backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 110 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on May 18 at 10:21 AM

  (Source: Reuters)

In a new commercial Microsoft blasts Apple, saying that an iPod costs $30,000 to "fill", while a Zune costs only $15 to fill.  (Source: YouTube)
Microsoft has fired more shots at its long-time rival

First there were Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" commercials with Lauren, Giampaolo, and Lisa (and more recently, Sheila), which featured average Joes and Janes directing criticism against Apple’s pricing and instead picking PCs.  Next, Apple fired back with new ads in its popular "Get a Mac" series, poking fun at PC's supposed "bugs" and "crashes", as well as showing off new Mac features.  Now Microsoft has fired back at Apple with its most blatant attack ad yet.

The new ad is entitled "Financial Planner", which features a man by the name of Wes Moss -- a “certified financial planner”, according to Microsoft -- who breaks down what he sees as the differences between iTunes and the Zune Pass.

Mr. Moss says that it would cost $30,000 USD to fill a 120 GB iPod with songs from iTunes.  He says that a similar capacity Zune could be filled for only a $15 monthly subscription, using Zune Pass.  Key to his logic is that Zune Pass allows users to temporarily download as many songs as they want for the month, though they only get to keep 10 songs a month.

Ars Technica had some interesting counterpoints to this argument.  According to their calculations, at a rate of 10 songs per month, it would take 250 years to fill up the Zune with Zune Pass songs you can keep.  Assuming you could somehow live this long, perhaps via the upcoming wonders of nanomedicine, it would cost you $44,000 USD in today's money.  It would take approximately 166 years to pay $33,000 USD going the Zune Pass road.

So who has the better service, Apple or Microsoft?  It really depends on how you look at it.  If you want to use your music service as a means to sample music, Zune Pass is arguably better.  If you want to purchase music to keep, though, and you don't mind not getting physical goodies that come with CDs or records, iTunes is arguably the best buy.  And of course, some will take the forbidden third road -- piracy.

 To view Microsoft's new commercial for yourself, click here.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Bateluer on 5/12/2009 9:43:53 AM , Rating: 5
I've had excellent luck with Amazon's DRM free MP3s, personally. Though everyone seemed to raise their prices when Apple caved to the RIAA lobby.

What about the people who have a decade worth of CDs they've collected? Whole different ballgame there.




By Jellodyne on 5/12/2009 9:45:41 AM , Rating: 5
CDs? Are those the things people used to buy when they actually owned their music? Crazy.


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 11:59:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
CDs? Are those the things people used to buy when they actually owned their music? Crazy.


Yes, and this 30 year old technology provides better quality than does the most recent lossy compressed format.

I don't understand with technology and disk space advancing so much we are bombarded with a lower quality product.

Personally I rip all of my CDs into a lossless format (WMAL). That way if I ever have to transcode my media into a newer format I won't lose any quality during the transfer. However if all your media is in a lossy format and you have to transcode it in the future to a new format you risk the potential of having an even lower quality product.


By Natfly on 5/12/2009 12:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand with technology and disk space advancing so much we are bombarded with a lower quality product.


It probably stems from the early days of MP3 players where they would have 128/256MB of memory. Can't fit a lot of 256bit VBR MP3s on that. 128 bit was pretty standard for a while, it's still much better than most radio quality.


By quiksilvr on 5/12/2009 12:26:42 PM , Rating: 5
But now there's HD Digital Radio! It's here. It's local. It's free. DISCOVER IT! Find a local radio station in your city or state.

But segueing (who would have thought it was spelled like that?!) back to the topic, 256 kbps and 320 kbps quality makes it as good as CD quality without having to sacrifice so much space.


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 12:34:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
256 kbps and 320 kbps quality makes it as good as CD quality without having to sacrifice so much space.


Yes, but when the MP3 format dies... and it will eventually die, are you going to transcode that into another lossy format? Lossy to lossy gives you an even worse result. Are you going to go Lossy to lossless? that will increase the file size but retain all of the *unnoticeable* artifacts and distortions.

Furthermore it is silly that we have to accept the fact that most music is in a substandard, lossy, format. Who cares if we can't notice the difference. We should be getting our music in a format that is *better* than the CD format. Not music that is *nearly* as good as a CD.


By nafhan on 5/12/2009 1:26:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
when the MP3 format dies


I find a future where it is impossible to obtain an MP3 codec hard to swallow.
MP3 will likely be supplanted by a new format at some point, but that will only impact new music that you purchase. Music you already have will remain playable as long you as you can read the physical medium containing the files.


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 3:10:14 PM , Rating: 3
I suppose the term 'dies' is a bit loaded. Of course 100 years from now people will be able to still play back mp3's it probably won't be very convenient but it would be possible. Just like trying to open up a MS Works document, or run an application written for the C64, you can still do it but it isn't very easy nor forward looking.


By menace on 5/12/2009 1:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, but when the MP3 format dies... and it will eventually die


Why do you say that. It's not like you need any kind of special hardware to play it (like LP records and record players). Future devices will continue to support it because to not support it would put the producer in a competitive disadvantage. I don't see the typical user as willing to hours or days transcoding or re-ripping thousands of their favorite songs to a new format if they can just buy a player that supports both new formats and legacy formats. It can be supported at virtually no cost, after all it only involves a little extra firmware. I don't see mp3 format going away in anybody's lifetime.


