Let's think about this, shall we? How did Sony's
ATRAC format do? How did all those
DRM-laced formats fare? Call us zany, but we've got a feeling an all new format developed by the astoundingly brilliant (ahem) minds at the world's largest record labels is apt to follow the aforementioned formats right on down to Irrelevant Boulevard. According to
Times Online, Sony, Warner, Universal and EMI are currently looking to go head-to-head with Apple's own "
Cocktail" by introducing a CMX format (codenamed) that will "give music fans a computerized version of the sleeve notes that come as standard with a CD, including lyrics and artwork, and videos." Reportedly, the format is expected to launch in November in an effort to boost whole album downloads (as opposed to singles), and while the labels approached Apple in order to gain its support, the Cupertino-based company purportedly decided to concoct its own mixture. Oh, and you can pretty much consider this
extra DOA should
iTunes not support it; fair or not, that's just the way it is.
[Via
Guardian]
posted Aug 11th 2009 8:39AM
So its an ENTIRE Album WITH CD Sleeve pics & info??(like an .iso file) or is it like current .mp3, .aac, .wma and its a single track but just each track has the CD Sleeve info in it?
Either way like you guys said its doomed to fail. I'm good with my .mp3 and .wma files, thanks
...and I'm good with my .flac files.
It would be convenient to have all that data included, but digitally purchased music is still way too low-quality.
1.) Take existing PDF Digital Booklet.
2.) Convert to series of images
3.) Sync photos to iPod
4.) ?????
5.) Profit.
.flac files are HUGE. Unless someone didnt have their settings right when they encoded them
and I personally dont need anymore than the actual Album cover....unless its one of Uncle Luke's Albums.....hehehe
@Chris D.
FLAC files are huge for a reason, they are a lossless format. With mp3's and other compressed audio formats a computer algorithm trims out data it assumes the listener will not notice, such as high frequency sounds and some other data.
I am not an audiophile and over a regular set of computer speakers I am a bit hard pressed to notice much of a difference. However, I recently bought a decent set of speakers for my room and now I can notice the difference between FLAC and mp3's.
Is it enough of a difference to justify the 10x size of the tracks? For most of the music I listen to, no. But there are a few albums that just sound amazing with FLAC.
@Paul
MP3 compression does NOT include lopping off high frequencies. Please do your research. Based on an equal loudness curve, compression algorithms give and take bits based on loudness and the fft window (snapshot of waveform).
Not everyone is an audiophile with a firm grasp of audio engineering. Generally speaking, whenever you compress audio, you are going to lose something. The more you compress, the worse the audio is going to sound (over equipment capable of revealing the difference).
All of my music is stored in FLAC. Before the invention of FLAC, all of my music was .WAV (uncompressed), but since FLAC can save a great deal of harddrive space without any loss in quality, I've made the switch. Through my headphone rig it is easy to distinguish the difference between FLAC and MP3's (unless the bitrate on the MP3 is much higher than normal) so I'd definitely say it is worth it to spare the additional HDD space (especially since HDD's are so cheap these days) in order to get the best quality possible.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that FLAC has support for cover art and that sort of thing. I could be wrong though.
MP3 works via auditory masking, it cuts off a number of frequencies (high OR low and the amount of them that are cut are based on the bitrate) that are presumed you can't hear when another louder frequency is being played. (Ian kinda said that, but I think i make more sense :) )
aye...I've got a Zune....lol..I'm not an Audiophile...if it sounds good and works then why not??
will "give music fans a computerized version of the sleeve notes that come as standard with a CD, including lyrics and artwork, and videos."
wait...what does it do? am i the only one that doesnt know what a sleeve note is? yeah, thanks but no thanks. just give me well-encoded mp3s. don't push it.
lol....never bought a CD before??
