Just Say No...to iTunes

I doubt that many people are going to be using iTunes to fill out their video library; cost and DRM as well as quality make it effectively useless as the article points out.

To be fair, I believe iTunes Video, specifically for TV shows, is a way to allow a viewer to get that one episode they missed so they can join in around the watercooler and talk about that show. Sure, they could wait for the DVD (and miss out all that discussion), but what if they're not interested in purchasing a $40 set just to see one episode? At roughly $2 for an hour episode, that's even cheaper than renting the set after release. It's a direct competitor to a service like Comcast's OnDemand. Additionally, an hr ep should compress to about 100 to 300 megs (Depending on bitrate), which is a reasonable download size nowadays; an average DVD-quality movie file of the same length can easily be a gig or more, a size most people are going to balk at.

Yes, agreed - don't look at iTunes to be filling up your video library; DVDs are still going to be cheaper and better quality in the end. But iTunes Video is not all that bad if you consider what the value is in just getting to watch and catch up on a single episode of a TV show.

I think there is sometimes the tendency to look at iTunes and the products it supplies as part of a perfect plan for domination that Apple controls. But it really started as an incredibly risky experiment to convince music companies to actually provide legal digital downloads. Prior to Jobs doing this, there really was no mass market of digital downloads; he spent more than a year negotiating with all five record labels to get reasonable terms and prices for iTunes. Knowing Jobs' desire for excellence, I'm sure he wanted more than he got, but decided that what he could negotiate was worth going to market with. I think history has proven him right, despite all its faults.

The same has happend with video. Prior to iTunes, where could you get legal, copyrighted digital video content of TV shows? The answer: nowhere (with the exception of DVDs, which usually came out at least a season behind). Yeah, it's not perfect quality (although I have to say, it's a lot better than I expected. I have a link here to a guy who watches iTunes video on a 42-inch plasma and says its really quite good). The key is to remember that by putting this in the market, Apple is demonstrating that there is a convenience market as well as a quality market to address. As the poster above notes, the target market here is probably not the video collector, but more the person who wants to catch up on a show they missed.

Another analogy might help. You can buy a package of Oreo cookies at the supermarket for $2.99. You can also buy it at the convenience store for $4.75. The convenience store still sells a lot of Oreo cookies because they address a market of people who are valuing convenience over money. iTunes at the moment is doing the same thing. But if they prove this market to the studios and networks, you can bet there will be higher definition products and features still to come, because there is money to be made at it. With literally billions of dollars at stake, they just have to go one step at a time.

If you're really going to be a stickler for sound quality, dump your CDs and invest in some vinyl.

Digital music, for the entire length of its existence, never claimed to rival the sound quality of cds or records. The lure of iTunes (and other such services) comes from being able to search a large database of songs and albums, instantly download and play them, and be able to port them to your mp3 player. The convenience of having a variety of albums without having to lug around a wallet of CDs is the main attraction. Sound quality isn't even part of the equation here.

I like the convenience store analogy. iTunes is simple to use. For Audio, 98% of the people are not going to be able to notice or hear the difference between a CD and iTunes audio. Most will not care.

For iTunes video, most everyone is using it to grab missed episodes of TV. I was able to watch all of NBC's Surface in a week to catch up with where the show is now.

This is a convenience site. The quality issues with ITMS is acceptable. The quality of Google video was horrible by any standard and CBS has bailed on them. CBS is now moving to ITMS and will benefit from the existing customer base that goes there regularly to catch up on their favorite TV shows.

People do not want to go to multiple sites to get content. You would not buy a TV that only played one or two stations that were preset to two proprietary networks and another TV for others. iTunes is a one stop shop and everyone will eventually be there.

Until the market demands a higher quality from the TV industry for online content, it will not be there.

for now iTunes has won the battle for legal online music and video content for sale.

It comes down to convenience and critical mass of people already using the service.

The iTunes MUSIC store is more acceptable with DRM because you can always burn to a CD, and then re-rip the music to your PC/mac as a .mp3. But, as far as I know, you cant do this with video.

And about teh sound quality issue: buy.com sells mp3s (same ones as realplayer/napster, without the iTUnes exclusive ones) but has an option to download 256kb/s version, rather than the standard 96 or 128. (For the same price, but not on every song.)

