Jump to content

Jobs says people want to own, not rent


Billster

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I agree. How many people here have had friends that lost the ability to play their MP3s because of a lost internet connection. I have two friends that were huge supporters of the "rent" system until they were on vacation and couldn't play their music.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think my subscription service is one of the best single things that has EVER happened in my music consumer life. (And I have about 1200 LPs and about 600 CDs. As well as about 19,000 mostly tracks I bought from the old Emusic.)

 

It's not perfect but I have access to a HUGE amount of music for a very low monthly fee ($7) AND the quality at 160 kbps ABR is a LOT higher than the poor schlubs buying 128 kbps "keepers" from Apple and other online stores.

 

(Again, the exception is Emusic which sells absolutely the highest quality of any online store I'm aware of, LAME-encoded high VBR files that sound, as a rule, great. And their price per song is much lower than other stores -- however they're now hampered by a really wack buying plan structure.)

 

 

Anyhow, there's NO WAY IN HECK I would switch to buying.

 

 

 

And -- if you want portability -- there are other plans that allow downloading onto portables (of course, Apple's iPod shuts you out there, by only allowing you to play their own copy-protected files -- not any others.

 

[Of course, you can play Mp3s and some other unprotected types on an iPod. So you can rip tunes off your own CDs. Or, I suppose, whatever, if you're so inclined, as clearly most are. I prefer to pay for the music I consume.

 

And as someone will no doubt rush to add you can do an end run around some of the restrictions of the iPod and the iTunes store by burning CDs with store bought tunes and then re-ripping that CD in order to get the music into the media you actually want -- but every time someone suggests that as a viable alternative I pretty well have to laugh right in their face. For what should be obvious reasons.]

 

 

Also -- yes, with my plan you need an internet connection but there's usually one wherever I go. And even if I don't have my own laptop, as long as the machine I'm using has a recent copy of MusicMatch, I can log in and use THAT. (Admittedly, MM Jukebox has become bloated and buggy in recent years, since it was aquired by Yahoo. But it's more minor annoyance, as a rule.)

 

I don't do a lot of driving but when I do, I have all the mp3s I HAVE ripped from my CDs [i find it much more convenient to listen to a good rip than digging through my CDs, finding the one track I want to hear and sneaker netting it over to a disk drive] (as well as those 19,000 tracks from Emusic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's interesting because I think the whole thing is eventually going to have to go the subscription route. Downloading music is never going to stop. Calling it stealing and arresting 12 year old girls isn't going to stop anything.

 

I think ultimately it would be nice to pay a subscription fee and have access to TV shows, films, music, everything. It will never happen that way because the industry will set it all up on value-added tiers, but it would be would solve a lot of problems if we all just paid a single monthly fee and had access to everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And -- if you want portability -- there are other plans that allow downloading onto portables (of course, Apple's iPod shuts you out there, by only allowing you to play their
own
copy-protected files -- not any others.

 

 

am i missing somethign here? my wifes iPod i can connect to the computer and put any mp3 i want in there. i just rip a CD... connect her iTunes to my library [i hate iTunes so i wont install it on my machine, too many services crap associated with it]

 

anyway, it plays my CD originated music... and i rip them at 192, no lower. 128 kinda sucks. i would like to rip only as WAV or WMAlossless, but iPod wouldnt play the WMA i dont think and WAV is just too big for that device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think ultimately it would be nice to pay a subscription fee and have access to TV shows, films, music, everything. It will never happen that way because the industry will set it all up on value-added tiers, but it would be would solve a lot of problems if we all just paid a single monthly fee and had access to everything.

 

My cable TV has digital music channels, but they are not on-demand as far as I can tell. A lot of the TV programming is available on an on demand basis, and the higher digital tiers of service offer Tivo-like service for shows that aren't available on the on demand basis. (there's that tiered srvice you love so much.) And the on demand stuff rotates, so its not cumulative of every video content ever offered. :eek:

 

Anyway, people treat music differently from video content. I don't really understand the video iPod concept, and I really don't understand the iPod video store.