The front cover of the CD often times has lyrics, pictures, song composer info, etc. Some people like that. those are the people that still buy CDs mostly...lol
it's that folding piece of paper containing photos and information you've never seen, that comes in a cd jewel case for an album you've never bought, with credits to artists you haven't learned the names of.
sure this is quite a conclusion to jump to, but if you don't know what sleeve/liner notes are, you've probably never bought music, especially considering there's a visual example in the article. doh.
and as far as 'CMX' goes, if that guy isn't fooled, nobody is.
Yeah, on second thought didn't really think that through. I guess it's pretty obvious what a sleeve note is. Still though I prefer mp3s...
Digital liner notes would be cool. This should be able to fit in with some other container format though.
The last thing we need is yet-another-container-format, especially if it is controlled by people that like to sue their customers.
Maybe CMX appears to iTunes like its own Cocktail format ;)
This would work only if they introduced players that can use it accordingly (along with mp3 mind you)
Even then I wouldn't particularly want it. I've gone to great lengths to get all album art out of my iPod, because the pretty pictures that I never look at are not worth the hit in battery life that comes from loading them all off the hard drive when scrolling through.
This is why apple has a far greater chance of success. People will only buy what their device plays, so it's the device manufacturers that will lead in anything new.
I wonder how much crapware/boatware/drm/rootkit they have planned for this format.....I just can't see them going to the bother unless they mistakingly believe consumers would gladly sign on for another format designed to restrict use?
so itunes supporting something gives it credibility? Itunes mostly uses AAC, but i don't exactly see people calling their ipods "AAC players".
No, iTunes supporting something gives it mass market acceptability.
@ProfessorDex,
Not market acceptability, but market share.
>>so itunes supporting something gives it credibility? Itunes mostly uses AAC, but i don't exactly see people calling their ipods "AAC players".
people refer to tissues as Kleenex regardless of brand.
people refer to copiers as Xerox, regardless of brand.
people referred to portable tape players as Walkmans regardless of brand.
people refer to their iPods as mp3 players, regardless of the other formats played. especially since it plays mp3s.
Can't they just use WMA or AAC?
So I'll have to throw away my mp3 player and buy cmx player as well as re-buy the whole cmx music library?
You know what? I'll just download mp3s in this case and throw away my money on something more worthy.
isn't it nice to rationalize stealing? So what was it before?
To many bad songs on the CDs?
No good music is coming out?
Music is too expensive?
get a job and pay for things you want.
http://xkcd.com/488/
There is this finnish band called CMX who started as a punk band. Their name is an abbreviation from Cloaca Maxima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca_maxima). I think the same is more than appropriate in this case also.
well played, good sir
Just when you think they might have understood something about digital music retailing --- you realize they DON'T.
It is amazing that they still try to push the concept of an album... Hey guys why not go back to the concept of B-sides, too?
Get real, give us some real innovation, something that's actually worth paying for - not just the old song about "customers don't buy enough crap so let's try to push something digitally that worked well on sliver disks".
Totally Agree. But, Right now attempting to curve pirating is the only thing the Record Companies can do though that is a sure-fire bet to please the shareholders. When you are running a publicly owned company (like all major lable) you can't experiment with "new and exciting" things, you let a venture capitalist firm do that, and if they succeed you buy them.
Thus far, all "new-media" music ventures have failed miserably. Pandora and Last.FM are hugely in the hole, sirus isn't doing much better, RCRD LBL isn't increasing albums sales at all, and thats just naming a few. Pirating remains rampant because people will find any excuse to rationalize the legitimacy of it.
People constantly complain that the RIAA and record companies are draconian, outdated, and noneffective. Yet they never give an alternative that generates significant profits (to the point that the shareholders are pleased).
No offense but I despise these kinds of arguments. If you have a business model that relies on an a legion on lawyers and not on value added, then go change the business model. And don't start to complain about the market, the shareholders, the pirates. No, just get to work and innovate. Do it. Do it now. Don't wait for ACTA, the Government, the FBI, judges and whoever else.