Some information is a little incorrect to, Lost season 1 is not $47 unless you download each show separately as they're aired, the whole season is $34 on iTunes.
Also, the video really could be closer to some kind of HD version that's bigger than 320x240 with less pixilation. But to be honest, the compression is REALLY nice. It's just the size is too small. An iTunes download of Lost is got a cleaner picture than a bitorrented xvid/divx copy of Lost of twice the size. the compression on those is incredibly noticeable with smears and artifacts. iTunes videos are a lot harder to see artifacts. DRM is a pain also but to be honest, you will NEVER be rid of it unless our corporations change. The music isn't bad since you can burn it a few times etc. But it sucks you can't watch the video in anything but iTunes, iPod and QuickTime.

Also I think the music for the average person sounds fine and is of fine quality. 128kbps AAC (if they're still using that and not Apple lossless which is even better) is better than mp3 128kbps and for any normal person sounds perfectly fine. I haven't noticed anything wrong with any of them. For the ones who notice they more likely to buy vinyl or CD anyway.

I do think there's some concerns with iTMS but not sure it's as bad as you say it is. I mostly use it for convenience, which someone had a nice reference to convenience stores in the comments.

Hm, I wasn't aware of the quality issue, since I've never used iTunes. It would be one thing if they used AAC+, but if quality is poor, that's not the case.

Couldn't agree more about DRM treating customers like criminals. The Sony/Betamax decision established the Fair Use Doctrine, which means we can record for personal and educational use. But the RIAA and MPAA have successfully established that this applies only to analog, not digital. IMHO that is unconstitutional, but with our new reactionary Supreme Court, alot of things are about to change like that.

Myself, I use internet radio, and find stations through Shoutcast, Xiph, etc. In Linux we have an app called Streamtuner, which collects all the radio stations from all major sources and aggregates them into one unified interface. I have hundreds and hundreds of stations, most commercial-free except for station ID. And they play the music you can't get on commercial radio!

I can also record, although that is generally prohibited by broadcasters. They can detect recording through the HTML User Agent when the ripper connects, and they send artist/title metadata at random times so you can't get clean songs without setting offsets. But it is great music to listen to.

Normal mp3 streams are about 160kbps, or about half a DSL's bandwidth. The new mpeg4 audio codec (AAC+) promises to greatly reduce that bandwidth and increase quality, but has not been taken up by broadcasters yet for some reason.

I wholly, absolutely agree with everything the writer of the original article said. I think some people may be inclined to forgive apple and its iTunes store its shortcomings because, hey, it's cool, it's Apple.

I'd rather go for something a little clunkier if I can get higher quality though :/ I think I'm in the minority though, sadly. I wish companies would stop treating their consumers with so much mistrust though! Encumbering content with forced restrictions can never breed a good relationship between consumer and retailer, regardless of who the provider is.

What I really don't understand is the constant complaining about DRM.
I never ran into any problem with DRM'ed music. I purchased dozens of songs from iTunes. I was able to rip all my CDs without any problems.
Just a few days ago I heard somebody complaining about the 7 copy limit in iTunes, who would need 8 copies of the same playlist?
Ok, Sony was out of line with the rootkit, but that problem got fixed because the consumer didn't accept it. And if you ever get any problem with the Fairplay DRM it is so incredible easy to remove it. Just burn it to an audio CD and then rip it again. Now don't tell me that this process is too complicated.

I guess most people complain about DRM just for the sake of complaining and not because they had problems with it.

And no, i'm not a newbie. I already downloaded music from the net before there was mp3. Geez, I still remember having to wait ages to download a 400kb wav file.

Stefan, it is not for the sake of complaining. Let me help you understand:

I cannot use iTunes, as I am unwilling to buy a custom piece of hardware just to listen to music. I already have an iPaq, which I use for lots of things (including navigation with TomTom) and I like to listen to music on that. Can't do it with iTunes music without the contortions you note.

And on a deeper level, DRM communicates a philosophy of 'guilty until proven innocent', which is unAmerican and dangerous; it inconveniences 95% of the law-abiding population, to impede 5% who use it illegally. There are implications from a philosophy like that for our future, but I won't explain, as you likely wouldn't listen.

I use iTunes every single day. I don't have any issues with the sound quality and I have downloaded a couple hundred songs, never having any problems with DRM. first of all you can deauthorize the computers so the 5 comp limit is not a big deal at all(I'm curious as to who owns 5 computers and needs music on all of them anyways). And the video is meant to use on your iPod, I don't know about other people but I want the file to be as small as possible, even if that means it doesn't look great on my TV. And for all the people that complain it is expensive, CDs at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. are $13.99 on ITMS they are $9.99 that is a good deal. And if you think it's a rip off buy the CDs at the stores for $13.99+. Finally I don't think there is any online music/video store that meets all your requests so we might just have to deal with a few minor inconveniences.

