I think the price is close to right. Although I would like to see more variability in song pricing, I think $9.90 for an album (is that what we call these things?) is reasonable.

If I order a CD online, somwhere between $12.99 and $16.99, I pay for shipping and do without the music until my delivery arrives. Going to the store involves driving, parking, etc., and still results in a cost of $12.99 to $18.99. Granted, I love to browse through records shops, but even independents won't let me listen to every album I pick up, charge me an ever increasing price, and still require me to rip it through iTunes.

In this system, I find what I want, download it immediately via broadband, and the entire album is integrated into iTunes. From inspiration to fulfillment in under five minutes. Love it.

I listen to music almost exclusively through my iPod. I have a cassette adapter for the car, an auxiliary cable for my stereo, and headphones for those times when I'm neither at home or in the car. Despite having well over 700 CDs, I really have no use for them except as physical archives of my music collection.

Given the way that I use music, I think $10 is fairly reasonable.

I haven't had a chance to check it out first-hand, since I'm at work on a PC, but it does seem reasonable. That is, if it works as I understand it: 99 cents per song no matter the length and 9.99 per album no matter the number of songs. Consider Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" which has 5 songs on it, buy each song for 99 cents and you have the whole album for $5. So, it seems if you only plunk down $9.99 for albums with more than 10 songs, it could work out quite nicely.

Not to mention you only have to purchase the songs you want. I've purchased more than my share of albums through the years that only had a few songs I liked.

I'll have a better idea once I get home and try it, but I like what I see so far.

I would love to try it out right now but the server seems to be completely buried! I sure hope that settles down soon. I have a large list of artists whose old albums only have 4 or 5 cuts on them so I'll be in a buying mood, once I can get on.

How does the quality of these files compare to a CD? There's a big difference between an MP3 encoded at 128 kbps and a CD -- is this file format really that much better than MP3?

I think the price is a little high, but I could live with it as long as the audio quality is really CD equivalent.

Edited by author 04-28-2003 03:48 PM
One additional thing that occurred to me is that the variety that the Music Store is capable of hosting, is infinite. I like that from a consumer's point of view, because I listen to nearly every genre out there.

I also like that from a citizen's point of view, because for those who do not live in big cities, people who only have a mall record store or a Wal-Mart for their music choices, will be able to acquire music that may not be stocked, or in some cases, not welcomed because of content or political viewpoint (pulling the Dixie Chicks, for example). Did CDNow and others offer this? Absolutely, but not in this format.

This also opens the way for back catalogs to be re-released. Just as there are plenty of DVDs now being offered that were never on VHS, it would be so much easier for companies to offer out of print music only online, where it doesn't require a huge marketing budget or a big production run. Here's hoping at least.

Has anyone actually been able to use it yet? I have managed to log in and try to browse but it keeps timing out. Either it is getting much more attention than Apple thought it would or they didn't do their capacity planning very well. I'm anxious to see what the jazz library has in it.

Its enough of a break because ALL the songs you get on the CD are ones you picked.

I haven't bought a CD in years because they are almost $20.00 and your lucky if you get 2 good songs in addition to the one song you wanted.

USD 9.90 for a "CD" is an excellent price, actually you get the convenience to browse and listen online and a good price. However not for international customers.

The Internet is global - Apple's service is not ... poor job(s)

Regarding the comments about this new service being US-only at its inception, yes, Apple needs to get on the ball and line up agreements with the international music companies to do the same service outside the US. I would be willing to bet that in its initial stages Apple could only negotiate an agreement for music sales in the US. Hopefully it will be coming to the rest of the world ASAP...

Us non-US Apple users all hoped that the print ordering through iPhoto would become international soon when we were promised that it would 18 months ago. It hasn't. I've pretty much given up on Apple as far as any concern for international customers is concerned.

This service is just another stage in the evolution of the major labels into parasitical entities who do little but reap the profits from musicians labor. Of course this mode of distribution makes it easier for the labels to reissue back catalogs. They'll have no production costs, no marketing costs, and thanks to accounting procedures that make Enron look honest, they wont have to pay the artists either.

The music cartel may be justified to accuse people of stealing music, but these same companies steal money from musicians through routine fraud. Until the major labels start using honest book keeping and paying musicians a fair share, I wont buy their products at any price. My money is better spent on live performances where the musicians will actually get paid.

Edited by author 04-28-2003 06:20 PM
Ludd, you hit the nail on the head. Why do we need the record companies? How much of the 99¢ goes to the artist? That is the real question here.

Also, I'd like to hear what audiophiles have to say about the quality of the recording we are getting for 99¢.

Edited by author 04-28-2003 07:34 PM
Artists like Prince have been doing this for years.
Mark: $20 for a CD, you must be shopping at Sam Goody. Go to Best Buy or Circuit City. I bought the new Robbie Williams and The Ravonettes new CDs for $11.99 total for both (~$6 per cd). Folks that is cheap. $0.99 is going to get some customers, so that makes me happy as a stock holder. I doubt that I will go for it, but who knows. I may want an older song or something. Again, if this makes Apple money then I am happy. :)

Edited by author 04-28-2003 09:23 PM
It's all about greed, boys and girls. No printing costs, fixed costs for servers (and bandwidth), coupled with even more restrictive licensing on the files that you will download. Lemme see: Buy CD and rip anywhere/play anywhere/where when and how I want. Or, cop one of these SteveO AC3 files that I can only put on a limited number of machines. Oh, and my iPod becomes an escrowBox. Nah. I'll stick with mp3s and doing 'CD Sneaker 'Net' with friends. Thanks for nothing, Steve. All this is is proof positive that the Record Industry is running scared and they think that that old geekTechie snake oil'l that Steve sold'em on will save them. The magic's gone, and it won't. It might bump up Apple stock enough for SteveO to release a few more shares, tho'.

Let's see... I think cars are overpriced. The average worker in the plant only gets a small share of the buying price. Therefore, it is obviously ok and completely justified that I go out and just steal the car.

Oh, I also think steaks are ok, and to the best of my knowledge, the steer wasn't paid at all. I better go to the store and steal several steaks! That'll show those greedy store owners!

$.99 is fair for a selection. I think entire albums will not do as well for the "popular" genres as others. Unfortunately, the pop labels tend to manufacture groups that have a quick sell for one or two tunes, but don't have the maturity or skill to fill an album.

There are some other genres, jazz, for example, where fans are more attracted to the skill of the artist, rather than desiring a particular track. Obviously, there will be more pop albums sold, but I wouldn't be surprised if albums were a higher percentage in jazz and other genres.