There are good ideas out there. See for instance here: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-08/04/free-and-the-future-of-music.aspx
I detest the RIAA & Co since they just don't want to do their work and actually get their hands dirty producing something that's worth its money. It is as if the horse carriage guys try to forbid cars. It just doesn't make sense.
when you present one of these ideas that work in practice I will retract my statements. Not one of the ideas have worked yet. If you want people to risk thier 401K, mutual funds, retirement funds, ect, ect, by all means take all your networth and invest in a venture capital company, try to become a millionaire off of a dream. I for one, would rather leave my money in something that produces a profit, and though it is dwindling, at least it is not losing money. The Record labels are PUBLIC COMPANIES. You really are naive to think that they are not taking these new-media routes because they enjoy the "old" way that much? You think they are not trying to come up with a new way to sell music and make money right now? You think if one of these new ideas were surefire working and produced money people wouldn't go for it? I'm 100% sure they are, but they aren't going to release it until it actually works!! Name ONE current mainstream new-entertainment media that has produced significant profits. twitter, nope, Youtube, nope, Hulu, nope, myspace, nope, facebook nope, last.fm, nope. It's easy to complain about a company you have no money invested into. Lets scale it, for fun, just give your friend a few thousand dollars, say take this money and make more with it, I don't care how, just experiment, but don't screw up, you only get one shot, I expect you to have more by the next time you see me. That's essentially what you are asking the record companies to do.
let me correct that to saying "I don't care how, as long as it is entirely new and different"
Well, let me clarify the following: just because the Music Industry hasn't figured it out yet, doesn't mean it doesn't work.Years ago there was a very successful company in Russia (allofmp3.com) which showed how to make BIG money with music online. Plus there are a good number of smaller labels that make good money with new business models. In the classical world the DG webshop works really well and Amazon and iTunes (Apple) are printing money.
Just think about this: complete outsiders to the music business are showing the labels how it works! (and yes, you can contract directly with Apple). Then have a look at China and the music market there and you will find tons of alternative models.
You said the labels want to find new ways if there only were some? Get real! They are fat, inflexible bureaucracies that will NEVER voluntarily innovate. They rather sue the hell out of their customers then to do what Apple and Amazon did for the online music business.
About your argument of "publicly listed" companies: If you consider the marked capitalization of the companies as the forecasted discounted future cash-flows of the companies then you see how bad it is not to innovate: To sustain your investment, you need to make sure that not only today your income is right but also in the future. And this is where the big labels FAIL. They might make some money now but will certainly not do so in 5 to 10 years from now if they continue suing the hell out of their customers and NOT deliver any value added.
allofmp3.com illegaly sold most of the music that was on it with out reimbursing the artists. so that model doesn't even count into this argument. The chinese music is interesting, many will buy music from the homeland (china) due to national pride, but no one buys American/European music there and figures go as high as 90% of it is pirated (same goes for American cinema). There are record and DVD "lables" in China that specialize in illegally marketing Western music. Americans sady don't share this national pride as the chinese due when it comes to buying products..There are also so many goverment control factors that go into the Chinese music industry trying to compare it to the US/Euro market isn't even worth it.most Americans don't even understand what priating music really means in the end other then they are told it is "wrong", as in many westerners (especially Americans') minds the concept of non-material property is very difficult to comprehend (hince why lease systems hardly work over here).
What apple and Amazon did for music business? They are selling the record labels that you despise so much's music, i don't see what they did for it, its like going into best buy and buying a CD but paying for it track by track. Its nothing more then a evolution of the current selling tactics, and does nothing to circumvent peoples disregard for copyright law.
The RIAA was suing customers, not the record labels, and they stopped doing that for the most part anyway (I don't have a problem with punishing people for engaging in an illegal activity in the first place, so whatever, they weren't suing customers, they were suing people illegally traficking music).
You failed to address my point of people not wanting companies to experiment with there life savings, so I'm presuming you agree with me on that.
