UBB.Developers Forums General Discussion Chit Chat Apple launches online music store

Apple introduced it's new iTunes Music Store today, along with new models of their popular iPod and a new version of iTunes designed to work with the new service.

It is being touted as downloads done right, where you can download tracks at 99 cents a pop. Their music catalog launched with ~20,000 songs, and has the backing of major music labels (i.e. it's legal).

Of course, it only works with Macs for the time being. (Yay, I have one! well two actually). Uses AAC format, and is supposed to be easy to use.

I for one can't wait to get home and try it out.

Only for Macs eh? Hmm...Well I hope this will happen for PC sometime. Back in the day of Napster record companies were discussing about alternative ways to get music legally...At 99 cents a pop. I love the idea about previewing before commiting to a song selection. I'm down with that idea.

With some of the major labels jumping on to this idea - they know bootleg and warez won't end - they are approaching the issue of acquiring illegal music in a constructive manner...And I think this has potential. Imagine if the companies release rare "remixes" and imports of their songs at maybe 1.50 - 2.00 a pop? People will go for that. I would.

iTunes doesn't have to end with music either. Could this expand to Music Videos too? Recently I've been heavily interested in music videos (mainly the 80's) and I would love to have a place where I can buy them. There isn't much selection of music videos right now out on VHS or DVD. I hope the music companies consider this option.

While 20,000 songs isn't much at the moment that's a grand start. Maybe the companies are assessing how this goes and based on positive results, they'll release more songs. I'm anticipating iTunes (or something like it) will come to PCs soon.

Thanks for the link Tack.

lol...lost a zero there somehow...200,000 songs, which sounds much more respectible. They don't have all bands, but do have a number of exclusive bands.

In any case, I found it to be extremely cool, and extremely easy to use. Downloaded a whole album for $10 instead of on a per song basis. Then burned it to a CD, where it is presently playing on my bookshelf stereo. Some albums are more money, but most of the ones I saw were around $10.

Supposedly, it will be available to Windoze users by the end of the year (Apple wouldn't mind converting a few fence sitters before then). The new iPods work for both Mac and PC, so there aren't different models anymore (available @ 10, 15 and 30 gig capacities)

The best thing about iTunes (and other web enabled applications, like Shelock/Watson), is that you can really simplify using the web, but still leverage it's wealth of information.

Sound quality is quite good (I think the songs are burned at 128), so you get decent sound in a small package.

aaahh.. that was my next question - re: the quality. This is mostly for a portable audio device, rather than hi-fi. Have they said anything about using their upcoming mp4 technology with it?

bah, I get javascript errors on the page

They claim quality at 128kbps is much better with the AAC format compared to MP3. I think it sounds great. Of course, you would have to compare an off-the shelf CD in a proper environment, with the proper equipment

AAC is based on the MPEG-4 spec, which is why you also need to upgrade your Quicktime as well as iTunes.

Downloaded songs can be played on up to 3 authorized computers, unlimited iPod devices, and burned to CD. Of course, you could also re-rip your CD.

PC reads it as an Audio CD.

Cool it sounds like a good deal then

I'm curious about Apple's claim of AAC being equivalent to ISO format...And that it's better than MP3. Direct WAV to MP3 (let's say 128kbps since that was Apple's claim) is probably the best conversion method that I can tell without losing much quality, with a low distortion rate. It may be possible that the AAC vs ISO statistics were based on the older MP3 encoding methods? Then again I could be off my rocker since I'm not much for a digital, but an analog man.

Err, forgot what this thread was about. Heh.

Ahh yeah...iTunes. I like the concept.

S'posedly, what AAC does is dump some redundant data and some of the frequencies that lay outside of a human's audible range. This allows them to reduce the file size without having to sacrifice a lot of the quality. It's also one of the reasons that quality degregates if you try to re-rip an AAC file as an MP3, as MP3 is looking for pieces that were thrown out.

Interesting point here. While I understand the concept behind AAC, I am questioning the encoding methods. My idea of high end audio quality is to reproduce the audio content closest to the audio source. By eliminating any data, regardless of the frequency range, is already compromising the value of the source material. Isn't there a natural drop-off rate in audible frequencies?...Surly won't be natural if the original frequency range isn't present. A classical song without the ambience, the energy isn't much.

A lot of anticipation for the MPEG-4 but with the lack of encoding support, AAC may never reach it's potential. Don't mind me getting off topic here. I just find audio discussions fun.

I just thought about something...Maybe the reason AAC is used instead of other popular formats is to deter bootleggers from burning and distributing the music on disc? Hmm...