Big iTunes announcement tomorrow

[wgb113]

If it's cloud-based streaming is anyone really that excited?

 

What will they charge (if they even do) in order to displace the money received for local hard-drive space on devices?

 

If it supported entire iTunes libraries I'd be excited. Most likely it's only going to be purchased content though and that sucks because I don't purchase anything from iTunes.

 

Guess we'll see tomorrow...

 

Bill

 

 

[AudioWav]

Yeah really Bill - I agree! If they want to impress me, how about 24/96 downloads, DRM free, and nothing changes about their fee structure. Or if that's too much to ask, how about compression free downloads? I know - I'm still dreaming...

 

[chilest]

I heard it was the Beatles catalog being released on line for purchase.

t

 

[souptin]

+1 for Beatles. Lossless downloads for the bonus point.

 

[tubes59]

I think it's gonna be the Beatles.

 

[bikemig]

Looks like the Beatles is the right answer, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/business/media/16apple.html?hp.

 

[JS21]

Hoping it's lessloss downloads for me.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Anyone care to guess what is the significance of the four clocks?

 

 

 

[poop]

Some play on the flag semaphore issues related to the Help album?

 

Edit: Sorry I can't leave it at that. If this really is about The Beatles hitting the iTunes store, aside from Apple and Yoko, who cares?! The significance is lost on me, especially given the likely terrible quality bitrate it will be in...

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Poo - I with you for the most part. If this big announcement is all about the Beatles it will be for Steve Jobs' ego more than anything. If the Beatles catalog is lossless that's another story :~)

 

[wgscott]

I knew Steve Jobs was getting really thin, but I didn't expect to hear he was living off dead beatles.

 

 

 

[sauerball]

Seriously, it it too much to ask for Apple lossless downloads? I am guessing the files would be roughly 2x the size of the crap they will sell you now.

 

Apple, figure it out! Get the labels on boards! If I am to pay commensurate prices with no physical backup, I should get at least redbook quality.

 

My next rant will be about how they should sell me 24 bit files. In the interim, I will continue to buy CDs. Which is a PITA because I live in China and get to decent CD markets (Japan or the U.S.) only a few times a year.

 

[wgscott]

Although I can hear the difference between a highly compressed mp3 and lossless, I find it a lot harder to hear the difference between Apple's AAC and lossless. I would prefer to buy uncompressed music, but what they sell isn't that bad.

 

[Desk Jockey]

I get that Apple is driven by the overwhelming majority of users that have no interest in the fidelity of the accorded music but at least give those that are interested the option of paying extra for fidelity the privilege of doing so. With a marketing group as strong as exists in Apple who is to say they cannot make a business out of "i-Fi"? Meanwhile I keep buying vinyl.

 

Greg

 

[sauerball]

It is true the difference between iTunes and redbook is small. And it it certainly true that I may not reliably be able to discern the difference.

 

That said, I would hope Apple would sell the higher quality version when the marginal costs are so low. Without question, if you buy a CD, you get Redbook with a physical backup. From iTunes, I get less quality and no backup, but with immediate gratification (although not that immediate if you deal with slow China broadband).

 

A big part of the Apple pitch seems to be paying a bit more for a higher quality experience. I just want the same from ITMS.

 

[MacStealth]

http://www.apple.com/the-beatles/

 

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times are now confirming that Apple has in fact finally struck a deal with The Beatles and their rights owners and is preparing to announce that The Beatles' music will soon be available in the iTunes Store.

 

or

 

iTunes Live

In May, Apple filed to trademark the brand "iTunes Live," describing it as "online retail store services in the field of entertainment featuring prerecorded musical, audio and audiovisual content."

Tomorrows' iTunes announcement, scheduled at 7 AM PST, is unusually early for the company's usual events, suggesting that the news may come from the East Coast where Apple's new North Carolina data center is located.

 

but

Apple does not have the explicit rights to offer an iTunes music subscription service, or to allow customers the ability to stream their libraries to connected devices, music industry sources have indicated.

 

[ted_b]

I'm somewhat surprised that Apple, the best marketing company in the world, would assume this is huge enough to say that we will remember this day forever. Hardly (and I'm a huge ginormous Beatle fan). Most of us baby boomer fans have dozens of copies, including the remasters, bootlegs, etc. It's not like their music was difficult to find up till now!! So what do they do...release standard iTunes lossy stuff (which is no surprise, of course). That format is aimed at the youth, who either care not for the Beatles or already have everything for nostalgia sake (or were brought up properly as purists ). Big non-deal IMO.

 

[tubes59]

Amen Ted.

 

What a complete ho-hum at least for us here....

 

[souptin]

Well shame on you all for your negativity!!

 

Given the history of Apple and Apple Corps, with the never ending legal wrangles...