In the end, your arguments seem like the typical pirates arguments in which your just attempting to rationalize that the "Industry" is evil, and it is OK to not pay for music. Nothing of which you said had any substance as a practice solution to changes peoples attitudes for paying for music. Even if the Industry suddenly was like, forget it, all songs are now 20 cents....people would STILL steal it because they can. I agree with you, the current model is not stable, but no business model is stable, it evolves, naturally over time, the internet has only been mainstream for 15 years. If artists hated the industry so much, they would stop using it, it's easy enough to go indie now, so if its so bad, only buy indie, never buy or download from the majors players again and if you do, (especially if you download illegally the songs) you are a hypocrite and your entire argument is bogus.
Sir, your arguments are getting mixed up and are very confused. Just a few items:
It's not ok to break the law and I'm NOT a pirate. But I despise the Music Industry. Why? Because all I heard from them over the past 10 years is how I and my needs (e.g. playing the music I legally bought on any(!) device I chose) are wrong (they gave-up this position a bit but only after years). Other than that there is no single innovation coming from these guys.
The examples I provided were to illustrate that indeed there are alternative options in this business. And no, the point is not 'just' to drop the price to 20cts. The point is to come up with a business model that makes customers want to pay for ADDED VALUE.
If you want the situation is similar to what Germany faced with their industrial engineering: Chinese companies were shamlessly copying all the designs. What did the Germans do? Invate China? Of course not. They started to sell services around the industrial engineering and their business works really well since people are willing to pay for the added value of good service also in China (nope, you can't copy this one to one to the current music industry, you have to do more thinking before you have a solution for the music industry).
And let me clarify one more point: I'm not the record industry. It is not my job to invent their new business model. But I know the current one doesn't work well and I suggest instead of complaining and suing (look e.g. here: joelfightsback.com) they should invent something people WANT to pay for. Otherwise they will go the same way GM went and I personally hope they will not get a governmnet bail-out.
I'd pretty much love this, as long as any format could be used with the wrapper file, and the wrapper had open documentation so the indies can get in on it too. So, you could have the sleeve notes as PDF, JPEG, SVG or whatever, and the music as FLAC or OGG. Could remove the problem of some players not having gapless too, the whole album could just be one continuous data stream (like CDs) with bookmarks.
I'd prefer that over a CD, which I currently buy tons of. I think my version will probably only ever exist in my head, though.
Couldn't you just put all of that into a ZIP file and call it good?
I need to build an empire that I can mismanage for years and still not fail because archaic laws allow me to place ridiculous restrictions on the products I lease to consumers even though they think they are buying them...It's to the point where I'm just completely ambivalent to the whole thing now. I used to try and buy albums I found myself listening to often but anymore I just don't bother. The music industry has gotten so much bad press from suing individuals, attacking and limiting fair use, and loading sites with fake torrents and other questionable practices I just don't feel any compassion for their argument anymore. Luckily technology is also making independent studios less costly and allowing new artists to exist that the industry might not have.
Start a government.
Your product could be freedom, your citizens could buy it from you with Taxes, you can restrict the hell out of it.
You can't fail.
And I am actually starting to kick out songs from whole albums since they rarely reach the quality of the main singles. Seriously, when will these guys understand that quality > quantity. I'd rather buy an ep of 5 good songs then an album where only 3 from 15 pieces catch my attention.
Agreed, but the music pirates will say
WTF?!? a 80 minute CD with only 30 minutes of music on it? WHAT A WASTE! THEY DON'T GET MY MONEY! I'M going to download it!!
a 32 minute LP in 1979 cost 3 bucks (about 5 in today's money) which breaks down do about .99 cents per song (in today's money)
wait... .99cents a song? were have I seen that price before?
5 dollar 32 minute CDs...is something that would sell.
just give us flac and stop fighting
Here ya go: http://tunetrack.net/johnjones/releases/black-n-white/
In other news: Universal Sweden is already getting more profits from Spotify than from iTunes.
I think when I got the Saul Williams album produced by Trent Reznor there was a pdf in the zip file with something similar. It adds a little value. I can see it being fun to scroll through while I listen to an album on my iPod, but historically I look at it when I buy the cd and never again.
