KVR Audio

progfusion74 · Post by **progfusion74** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:28 pm

I don't use an iPod although I wish I could. I use secure WMA from musicmatch as my form of legal downloads, which is obviously not iPod compatible. This does give more flexibility since in theory this will work with msn music and napster as well, i.e. the same device can play music from all 3 online stores. That said, I am more than happy with musicmatch, since I have a subscription to their premium services as well.

I only wish there was a device that looked as good as the iPod that I could use. I am hoping that something comes out this year cause I want one.

Back to the original issue. I tend to think Apple are masters at marketing, branding and creating a lot of hype around products that are not quite that good, but people buy into it and in the case of the iPod make it a brand in itself. Since Apple is raking in the money, don't expect any change in philosophy any time soon.

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:32 pm

I have a feeling that most labels would not license their material for use in a country without adequate copyright protection. I have a feeling that Shane may be correct. Also keep in mind that the way licensing deals work, artists may or may not receive royalties for their music via this service. In the old days, services like columbia house would set up deals with labels that would screw over artists, to where they would receive little or no royalties for their work. Read the book songwriters market for more info.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:01 pm

S_A_P wrote:Honestly- I would *maybe* purchase a uncompressed wav format of music from an online vendor, but paying for something that has been encoded in a format like Mp3 is ludicrous to me. Really it just proves that most people who listen to music dont really give a shit about it. The would rather have a hard drive full of what people say is the "latest and greatest" new shite than taking the time to research and find some music you really like...

I don't know about that. Following that premise, the same could be said about any recorded music, as something is always lost when recording a performance. Maybe not bit-depth or certain frequencies, but situational ambience, sound source positioning, scent, visual stimulation, physical presence, etc. Besides, high bit-rate mp3s have a greater fidelity than 72 rpm discs, or old mono tape recordings. The people who listened to inferior recordings in the 1940s, did they just not care about music?

Prints are essentially a lossy format, but a viewer can still appreciate a painting by looking at an art history textbook. I think we over-estimate the importance of fidelity. We don't listen to music generally in hermetically sealed anechoic booths to prevent external sound sources from reducing the clarity of the recording after all, and I can't honestly think why you would want to do so. Music shouldn't be viewed as something separate from the rest of life.

As for "latest and greatest," look at emusic.com. Nary a Disney album to be found there. I would think its strength is giving access to hard to find recordings. Stuff by Henry Flynt, Phill Niblock, Moondog, the ESP label, Sun Ra, etc aren't always kicking around at the local HMV, and ordering online is hit or miss if the CD is out of print.

Cheers,
Steve

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:19 pm

well you could take that premise to the extreme, but I would rather be the one to decide when,where and how my audio gets compressed. Thats really all I was saying...

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:24 pm

Do you mean as a music listener, or a music maker?

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:31 pm

Both.

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:32 pm

oooooh cute little Apple
oh yes you are a cute little Apple
oh yes you are
yes you are.. you are a cute little Apple

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,66 ... _tophead_2

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:37 pm

makes me think of that mid 80s commercial where apple was fighting big blue..

Bruce Bartlett · Post by **Bruce Bartlett** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm

It is not in Apple's interest to allow iTunes music to be playable on any hardware units other than Apple's. Apple's business model is (still!) based on selling hardware and not software. iTunes exists to sell iPods, not music. Anything which allowed you to get the benefits of their products on non-Apple hardware would defeat their whole business. Witness the instantaneous death of Logic for Windows after Apple bought eMagic.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:12 pm

Bruce Bartlett wrote:It is not in Apple's interest to allow iTunes music to be playable on any hardware units other than Apple's. Apple's business model is (still!) based on selling hardware and not software. iTunes exists to sell iPods, not music.

Very true. Still, I can see the anti-competitive angle because of all the 'iTunes exclusive' songs which force you to use their hardware (the Pixies 'Bam Thwok' I think was only on iTunes).

But isn't that the same as something like video game consoles? If I want to play Super Mario Karts or whatever it is, don't I have to buy a Nintendo system?

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:19 pm

shamann wrote:
Bruce Bartlett wrote:It is not in Apple's interest to allow iTunes music to be playable on any hardware units other than Apple's. Apple's business model is (still!) based on selling hardware and not software. iTunes exists to sell iPods, not music.
Very true. Still, I can see the anti-competitive angle because of all the 'iTunes exclusive' songs which force you to use their hardware (the Pixies 'Bam Thwok' I think was only on iTunes).

But isn't that the same as something like video game consoles? If I want to play Super Mario Karts or whatever it is, don't I have to buy a Nintendo system?

aww hell naw- Music is not computer code- this is exactly what is wrong with it- where as before you could take a record and play it on any turntable, or cd and play in any player, this prohibits that. I kind of equate it to the patriot act for your music... (steal away your rights in teh name of "freedom")

neverwhere2012 · Post by **neverwhere2012** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:43 pm

what a crock of whining bullshit. it only makes sense that *iTUNES* would be designed solely for the *iPOD* and not for some other mp3 player. i mean, the purpose of the software, at least i thought, was to help sell more ipods and allow for a smoother interface between computer and ipod. there are, in fact, other mp3 services out there -- NAPSTER and comcast's RHAPSODY that work quite well and surely allow you to download mp3's to put on your mp3 players. and as far as mp3 players go, a lot of the ones i've seen that try to compete with the ipod are WAY overpriced for what little they offer.

whoever that guy is that's filing that lawsuit is a f**king dolt and would do better investing his time and money in buying a f**king clue. i mean, are you gonna go sue an oil company because your honda doesn't use diesel? no. jesus.

mauseoleum · Post by **mauseoleum** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:46 pm

... beware iFart ! ...

when it starts to smell in The Macworld

progfusion74 · Post by **progfusion74** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:41 pm

shamann wrote:
Bruce Bartlett wrote:It is not in Apple's interest to allow iTunes music to be playable on any hardware units other than Apple's. Apple's business model is (still!) based on selling hardware and not software. iTunes exists to sell iPods, not music.
Very true. Still, I can see the anti-competitive angle because of all the 'iTunes exclusive' songs which force you to use their hardware (the Pixies 'Bam Thwok' I think was only on iTunes).

But isn't that the same as something like video game consoles? If I want to play Super Mario Karts or whatever it is, don't I have to buy a Nintendo system?

The trick is to find a single store and stick to it. If there were other manufacturers making devices that matched up to the iPod and there are more alternatives now, this would not be that big a deal as the iPod would not have such a large market share.

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:55 pm

progfusion74 wrote:
The trick is to find a single store and stick to it. If there were other manufacturers making devices that matched up to the iPod and there are more alternatives now, this would not be that big a deal as the iPod would not have such a large market share.

sorry but, I have a Zen and it's one fine piece of kit. It sounds louder and better than the iPod and the battery live is better too.. and you're not advertising to the world and the thieves it houses that you're an idiot who spent £100 too much on an mp3 player, flashing your white headphones around

there's nothing special about the iPod apart from the rediculously cheap looking piece of colourded plastic and a wheel control.. WOW!!! A WHEEL!!!! out of this earth it is!! only Apple can make a WHEEL control

WOOOHOOOOO!!!!

Beware iTunes!