For you people saying just burn it to a CD and rip it again, I take you don't understand anything about the technology.

AAC (what Apple sells you) is a lossy format meaning data is completely removed in the name of filesize. When you burn that to a CD you don't automatically get CD quality music, you still get lossy music, and then you're going to convert it again? After buying your music from iTunes there is no way for you to convert it to another format without even more data being thrown out. Furthermore, most encoders aren't particularly good at handling already lossy content, so your final file will have more artifacts and sound worse than ripping it from the pressed CD you could have bought.

You might be quite content with the DRM now while you have an iPod and iTunes, but do you realize that your music will most likely never be compatible with a player that doesn't have an Apple logo? When the iPod is no longer the number one device, and when people quit thinking MP3 Player/DAP equals iPod, all that DRMed music which you bought and "own" won't be any good on your non-Apple device.

If Apple were to start offering their music using their lossless codec, ALAC, then that would be a step in the right direction. Then you could burn the CDs and rip them again without losing quality and without keeping the DRM. However, the vast majority of customers would be upset with the 250-400 MB per an album that would be the result unless it was just an option for those who wanted their music lossless. However, even if Apple wanted to offer lossless files there is a slim to none chance the record labels would allow them, and if they did an even smaller chance they'd allow it at a price that continues to be better than just buying the physical CD.

iTunes DRM:

Never been an issue for me. Seriously, I find it to be completely transparent. Would "no" DRM be better? Hell yes, but it's not going to happen. No matter how much everyone hates DRM, no matter how many calls for boycotts exist, we're never going to have DRM free digital media.

Price:

I actually tend to think that this is an area where Apple has gotten it right and deserves kudos for going out of their way to "keep" it right. Do you think the pricing would be 99 cents and 9.99 per album if anyone "other" than Apple were in charge? I don't. Variable pricing is "only" okay if it caps out at 99 cents.

Quality:

I'm not going to deny that there is certainly a quality difference between an uncompressed "loss-less" audio file and what we get from the iTunes music store, but the quality is certainly high enough that I'm not bothered by the lossy nature of Apple's AAC format. Would it be nice if they offered a way to download a hi-quality alternative? Yes. There are some songs that I would probably pay an extra 25 cents in order to get a full quality song. Does this mean I'm at all unhappy with the quality of the songs I "have" bought? No.

Just Say No:

That sounds good in theory but we're talking about an emerging technology. I support it because I think it's scads better than the old distribution model. As Carl Howe has mentioned, bigger and better things are on the way and if no one supports the model in its infancy why on earth would the music labels continue to develop a new model?

iTMS video

Your big issue seems to be quality, but Apple doesn't even "try" and pretend that these videos are intended for anything other than iPod use. They certainly claim that they're acceptable on some TVs, and this isn't a false statement. You can bet that when they push into the living room, we'll be seeing hi-def downloads of some sort. You're faulting the product for not doing things that it's not intended to do. The price is obviously right, as well... as people are buying. The market has spoken. (It said yes.)

You might be quite content with the DRM now while you have an iPod and iTunes, but do you realize that your music will most likely never be compatible with a player that doesn't have an Apple logo?

Yeah, I am... and I would expect that so is 99% of the digital music buying public. You seem to project an ignorance onto the rest of us that is unfounded.

However, even if Apple wanted to offer lossless files there is a slim to none chance the record labels would allow them,

Which is a good reason why you should be upset with the record labels instead of with Apple. Apple seems to be striving for a great service that does everything it can to satisfy everyone that is needs to satisfy in order to exist at all. The "only" reason you're not more satisfied is because of what the Record Labels will or will not allow. Telling people "not" to use a service that they enjoy is like a vegetarian harassing me because I enjoy the cooked meat of animals. "Thanks for the sermon, now stop bothering me while I make my own decisions about what I like and don't like."

Lets face it, iTunes is a success because Apple managed to hit a balance between price, quality and DRM that we (the consumer) find to be acceptable. If they hadn't, they would not be the leader in digital downloads that they are. Will the service eventually mature? Yep... because people are supporting the service in it's current incarnation.