It seems like you could link it through the id3 tags similar to how album art is done. Nothing fancy. No new formats needed. Just support from players. It bugs me that iTunes puts the album art in every song instead of linking to the file, so if they did the same thing the file size would balloon.
If you want me to buy the full album, how about letting me preview the entire tracks on Amazon and iTunes. Let me sit and listen to the entire thing a couple times on my account before reverting back to the preview clips (kinda like last.fm). A good album is a journey, and if im paying 10x the cost of the song I like, I want to know it's a journey worth taking more than once.
Music drives iTunes, iTunes doesn't drive music. Think about it. If the labels cancelled their contracts with Apple-iTunes, iTunes would fail in a few weeks.
I've been waiting years for labels to release a replacement for iTunes and this sounds like the official start. Apple should be very afraid. So should everyone with an iPod when Apple decides to block importing of MP3's and CDs. Because when the labels finish with their new format, converting that format to MP3 or making a CD and then importing to iTunes will be the only way to get that music on your beloved, monopolizing iPod.
You realize more music is sold on Itunes than Walmart right? That they're the number one retailer of music in the US, if the labels pulled songs other labels wouldn't because it means they would get more market share and sales there. Also, don't underestimate how hard it is to make an itunes equivalent, Microsoft only recently got there with the latest zune software, and open source is kind of a moving target with things like songbird being good but sometimes flaky. Now I understand you meant as an industry they could get together and ban it, but I tihnk that might fall under legal issue along with the fact that apple probably has pretty tight contracts.
@ Nick
No.. Apple are the number one American seller of digital downloads. And how big is the gap between number one and number two?
Remember that iTunes only works with iPods and a few select players from Sony I think. So they are hardly looking to make as much money as possible from it. You like iTunes. great. But please don't be so daft as to think that Apple are able to tell the record labels what to do.
Reality is.. All music sales world wide are way way bigger than the iTunes sales. Bigger than all download sales actually.. And if Apple couldn't sell any of the major labels, do you really think that the iProduct users would not buy them elsewhere? So no. As Apple do not run the only music store, they can't dictate terms to the people they buy the music from.
1) Software other than iTunes can sync iPods.
2) iPods can play files from sources other iTunes.
3) Why would apple sabotage their own media player software?
Wow, just wow. Either this is going to be an open source project ... or these media guys are the biggest idiots in the business world. How do they expect to make this work unless it is open source and backwards compatible with old players?
The idea is great, a universal format that includes artwork and is supported by all media companies. They should have been forcing his on its distributors from the beginning, and they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. The only problem is that it is 10 years too late. There are way too many mp3/aac tracks sold to go back now. Nothing like changing formats on the public to confuse them more about digital downloads.
more formats = confusion = aggravation = piracy = lost sales
Yes, I would like more crap to fill up my HDD, please! Seriously, if I wanted the art work, I'd buy the physical CD. If I wanted to watch the video, I'd go watch it on YouTube, or MTV 84 (whichever number they relegated all the videos to). Now, if you want to include the lyrics to the songs as part of the meta data, THEN you have my attention.
This is already possible with mp3's
Oh pullleeeze. The amount of extra "clutter" we're talking about here is miniscule.
Even iphones have 16G or more. Most devices are even beefier than that.
Some of us have multiple complete TV series on their PMPs.
"yet another format" is the real problem.
where else should one pee but on the side of the road?
The perfect .CMX format would be able to be opened like a .ZIP file, containing all the MP3s of the audio and JPEGs of the artwork.
Possible alternatives: RAR, TAR, GZIP, ZIP, 7z and of course a simple URL to the youtube, but that might not be useful with non-wired devices.
Incidentally, MP3's already support including a picture of the sleeve, although I think that's limited in the size supported? and of course the ID tags can hold all the data, oh and there's even room for lyrics.
Not that I think mp3 is something to be used, if you pay you should get lossless in my view, so FLAC or APE or TTA or something.
I hope you don't see the album art using Adobe Reader. That really sucks all the fun out of the whole experience.