 

Can't we all celebrate the fact that they have finally come to an agreement, which can surely only be for the greater glory and mutual love of humankind... ?

 

Ummm... to try and sell us something we've already bought, (probably more than once at that), in an inferior quality to what we already have...

 

Yes, it's an imagine no possessions moment. Though I daresay the irony is that this will sell in enough volume to satisfy the money lovers. Not so much the music lovers.

 

[AudioWav]

Being that I'm a GenX'er and right at 40, I appreciate the Beatles but I'm not really a fan. I remember Lennon and McCartney's solo stuff in the early 80's, and remember it being decent but again this announcement doesn't do much for me.

 

What does drive me crazy is the fact that Apple doesn't realize the potential of lossless. They already have a robust catalog to choose from (in general) and I agree with everyone that if they'd offer this I'd pay more per single. If the existing 24/96 download sites had the catalog that iTunes did I'd have been gone along time ago from iTunes. I appreciate the fact that the single downloads allow me a "perfect album side" and so I stay due to them at least being "listenable". I recently downloaded a song that was cut off during the first 1 to 1.5 seconds of the song. When I emailed them about it, asking for them to fix (not for a refund) the next time I logged in the song automatically downloaded again; the SAME cut with the SAME error, and no response from them. Hopefully no one will find this error with any Beatles songs.

 

[bottlerocket]

It said 75% of music is still sold on CDs and Itunes is at best a break even business (not counting the benefit of all those Ipod sales). I guess if you can't make money selling AAC at $12 an album, there is not much incentive to sell higher resolution. Hard to believe they can't make $ selling downloads though. Really hard to believe.

 

[wgb113]

that it's easy enough to do. Most new recordings and all remasters are done in hi-rez, why not offer it to the public at a higher premium? It's done with Blu-Ray (along with loads of bonus content) but the record companies seem intent on "keeping" it from the masses.

 

I agree that if HDTracks or one of the other hi-rez download sites had the catalog that Apple has I'd stop buying most of the CDs that I do tomorrow. Problem is they're too fragmented to attract major labels and not enough people are petitioning Apple to get moving.

 

Collectively, as a group (audiophiles), we need to voice our wishes. Just not sure what the best way to go about that is. I do think that at the moment, Apple's the only company on the planet that'd be able to get the majors on board with hi-rez.

 

Bill

 

 

[gaiusparx]

>That said, I would hope Apple would sell the higher quality version when the marginal costs are so low.

 

I think it is not so much Apple's decision about lossless format. It lies with the labels. And it is not about to change anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

[AudioWav]

I agree with you all. I'm betting it also has to do with the fact that the general public really doesn't care about the difference in sound once you get past the "generally accepted" quality of a 128 bit mp3 (or equivalents). This is confirmed when I come to a stop light in traffic and hear some guy next to me with lower end that is so distorted it sounds like bodily functions rather than bass. Too bad. We'll just have to see. I'm all for helping with creating a voice if we can find the forum to do so.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

There's a reason Apple's ITMS only sells what it sells. And that's iPods. HDTracks shows that hi-res is possible. I'm quite sure that if the world's largest retailer of music wanted to retail hi-res (or even CD-res) material, they'd do it. But would it sell more iPods?

 

I've written about this before, but it's worth saying again. Are you sure you want Apple selling hi-res?

 

Here's a counter argument:

 

The hi-fi industry as a whole is seeing huge pressure and many bigger names are feeling the pinch. Yes, sure, little shops come along all the time, but ask any dealer and they'll tell you -- it's an awful time for selling audio. Which means profits for everyone are way down.

 

I submit that the problem isn't simply a lack of disposable income. That's relatively new, and terrifically cyclical. No, the contraction in hi-fi has been going on for quite a while, and accelerated only recently as more and more CD sales convert to music downloads.

 

Whatever it is that started the contraction is a matter for debate, but part of the current problem is that the sound quality of playback via the average iPod is actually pretty good and "good enough" for the vast majority of consumers. Beats the piss out of my old mixed tapes, that's for sure. Ok, yes, there's always outliers (read: "audiophiles"), but with spending down, there will be fewer, as those that actually have disposable income find other things to apply it to -- that is, other than audio gear. Like I said, it's good enough as it is. Less spend = less businesses = more contraction.

 

Should Apple up the ante, and start creating hi-res capable players and selling hi-res files to fuel those sales, guess where money still isn't going to go? Hi-fi sales. In fact, I suspect that the contraction will accelerate even more. My "good enough" just got "really good", so why should I be "upgrading", exactly?

 

So, I for one am not enthusiastic about Apple going to CD-quality or better. I'd rather see them go with streaming services, with so-so SQ, more or less on par with what they're offering now. Might give the hi-fi industry time to figure out what to do before the hammer finally comes down.