Just say no and we'll be buying over-priced CDs with filler for the rest of our lives.

Brian, it sounds like you are just resigned. I guess that's a decision each of us has to make for ourselves. But there are viable alternatives now, as noted in this thread.

Quote by Brian Ford:
As Carl Howe has mentioned, bigger and better things are on the way and if no one supports the model in its infancy why on earth would the music labels continue to develop a new model?

Why on Earth would the record labels need to be involved in the first place? This is a rare and golden opportunity for disintermediation. Thousands of producers, rather than five record companies. Only competition will bring a more satisfactory product.

Yeah, I am... and I would expect that so is 99% of the digital music buying public. You seem to project an ignorance onto the rest of us that is unfounded.

99%? You think 99% realize what DRM is let alone that there are other DAPs than Apple's selection? Maybe 99% of Slashdot or Engadget readers, but 99% of the "digital music buying public?" I bet at least half of the users actually believe ripping at 128kbps is CD quality, and that they'd probably all pass a blind test when comparing those rips to the actual CD. (If that's CD quality what are all the settings better than it? Are lossless files Super Enhanced CD quality?)

Which is a good reason why you should be upset with the record labels instead of with Apple. Apple seems to be striving for a great service that does everything it can to satisfy everyone that is needs to satisfy in order to exist at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am also upset with the record labels, but I don't see Apple as a savior. Apple is a big business and their main goal is to make money. iTunes isn't just a store selling music - it's a way of keeping customers using Apple products. I wouldn't think for a minute that everything Apple's doing is for the best of the customer, and I really don't think anyone else should either.

I agree they are taking giant steps forward and helping the industry move into the digital age, and that's great. But I refuse to settle for what they have to offer, and as such, I agree with the OP in that a lot of people aren't seeing the bad side and need to open their eyes. It's not about preaching to people not to use iTunes, it's about educating them on the negatives of the service. Perhaps less "Just say no to iTunes" and more "Here's some reasons I believe you should say no to iTunes."

Lets face it, iTunes is a success because Apple managed to hit a balance between price, quality and DRM that we (the consumer) find to be acceptable.

And advertising! Most of their success comes from pulling people in and becoming bigger names than the competition. For buying music, Napster was the only one that had a chance of getting away with not spending as much in advertising as Apple, but they blew it taking too long to get out the gates and then wasted more time getting DAPs on board. (Though surely turning around the bad publicity may have requried some time.) When was the last time you saw a real commercial for any DAP or Digital Music store that wasn't Apple? I've seen a few for Napster and a couple of late night ones for Rhapsody but that's it. Apple pumped a lot of advertising dollars into this machine and it got them a lot more customers than the glowing reviews of their service.

Just say no and we'll be buying over-priced CDs with filler for the rest of our lives.

Perhaps when it comes to the "buying a CD for just one song" category. I'm not one of those people, most of the time I enjoy the majority of the songs on a CD and when I buy them they are usually not more than $13. While I'd agree with that being over-priced for a CD, I feel the $9.99 on iTunes for the music at 128kbps AAC is much more over-priced for what you get. For $4.01 I'm getting the physical media. I'm getting the ability to convert the music to any format I want and even at better quality than what iTunes can offer (the DRM on CDs just continues to be less restrictive). I'm getting the ability to play it on any CD player and any DAP. I'm getting all the original artwork. I'm getting the ability to buy devices from other companies in the future and still having access to that music. All that for $4.01?

I'd much rather have that.

I use iTunes alll the time and have never been bothered by the DRM. I rip my own CDs to MP3 and subscribe to a number of podcasts and it works just great for that.

I have downloaded over 250 songs from iTunes, and I am very happy with all of the items that I have downloaded. I will never stop using iTunes until the day Apple goes broke, and that will be WAY after I am dead.

By supporting the iTunes store with your business you are saying that what they are doing is okay, and it isn't.

But it is okay, which is why its so popular. iTunes strikes a great median between quality, convenience, and a good price point. The sound quality for the AAC music files is very good. Is it CD quality, no. Do I care. Mostly not. There are artist where I feel, absolutely I need CD quality or above; and I may go back and repurchase the album again on CD or cassette if possible. But most artist just don't have the vocal range or musical range that demand that, so no biggie. I'm not trying to rock the block, and awe them with my fantastic sound system, I'm trying to enjoy my day, get work done, and play some music.