 

#1 - iPod video - Why do I want to watch video on a tiny 2.5" screen? Maybe if I load it with home movies so I can share them with friends and family with super convenience, and I guess you can output it to a proper TV screen with the right cabling. Maybe this makes some small bit of sense.

 

#2 - iVideo store - Why do I want to own a digitized copy of episodic TV shows? :confused::bor:

 

I'd take subscription video before I take subscription music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

{censored}, i dont get the new iTV thing. especially the commercial running right now. they show someone watching a movie on their computer originally, then on the iPod, then now they give you the ability to watch a movie on your TV!!! what a CONCEPT! um, i watch movies on my TV as it is now... and dont watch them on my computer EVER. i make them on my computer.

 

i like the Windows MCE much better acting as a central server for my music and movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


anyway, it plays my CD originated music... and i rip them at 192, no lower. 128 kinda sucks. i would like to rip only as WAV or WMAlossless, but iPod wouldnt play the WMA i dont think and WAV is just too big for that device.

 

 

The only thing you're missing is getting most of the music you want to hear for $7 a month instead getting one small part of it for $18 a CD.

 

But by buying the CD you are getting full bandwidth 44.1/16 bit media and the ability to rip it into any format you want, including lossless. Or, of course, the convenience of being able to play from the CD... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

... AND the quality at 160 kbps ABR is a LOT higher than the poor schlubs buying 128 kbps "keepers"...

 

Can we just kill this tidbit please?

 

If we consider CD the best available digital format for wide use (let's not get into SACD/DVD-Audio/etc.), let's call that a brand new sports car. Your 160k files are like a used Chevy, and the 128k is a used Kia. So let's not get into how much a "better" a 160k mp3 sounds compared to anything.

 

Next, consider the acoustical disaster areas where most people listen to music, never mind the environment where they use portable players. If I'm listening to music in the car with road noise, chattering family members, and the heater fan rumbling at me, do I care about absolute fidelity? If I'm riding the subway, do I notice the superior fidelity over the roar of the train? If I want the computer to play some background noise to improve the environment while I balance my checkbook, am I listening for the dither quality of the last significant bit?

 

Can we just kill this talking point? Please? :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Can we just kill this tidbit please?


If we consider CD the best available digital format for wide use (let's not get into SACD/DVD-Audio/etc.), let's call that a brand new sports car. Your 160k files are like a used Chevy, and the 128k is a used Kia. So let's not get into how much a "better" a 160k mp3 sounds compared to
anything
.


Next, consider the acoustical disaster areas where most people listen to music, never mind the environment where they use portable players. If I'm listening to music in the car with road noise, chattering family members, and the heater fan rumbling at me, do I care about absolute fidelity? If I'm riding the subway, do I notice the superior fidelity over the roar of the train? If I want the computer to play some background noise to improve the environment while I balance my checkbook, am I listening for the dither quality of the last significant bit?


Can we just kill this talking point? Please?
:wave:

 

 

Hey, if you want to listen to 128's and don't care about the difference, that's fine.

 

If a noticeable difference isn't significant to you that's fine.

 

But it is pertinent to me.

 

 

I suggest you just ignore this talking point if it bothers you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey, if you want to listen to 128's and don't care about the difference, that's fine.


If a
noticeable difference
isn't significant
to you
that's fine.


But
it is
pertinent to me.



I suggest you just
ignore
this talking point if it bothers you.

 

Any time somebody brings up iTunes you start in with the 160k streams being better. The difference between 128 and 160 next to a CD is like the difference between two cheap suits compared to a custom tailored job. Stop de-railing the topic. :evil:

 

So, you prefer the subscription model for convenience listening? How does that work at the gym, beach, or airport? Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only thing you're missing is getting most of the music you want to hear for $7 a month instead getting one small part of it for $18 a CD.


But by buying the CD you
are
getting full bandwidth 44.1/16 bit media and the ability to rip it into any format you want, including lossless. Or, of course, the convenience of being able to play from the CD...
;)

 

except i dont buy CD's for $18. i usually get them for $11... and i dont buy that many because there arent that many out there i want to pay for. i do own a lot of them already, and a load more DVD's.