By xRyanCat on 5/12/2009 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't matter, we have free, well documented, open source implementations of the codec. It may get surpassed but it will /always/ be able to be listened to. And I don't see it being surpassed in the next 10 years. The fact is 320kbps is good enough for just about anyone, and if not, the there is the niche vinyl route. There's no reason for a "better" quality because the qualtiy v. size ratio with today's hard drives is already good enough.

Improvements to video codecs, on the other hand, are welcomed.


By ascarytiger on 5/12/2009 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
256 kbps and 320 kbps quality makes it as good as CD quality


False.


By quiksilvr on 5/14/2009 2:52:00 PM , Rating: 3
Good rebuttal there. I liked the in depth analysis on why it was false to a point where I suddenly agree with you. I mean, that thorough, well thought out comment almost made me forget the fact that extensive frequency testing was done and the conclusion was drawn that 256 kbps was literally identical to CDs and that 320 kbps was overkill.

http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html


By LoweredExpectations on 5/12/2009 11:29:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
256 kbps and 320 kbps quality makes it as good as CD quality


I have to strongly disagee here. 320 kbps may sound good, compared to lower compression rates if you're not used to lossless, but that's only true if listened to on a cheap playback system like a hand-held MP3 player. Listening to any MP3 file, either directly imputed or upsampled to CD format, on a really good system makes it PAINFULLY obvious how corrupting compression is.


By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 7:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you got rated down, you are absolutely correct.

don't forget that CD's are far from providing flawless sound quality themselves.


By MisterChristopher on 5/17/2009 6:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is quite simply not true. I bought a 99 dollar pair of headphones at guitar center (shure slc4 on special), and I can notice a huge difference between a 320 mp3 and a .wav. I am not an audiophile, but I am not deaf. An average person with a decent sound system could tell a difference.


By marvdmartian on 5/13/2009 9:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, 128 is still pretty good for me.....but then, I have pretty crummy hearing too! ;)

I don't imagine it would be in good taste to point out the fact that you can fill that Zune for free with P2P, would it??


By bigboxes on 5/12/2009 12:28:16 PM , Rating: 5
I was waiting for the lossless nazis to come marching in. Personally, 192kbps sounds fine to me. I rip all my own stuff at 320kbps. If you want to go lossless then go nuts. Just don't try to tell me how it's so sonically superior. It's all about the source and less about the bitrate. I'm sure you have super ears though.


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 12:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
I am far from a music connoisseur but I am a tech junkie. I simply find it amazing that the quality of popular music, format wise, is going backwards as technology advances.

I'm a proponent of lossless music not because I can hear any difference but because once you go lossy you can't change formats without repercussions. If you go lossless, regardless of format, you'll never have to worry about changing formats. It is all about portability. The only loss suffered is the few hours of time it takes your PC to transcode your library.

If your format is dying you can transcode to the new fancy lossless format without any loss of quality.

I suppose that we'll be in this rut until broadband becomes even more pervasive and faster.


By LRonaldHubbs on 5/12/2009 3:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, it's pretty sad, especially given how inexpensive storage is these days. 256kbit lossy files are fine for listening on the go, but lossless is unrivaled for personal archives since you can transcode it later without additional quality loss. $1 for a lossy song recording is a ripoff.


By LRonaldHubbs on 5/12/2009 2:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
Please try again once you understand how lossy codecs work.


By Shuri on 5/12/2009 6:05:38 PM , Rating: 5
If you have a set of good quality speakers it doesn't take "super ears" to hear the difference between 192Kbps or even 320Kbps MP3 and a lossless format like FLAC.

The difference in quality does have alot to do with the type of music you are listening to though. Some music will sound fine in mp3, such as most pop and hip hop, but the same does not hold true for all music.

I think that with modern hard drives being able to store 1TB and cost no more than $100, file size is no longer an issue.


By snakeInTheGrass on 5/12/2009 8:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
More amazing to me is the difference in quality between SACD and some wonderful compressed MP3/AAC files... the compressed sounds 'not bad' playing until you switch to the 'real' music and your jaw just drops. I can't imagine most speakers couldn't show the difference, but without an A/B comparison I suspect most people just aren't aware of how much sound has gone missing.

SACD was the first sound I heard at home (and I totally haven't gone the LP route, ok...) where the format seems to get out of the way so well that you can just listen to the music and NOT think about how it could sound better. For classical with the 5.1 direct recordings, it's just really amazing both on the enveloping soundstage and detail in that sound.

And no, I'm not claiming that cryo-freezing your wall outlet will make a difference, I'm not that audio guy, though if you don't think you can hear a difference between various amps you either damaged your hearing or don't have decent speakers. ;)

I'm definitely thinking of re-ripping (damn! wish I had done it right last time!) everything lossless as well at some point to have the digital copy be as good as it can be at least, didn't do it because of storage costs & player capacity issues back when I did the conversion. :/


By sbtech on 5/13/2009 6:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
You can hear the difference between amps as well as CD Players with decent speakers like B&W 600 series. They are not that expensive. Just stereo mind you, not talking of 5.1.

