I can't believe noone has brought this up yet. Apple just annouced that they have deals with 5 of the biggest record labels to sell music online for 99c per song or $10 per album. Format is in AAC which begs the question: can the Empeg do AAC in the form that Apple is implementing? The iPods will all support it soon.

-Hoagy.

Looks like it's time for me to buy a decent Mac.

Any guesses why they're doing AAC instead of MP3? It appears that there's no DRM of any kind going on here. Maybe it has something to do with patent royalties?

Probably to push QuickTime 6, which is one of the few MPEG-4 decoders out there.

There is some kind of DRM going on, but not much. From the Apple site :

...you can play your music on up to three computers, enjoy unlimited synching with your iPods, burn unlimited CDs of individual songs, and burn unchanged playlists up to 10 times each.

Well they do have limitations.. can't play it on more than 3 devices at a time, can't burn a playlist more than 10 times without changing the playlist.. etc. But it's unclear as to whether the control mechanism is just iTunes, or if it is built into the file format somehow.

Primarily they are selecting a new format in order to control it better and sell more Apple hardware. Many current mp3 devices become obsolete today unless they can be upgraded. I haven't seen any analysis of the Apple AAC yet to determine what kind of DRM might be used, but I'll be anxiously awaiting an AAC -> MP3 converter with minimal loss of sound quality.

This was a brilliant move on Apple's part.
-Hoagy.

...you can play your music on up to three computers, enjoy unlimited synching with your iPods, burn unlimited CDs of individual songs

... rip those CD's to MP3, share those MP3's with the entire world, without any kind of DRM at all...

This is my favorite part on that page :

...The secret? It’s the new AAC format, which combines sound quality that rivals CDs with smaller files sizes (compared to MP3s).

How can any compression be better than the original??? Unless Apple isn't ripping their AAC tracks from CD's, but from the original master reel on which the track was recorded. (I seriously doubt that though )

Actually, I heard (possibly from Steve's speech) that they are indeed going to master tapes for sources of the older stuff.

-Hoagy.

sound quality that rivals CDs

How can any compression be better than the original?

I'm assuming that you assume that ``rivals'' means ``exceeds''. It does not. It means ``to possess qualities or aptitudes that approach (those of another)''

Seems to be a AAC decoder here. AAC files seem to have different profiles though and I doubt it can read the Mac profiles..

Many current mp3 devices become obsolete today unless they can be upgraded

Hardly.. nobody declared the iPod obsolete because it doesn't support WMA (as used by other music sale sites, especially in Japan).

Rob

I dunno.. I think Apple actually has the marketing muscle and industry backing to make this take off. Everyone was avoiding .wma because of the evil empire. Microsoft must be crapping their pants by now. They may have just lost the online DRM battle.

-Hoagy.

Lost the battle for what crappiest file format ? The apple format still has DRM. What's the point of buying something that I don't get to do what I wan't with. Granted the apple format sounds pretty liberal but I would still rather just buy the cd and not have to worry about it.

Not that is matters much for me anyway I do not have a mac and I can't see buying one so I can pay .99 cents a song when most of the stuff I listen to is avaliable cheaply from the record label.

Bottom line: if I can't get it onto my Empeg cheeper or easier than buying the CD, I'm not interested. Burning a CD and then ripping it back down isn't going to do the trick. Maybe I'm part of a minority that won't make a difference, but if Apple wants my money they're going to have to do better.

Just saw this article on ZDNET :
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-998880.html

It explains almost all the questions we could ask about the new iPod:
- does iTunes and music download be avaible under Windows ?
- does it use DRM ?
- is iPod upgradable ?
- what about copyright ?
- what about AAC ?
- ... and more

I really don't see what the big deal is...

Windows Media Player has three music buying services built in, PressPlay, Music Now and Cinema Now. Well I guess that is two and a movie buying service. That's not including buying CDs through the "Media Guide."

Now I haven't done a lot of research on these, but I am sure they all have their own versions of Digital Rights* Management. Is it just because this is Apple doing this that it seems like the second coming?

Personally, until one of these services offers higher quality downloads I won't be buying. I had an Emusic subscription for over a year, but the limited bit-rate turned me off.

* yeah, right...

Windows Media Player has three music buying services built in

Well, first, in my experience WMP really sucks. I have issues with iTunes, but it doesn't suck.

But that's beside the point. I'll admit that I have not seen the services you refer to, but to me the reason that the iTunes store is so cool is it's interface. I don't have to sign up for anything in order to be able to browse and even listen to snippets. I don't have to do a thing beyond install iTunes 4. And the interface to the store is almost exactly the same as the interface to your local music.

