to MP3 in most countries, including the U.S., are held by Thomson Consumer Electronics, and companies must pay them licensing fees for any hardware or software product that plays or encodes MP3 audio. Audio playback in hardware costs $0.75 per unit, for example; encoding costs $1.25 per unit.
AAC is not “unique” to Apple. It’s not even controlled or invented by Apple, or any other single company. It is an ISO standard that was invented by engineers at Dolby, working with companies like Fraunhofer, Sony, AT&T, and Nokia. Licensing is controlled by Via. For up to 400,000 units per year, AAC playback costs $1.00 per unit; for more than 400,000 units per year, the price drops to $0.74 per unit.
In terms of licensing costs, patents, and openness, AAC is very much comparable to MP3. MP3 does have the advantage of near-ubiquitous support in consumer electronics and software; AAC has the advantage of slightly better audio quality at the same encoding bitrate. Additionally, MP3 requires a royalty fee of 2 percent for “electronic music distribution”, AAC requires no royalty fee for distribution."
@Dave: The quality loss on Amazon's MP3s is very obvious, for me, so I'd rather have the more advanced AAC codec. It's easy to convert to MP3 or WMA, if you prefer. That said, I still only buy downloadable music if I can't find the CD anywhere.
So is this going to change how iTunes handles the library and transferring it? What about syncing iTunes with devices (like iPhone or iPod) - is there still going to be the same limitations with ensuring the library matches up with the songs on said device? This is the biggest pain in the rear for me - not being able to do anything with my library unless I'm plugged into my computer at home...
Higher bit rate? DRM-free? Not bad. So, now it's a case of MP3 vs. AAC and pricing.
Btw, has anyone tried accessing the iTunes store over 3G yet? I have and it works! Figured there would have to be an update to access it. Can't believe Apple has the ability to just "block" something like that. That's crazy.
earle36,
Why not load RockBox onto your iPod if your iPod is compatible? That way you can just dump files on and off your iPod as if it were just being used as a hard drive and still be able to play the music.
@LiqwidZero
You can... But expect a fairly noticeable drop in quality after you re-rip it. You're converting an MP3 -> Wav (burning), then Wav -> (lossy) MP3 again.. Some people would rather spend a few cents per track and get BETTER quality than before.
@Tim
Yes, Yahoo did. But their music download service is also out of business now.
@LiqwidZero: "You could always burn a $0.15 CD-R full of tracks and then rip them as MP3s to your computer.
It's such a simple work around, really."
And a stupid one, too.
You're proposing that people take tracks that were encoded in a lossy format, expand them with all of the degradation from their lossy encoding, record them to a media with essentially no error detection and correction (Redbook audio CD), read them back off of that media as WAV files, and then encode them into a different lossy format adding to the degradation. Do you realize that psycho acoustic models on which lossy encoding are based rely on their being a single encoding from uncompressed to lossy (data reduced is the technically correct term for lossy)?
Read: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transcoding
Now, even ignoring the stupidity of transcoding lossy to lossy, why would you burn a CD? Why wouldn't you just expand from AAC to WAV and then compress the WAV files directly to MP3? Did you figure that it would be better to get both audible artifact from the transcoding and the potential errors inherent in reading the CD?
In response to earle36:
The iTunes "plus" tracks I currently have all handle like regular files I would have imported off of a CD. I can burn them for friends without restriction, put them on multiple computers without having to go through the rather ridiculous "authorization" process, back them up in multiple places, and drag-and-drop them onto any DAP that supports the AAC codec (and there are a lot more of those than you think).
The main difference is that the file will have your e-mail and name attached to it's metadata to prevent piracy (in iTunes, right click on a song, select "Get Info", and it will list your personal info right along with the bit-rate and date modified/ imported information). So if you upload your "plus" songs to Bittorrent, don't say I didn't warn you...
Too bad I can still download 320kbps music from torrents for $0.00...
Which makes me also think why can't there be an offer for a lossless version of the same music too? Lossy for portable use, lossless for serious music collectors and audiophiles. Sure, the rise in bit rate is pretty nice, but it's still going to be lossy no matter what. Might as well buy the CD, but that negates the purpose downloading it in the first place.
Exactly, why pay more for something you paid for before? Talk about greed!
"So I have to pay for a song I already have?
yes, if you want twice the bitrate and no DRM."
You iTunes folks are so silly... I didn't have to pay a dime extra to rip my CD's to Ogg Vorbis. Nor did I have to pay any extra to get DRM-free downloads from Amazon (on those rare occasions I wanted only a single song from an album).
You don’t have to buy the song or album again. Just pay the 30¢ per song upgrade price. (Music video upgrades are 60¢ and entire albums can be upgraded for 30 percent of the album price.)
http://www.apple.com/itunes/whatsnew/
"The main difference is that the file will have your e-mail and name attached to it's metadata to prevent piracy (in iTunes, right click on a song, select "Get Info", and it will list your personal info right along with the bit-rate and date modified/ imported information). So if you upload your "plus" songs to Bittorrent, don't say I didn't warn you.."
The metadata isn't signed or hashed in any way, correct? Editing metadata does not require a CS degree..
I think I'm going to start posting files on Bit Torrent with "Steve Jobs" and "steve.jobs@apple.com" in the metadata... ;)
I will NEVER buy another Apple product again. I feel like sleeping beauty who bit into the "poison" apple. They are the greediest corporation I know. Bought a laptop, screen got a crack in it, I was quoted $1,000 for the repair. Just got it fixed at Mission Repair for $200. The i-pods only last 1 year for the battery has no life in it. Now you have to re-purchase a song. NO.....there are plenty of other products that provide higher quality and are significantly lower in cost. Pretty soon they will be sending me another invoice for the laptop I purchased.
People send the corporate management a message don't spend money on any Apple products.