Wow, they just keep beating this dead horse. Forget it, it's over. Go find another job.
then whats the solution?
The solution is artists self publishing.
I represent the OPAA (oil producing association of america) and I propose that all electric cars get a tank that has to be filled with gas twice a week, regardless if you need/use gas, we call that the CMX tank, short for consumer motor xperience.
Please tell your congressman to take our brides, thanks for your support.
I meant 'bribes', please make sure you delete your computer and buy a new one to correct my typo, thanks again, at no time has there been any evidence we arrange marriage and hookers, please keep that in mind, there is no proof.
Which is why I never use any Apple formats. First thing I do whenever I install iTunes is to switch the importing back to the universal standard MP3.
screw the record industry!
They should have never allowed Apple to do the one song purchase business model then. I mean I enjoy my Apple swag but lets be real, the one song instead of the whole album fucked up the record industry. They are always following what the tech guys want. 8 track, cassette, cds and now single songs bought on music services. Damn.
The record industry should have imposed a proprietary media format and said that is it. But no. Instead, every time some schmuck from the tech side comes-a-singing towards the corner office touting the latest media format, them records bitches drink the kool aid. ALWAYS.
And to add insult to injury, the tech guys make the fucking things recordable! OMG! Just what the labels need, right. A new media format whose recording machine is accessible to the general public and Dr.Bootleg at the flea market.
"one song" is actually nothing new. It's how the industry started. The labels tried
to artificially kill off the single format in the 90s right at the same time that the
internet was starting to get popular. At the same time high speed downloads
became widely available they decided to abuse their customers even further
and to try and make the minimum music buy in even more expensive.
iTunes isn't a move forward, it's a move backwards.
It's success is just another indication that the music industry was trying to contradict the will of it's paying customers.
AAC is not proprietary. Even more so the non-DRM formats they have been using for the last couple of years.
Gee whiz, this sounds a helluva lot like what we developed at IBM back in the late '90s with EMMS. The labels had their collective heads up their collective asses then, too--but then again, so did our IBM's draconian legal department, who put up as many roadblocks as the labels did.
at the request of the shareholders.
Just what we need, another DRM format with all kinds of crap in it. Probably will include a feature to check with a central server and delete your music after Sony drops support for it.
This doesn't need to be so complicated. It wouldn't be hard for companies to do something like what the Zune HD does and load all this information into their marketplaces, then sync the info to the device so that it can be accessed by the player while listening to music. Of course, Zune only does this with the artist bio and pictures, but I imagine it would not be difficult to incorporate liner notes as well.
Ah, fewer pastimes are more worthwhile than reinventing the wheel. And making it square or something.
What car is that in that picture?
So, they've invented... ID3 tags?
Right...which is why if I ever decide I don't want an iPod I can just use all my music on my new..oh wait I can't if it's in AAC, but if it's in MP3 I can. I can also stream MP3 to my TiVo and many other devices. AAC cannot because it's not universally accepted like MP3 is.
the confusing came when apple needed to come up with 4 file extensions for the exact same file. Going from .Mp3(Mpeg1 part 3) to .Mp4, .m4v, .m4a .m4p which are ALL THE EXACT SAME TYPE OF FILE (Mpeg4 container format) that holds the AAC file....
I love when people say Mp4s sound better then AAC or vice versa, they are the same damn file!!! hahahaha
I've got this retrospectively for all my music collection - all 90GB of it - thanks very much.
ooTunes on my iPhone, streaming from my home collection gives me sleeve art and lyrics, as well as last.fm-style recommendations.
XBMC on my Xbox gives me this in the living room.
My frigging iPhone does it using the native iPod app after I used GimmeSomeTune to download and embed album art and lyrics in my MP3s.
All aboard the fail whale!
@ Jordan
@ Larry
You are both wrong: AAC and MP3 are BOTH proprietary formats.
Proprietary means that its owner has control of the it. That is absolutely the case with Apple and AAC.