 

i did just buy a CD for $45 but it comes with a DVD and it was an import... i bought another CD with it and it was $11.

 

im REALLY not into sub service for mp3s. they are widely available on the internet for FREE... both illegal and LEGAL. i kinda like the legal ones from new groups, although they REALLY need to learn the ID3 tag because i have this one song i found one night and have no clue who it is.... i want to BUY the CD but cant since i have no clue. i even have it on my cell phone as my ringtone so i can play it for people to see if they recognize it.

 

and i REALLY dont feel i should pay a dime for an mp3, legal or not. the fidelity is so bad i dont think its worth any money and should be considered a promo piece. i do buy everything i hear as an mp3 that i love on CD. its ALWAYS better sounding.

 

i listen to music in two places, a] here on my monitors that cost $5k and b] in my truck which has a nice system installed in it, both places suffer from mp3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

and i REALLY dont feel i should pay a dime for an mp3, legal or not. the fidelity is so bad i dont think its worth any money and should be considered a promo piece. i do buy everything i hear as an mp3 that i love on CD. its ALWAYS better sounding.

 

:thu:

 

Mp3s should be priced according to their weight. An mp3 is usually about ten percent the size of the original file. I think 10 cents would be about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Any time somebody brings up iTunes you start in with the 160k streams being better. The difference between 128 and 160 next to a CD is like the difference between two cheap suits compared to a custom tailored job. Stop de-railing the topic.
:evil:

So, you prefer the subscription model for convenience listening? How does that work at the gym, beach, or airport? Discuss.

Hey, Bill -- SORRY -- I thought the topic was "Jobs says people want to own, not rent"...

 

 

I guess I should fall all over myself for "derailing" you on your bulletin board.

 

Where am I, anyhow?

 

I was confused enough to think I was on a more or less public BB.

 

Sorry, dude.

 

Apparently my mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why doesn't anybody start selling Cd quality or higher online? For those of us who do use computers and ipods in a high fidelity environment, this would make a huge difference in the expansion of online music slaes.. Billster's point is well taken, but the fact high sound quality material is basically unavailable for download is upsetting to me.

 

itunes is too expensive. eMusic is perfect for pricing vs quality. 9.99 for 40 128 mp3's. But I want to see somebody charge a buck a song for CD quality music.

 

I haven't been sold on the netflicks model for music which is what subscription service seem to be. It doesn't seem attractive to me better quality or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Hey, Bill -- SORRY -- I
thought
the topic was "
Jobs says people want to own, not rent
"...



I guess I should fall all over myself for "derailing" you on
your bulletin board.


Where am I, anyhow?


I was confused enough to think I was on a more or less public BB.


Sorry, dude.


Apparently
my
mistake.

 

 

Oh, lighten up. Is the fidelity issue your tipping point?

 

Let's say the technology existed to conveniently carry or exchange 44.1 full CD quality music. Would you own or subscribe?

 

If the current iTunes served up equal 160k files, would you own, or stick with a subscription?

 

If your subscription was 160k, and owning gave you 44.1 - would you own or subscribe?

 

Or do you prefer subscription service for reasons not related to fidelity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lighten up?

 

Any time somebody brings up iTunes you start in with the 160k streams being better. The difference between 128 and 160 next to a CD is like the difference between two cheap suits compared to a custom tailored job. Stop de-railing the topic.
:evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I saw that quote by Jobs too and forwarded it as a joke to my friends who use Rhapsody Unlimited. I actually share one account with 3 people with 3 Mp3 players. As somebody else said, I consider it the best thing since sliced bread (wow I hate that expression). I'm still amazed more people don't use it and actually buy and Rip CDs or pay $.99 to download a song. 'Renting' gives you the option to try new acts you've never heard or download 'stations' and discover new stuff every day. I think its the kind of thing where the idea of it doesn't sound appealing, but then once they actually try it, they'll never go back. Sometimes its actually overwhelling trying to decide what to download.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...