But also, the argument skims over the technical, which does have AAC providing a better sound quality than MP3, at a smaller file size. Just as mentioned by jerome. Additionally, the quality of the video file size from Apple, is actually superior to a number of freely available downloads. I think the issue you may have is the display size, which is 320 x 240.

As someone who does fan music videos as a hobby, I can tell you, frame per frame Apple's videos often beat the life out of quite a number of reported XVID quality downloads. Whether that's due to faulty labeling, compression codecs, or any other factor I can't say. But I can say, when I'm converting the image over to DV, so that I can use it in either iMovie or Final Cut Pro; I unless I clipped directly from DVD, I almost always prefer to use a video purchased from Apple—things like lighting, consistency, and screen density all just seem to be better across the board. That's not to say that you can't find some great XVID clips, and I do have some uploaders that I'll search for, because they do great work, but who wants to spend time downloading three or four different versions of the same product trying to find the best one.

I was going to say lots of other things, but Brian Ford has already stated them so well, that I'll just second his statement; and move on to a different issue:

It's possible to want, request, or even demand lossless quality without condemning what's currently available.

I say this, because I think the argument for lossless or higher quality formats can and should be made. But every time I see someone arguing for them, the argument seems to become a denigration against Apple/iPod or whatever is currently popular, and calling people fools or uninformed for wanting and or enjoying it. These arguments aren't either or; and making them such typically just makes them loosing arguments to a degree.

Not too many people are going to argue for a lossless album download, when they find out that their download time just went from 5 minutes to an hour or more. But that doesn't mean, we shouldn't keep encouraging the option for those who don't mind. One, I think arguing for lossless, foster the development of better compression formats and higher speed broadband. It's not just an argument for lossless, its an argument to not settle, because better things can be done.

Two, I do believe that lossless should be an option for those who want it. Just like occasionally I still purchase a CD or cassette to get the sound or vocal quality I know an artist has, that's missing in a downloaded file; it would be nice to be able to say, yeah Julia Fordam purchases always need to be lossless, but Natasha Bedingfield rocks perfectly fine at standard compression. I already have a terabyte of storage in LaCie FireWire drives, and will probably be purchasing another terabyte this year. I have no desire to have my entire music collection in a lossless format, it just takes up too much space.

Ill not touch the DRM issue for now, this comment is already long enough, for a basic ditto.

I think Carl Rowe's observations about Apple iTunes are spot on! I am sure that iTunes Marks a turning point in the way we as consumers buy our music. It has given the music industry a viable business model for selling their music online and we are just starting to Broadcasting companies adopt it.

IPOD Consumer = Sucker!
Simple Math

Well, hymn-project.org evens it up a little.

Considering that Apple OWNS about 70%+ of the online music business, I'd say the verdict is in: Consumers are ok with the quality and DRM.

I've worked professionally in the music world, and I'm cool with the quality. I mean, for 99 cents, I can "cherry pick" a CD, and only get the tracks worth owning. The Album Oriented Rock of the 70s and 80s is history.

Further, most music today is the product of marketing, not talent. Talent would be people writing and performing their own music, and that's almost only in the country music segment today. As a result, most CDs today have about 3 decent songs on them. So, I'll pay the $2.97 for the three songs, and let somebody else pay $15.99 for the whole CD at Wal-mart. The $15.99 guy is still gonna end up listening to the same tracks I do.

A major benefit of this "cherry picking" shopping is that producers are less inclined to put "filler tracks" on CDs. I expect most new music now will improve, probably because they will require performers to buy songs from accomplished songwriters.

Remember when Britney Spears thought she could write her own stuff? Awful.

Oh, don't worry... m4p was reverse-engineered by Real Networks, who's actually behind the Hymn Project.

Real BTW, sells music at 192bit and for $0.49/song. And it'll play on your iPod.

99%? You think 99% realize what DRM is let alone that there are other DAPs than Apple's selection? Maybe 99% of Slashdot or Engadget readers, but 99% of the "digital music buying public?" I bet at least half of the users actually believe ripping at 128kbps is CD quality, and that they'd probably all pass a blind test when comparing those rips to the actual CD. (If that's CD quality what are all the settings better than it? Are lossless files Super Enhanced CD quality?)

Let's say I'm a little high in that. I would certainly say this: If 65% is the crowd that you label the Slashdot or Engadget crowd... I'd say that they know what they're getting into. The other 35% just want something that works and aren't audiophiles who will notice a difference between iTunes quality and CD quality. In other words, they won't care.