And, contrary to public misconception, MP3 is very much patented and requires licensing fees.
If you want non-proprietary, non-patented, truly open, truly free codes, use OGG and FLAC.
Ok well then I guess my concern with the mp3/aac isn't the proprietaryness of it then. My concern is that, and I will state this again, almost anything will play an mp3, not everything will play AAC. Why would I use AAC when I can guarantee myself that pretty much any device I use will play my files if they are in MP3?
I've just downloaded the last Saturday Lo-fi album from bandcamp site and I could choose any format I wanted, 320k mp3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, FLAC and Apple Lossless.
Itunes still in 128k mp3.
Sad but im happy... The album is excellent! recommanded for fans of Boards of Canada, Beck, Pepe Deluxe!!
"in an effort to boost whole album downloads (as opposed to singles)"
Hmm.. sounds like time to buy stock in turd polish!
Matter of fact is it so hard to come up with a loss-less format that does not take up so much space it probably can be done if people were really willing to do it.
we need a format that has the following.
1 loss-less format
2 small size
3 supports lyrics, liner notes, all tag data
4 support from all devices from computers to music players
5 no drm
6 all online stores carry same format (labels could do this if they wanted by threatening them to drop all music from the stores; they have the power to do so but instead do stupid shit.)
Can I ask why people keep referring to AAC as an "Apple" format? It's not. It wasn't created by them and while the iTunes Store DRM'ed AAC files were a proprietary Apple format, the store converted to standard unprotected AAC files a while ago, so any player that wants to support it can... and it seems that a lot do... Creative, Microsofts, Sonys, Sandisks, Palm, etc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Other_Portable_Players
Now stop making me speak positively of Apple. I swear apple-haters are becoming as illogical and as zealous as the apple fanboys. :p
Because bashing Apple for anything is the trendy thing sheep do.
TAKING BACK SUNDAY!!!!
NEW AGAIN!!!!!
I'M SEEING THEM IN SEPTEMBER!!!!!
Yeah! Awesome! Saw them a few weeks back, it was killer!
Apple's DRM made sure that Microsoft's RM didn't become standard in the music world.
So yes, it was a good thing and the only reason it was created.
Apples DRM made the music free again!!!
So before you guys start seeing this as a negative step from Apple take a minute to think why Apple wants his own RM for stuff sold in the iTunes store.
The answer is more than obvious.
Focus on the bigger picture. This is a chess game not checkers!
People seems to be missing the point of the article. There are 2 formats coming out. CMX backed by the recording industry, and Cocktail backed by Apple, and also ironically by Sony, EMI, Warner, and Universal, the same 4 that are backing CMX. Here's the thing though, which one would get hardware support? I don't see any manufactures announcing support for CMX. On the other hand, if Apple go ahead with cocktail, it's a given that iPods will support them. Although I think neither will go very far in terms of consumer adoption (unless the recording industry actually start releasing albums with all good songs in it to justify the purchase), I can see Apple's Cocktail getting the lead on the get go simply with the hardware support (iPods).
Can we just start with something simple, like lyrics? Why are the recording labels so lazy in cut-n-pasting lyrics into the digital music that people purchase?
All we need is an open source app to rip out the music and remove the DRM, after that the player can just support FLAC and MP3 and OGG.
A long time ago, when people bought 45s, they didn't come with album art, note liners, etc. People bought 45s because they wanted a single song - maybe a one-and-done - instead of an entire album. Same as it was back then, the cost difference between a 45 and a 33 were big enough that you wouldn't want to get a 33 if you were only interested in 2 or 3 songs.
I can't believe the studios are that blind not to be able to see how the 45s from 20 years ago are similar to the single mp3s of today. When I download a song, I don't really care about album art or liner notes. I just want the song that I'm interested in, not all the other fluff. My music player (winamp) can grab the cover art, and that's enough for me.
I think this goes right alongside the slotmusic idiocy.
I want my Marilyn Manson album artwork and enhanced CD extras, not just the album cover.