It most closely resembles the experience to be had of going to a real music shop of any online purchasing I've ever seen. It's easy(-ish; I still hate genre splits) to browse, importantly.

Just a side not. In the first 18 hours it was open, Apple sold 275,000 songs at $.99 per song. Now that is impressive, especially when you consider that only applies to the Mac market currently, as there is no itunes for the windows/linux users.

Actually I remember hearing that MS was supposed to have DRM to those same 5 record companies specs, and SonicBlue was signed on to support it with hardware in Q1 2003. The new DRM would allow people to download and listen to unlimited music for $20/month but if you ever cancelled the service then all the music you downloaded, including the music on your portable device, would stop working. MS said they could not finish in time, so they expect to roll it out Q2 or Q3 2003.

Apple got around the complication of this by simply charging per song, as the record companies said they would allow people to burn the downloaded songs to CD for $1 per song, meaning the new DRM is unlocked for $1/song.

All this should be very exciting in the future, at a cost of $20/month.

Jeremy Briggs
www.carplayer.com

Ok, who is this? It certainly can't be Bitt. I mean, the logic is close to the money, but the grammar has dropped down a slippery slope.

"it's interface?" Woah.

"beyond install?" Hmmm.. "Think Different" And then "almost exactly" - topper!

Hehehe.

Price is too high, quality is not there. It'll buy them a lot of buzz and it'll help the sale of iPods and Macs.

Bruno

Whew. I've had a headache all day. I should just stay in bed. I don't understand what your problem is with ``beyond install'' or ``almost exactly,'' though.

I didn't get a good listen to the quality of the snippets, which I assume, but don't know, are of the same quality as what I'd be buying. But, as you say, it's still too expensive. If it's $10 an album (and I'm not inclined to purchase individual tracks), I need to be restricted less if I'm only going to be saving a few dollars.

What I'd really like to see is a store that would allow me to purchase a CD, send the CD to me, but allow me to download the tracks in the meantime. Instant gratification is where it's at.

The songs are not of the same quality as my LAME encoded VBR files if other online reports are true. I'd have to verify myself of course. However, having an original CD can't be beat for versatility. I can always re-encode again in a future format. Decoding the AAC only to reapply another lossy compression isn't going to be ideal.

"Almost exactly" - are you serious? If it's EXACT, then there's no "almost" about it. If it's "almost" then it's not exact. The two words contradict each other and should be used exclusively of one another. I'm sure you'll dig up some proof that it's acceptable usage but I've always been taught it isn't. The "beyond install" should have been "beyond installing." Not that I'm a stickler for that sort of thing of course. Though, I did nail my girlfriend this afternoon for sending out a mass email full of apostrophes where there should have been none. No pun intended...

I have to figure out sometihng to do tonight so I can can avoid writing this evening off as a complete veg session. Hmm...

Bruno

"beyond install" should have been "beyond installing."

Either would be correct. Two different syntactic forms to convey the same information.

If it's EXACT, then there's no "almost" about it.

I didn't say that it was exact. I said that it was approaching exactitude. I will give you that something is either exact or not, but something can approach exactness without being exact. What term do you use in this instance?

Ok, you do have a point about the degree of similarity. However, I slightly goofed by not providing a more complete quote and therefore not providing the proper context to illustrate why the word shouldn't be used. Guess I was a bit sleepy too.. Actually, there's a good example above of what you just made a point about: "more complete" - the degree of completeness.

In the case of the "exactly" example, you should simply omit the word "exactly." It's superfluous because you've used the word "same." If something is "the same" it should already be a given that it is exact. Otherwise it isn't the same. So "almost exactly the same" should be just "almost the same," or alternately, "almost exact."

I'll give you the "install" as a matter of style.

Bruno

This could be a PBS show "Grammar Wars". They could show a sentence and there would be a debate over if the grammar is correct or not

That's a frighteningly good idea, Matt.

In the case of the "exactly" example, you should simply omit the word "exactly." It's superfluous because you've used the word "same."

Good point. I was trying to be emphatic, but that might have been the equivalent of ``very, very''.

In the case of the "exactly" example, you should simply omit the word "exactly." It's superfluous because you've used the word "same."

Good point. I was trying to be emphatic, but that might have been the equivalent of ``very, very''.

Or, uh... dare I say, "really unique"?

Whaddya think the chances are of getting support for this on the Empeg? I'm betting with a license fee for AAC, plus who knows what for Apple's DRM, and the fact that you can hack the Empeg kernel (not good news for a DRM system) means it's not likely.