Though the difference with CD players seem to me more than the difference between amp. To me it seems like a more powerful amp simply makes the sound tighter without mudding it.


By riku0116 on 5/13/2009 9:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that with modern hard drives being able to store 1TB and cost no more than $100, file size is no longer an issue.

You're right, if I play all my music from my hard drives then I'd definitely go with a full flac collection. Sadly, this just isn't the case for me and many others.

I listen to music mostly on my 8GB Cowon S9 on the go. It's perfectly capable of PLAYING flac files, and the difference in sound quality from a 320kbps mp3 is quite apparent through my SE530 IEMs, but those files are just TOO DARN BIG!

A typical 4.5 minute song encoded to 320kbps mp3 takes up around 10MB on average, the same song encoded to flac would take over 3 times the space! Yes, the sound quality is better, but is it 3 times better? You could argue that the pristine sound quality offered by flac is priceless and blah blah blah blah blah, but in the end its just not a viable format for current generation flash-based PMPs that are downright anemic in terms of storage space.


By mikefarinha on 5/14/2009 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Programs like Windows Media Player transcode on the fly. That is what I do. I can set the quality level and when I want to update my mp3 player (2gb) I use the sync feature of Vista/Win7 and it will convert and upload my music in a WMA lossy format so I can fit more songs on the device. I can also adjust the quality as to allow myself to upload more songs at a lower quality.


By Chudilo on 5/12/2009 12:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
You mean you're using WMAL to ensure that you could always transcode your files without loosing anything?
Which is a proprietory Microsoft format.
So what you really mean is until Microsoft drops supporting WMAL format.

What you want to be using is FLAC which is a an industry standard LossLess Compression format that can also be played on many devices directly without transcoding.


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 12:56:16 PM , Rating: 4
When Microsoft kills WMAL there will still be many players and transcoders, like dbPowerAmp, that will happily transcode my files and their metadata to which ever format I decide to switch to.

Until then WMAL is the best lossless format for use in a Windows centric environment. If I were to switch off Windows(unlikely) I'd most likely switch to FLAC or WavPack(preferred).


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 1:01:17 PM , Rating: 3
I actually had all of my music in the WavPack format but once I upgraded to Vista I couldn't stand the fact that Windows Explorer couldn't read any of the metadata of my music files. So I decided to transcode everything into WMAL. I couldn't be happier. So most of my music collection was originally ripped using WavPack and then transcoded to WMAL. No loss of quality. It is a great thing.


By omnicronx on 5/12/2009 1:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
There is no industry standard lossless codec. Yes Flac is free and non-proprietary, but it is far from the industry standard. The main reason being, Flac compression is only about 40-50% in real life situations.


By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 5:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Flac compression is only about 40-50% in real life situations.


To be fair that is about normal for lossless compression. Plus if you take a CD filled to the brim it will only be 700MB, 50% of 700MB is 350MB.

To put that in perspective it will take up approximately 0.0003% of a $120 1.5TB HDD.


By LRonaldHubbs on 5/13/2009 9:25:27 AM , Rating: 3
There is no industry standard simply because the "industry" has not embraced lossless compression. However, flac has become the de facto standard lossless format among enthusiasts and pirates. Check some torrent sites. You might find a few in WMAL or ALAC, but flac is far and away the most common.

I am curious though, which lossless formats have better compression than flac? I converted a sizable portion of my collection to WMAL to compare the average filesize against flac, and the difference was negligible. This was for mostly rock and metal, and my bitrate for both formats ended up around 1mbps. If you know of a format with significantly better compression, I would definitely like to give it a try. Thanks.


By mikefarinha on 5/13/2009 10:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
You won't find any that are significantly better than FLAC but last I checked both WMAL and WavPack were slightly better. For an Open Source alternative to FLAC I really like WavPack. I doubt they are ever going to get too much beyond 50-60% lossless compression.


By noirsoft on 5/12/2009 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, you no more own the music when you purchase a CD than you do when you purchase an MP3/WMA/AAC file.You may own a copy, and be licensed to use said copy, but you do not own the intellectual material. It's the same with books, too.


By Jellodyne on 5/12/2009 2:42:09 PM , Rating: 3
Owning a copy is fine by me. Particularly when I can transcode it as I wish, drop it onto all of my mobile devices and the company that sold it to me can't electronically disable it at a whim. Or sell it to a used record shop when if I choose.

An non DRMed MP3, quality issues aside, is similar to a CD in all but the last respect. But you never 'own' a protected file AAC in any sense of the word, you use it at the seller's discretion.


By bodar on 5/12/2009 8:14:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but I can sell books, CDs, and DVDs to other people if I don't want them anymore. They are still a physical item.

If "the industry" got their way, you'd likely have to license songs multiple times for each device you want to use it on, then buy a non-customizable ringtone if you wanted that, etc. Maybe they'd be charitable and sell you a multi-pack at a discount. Maybe.

Oh and god forbid you figure out what the lyrics are, or how to play a song by using your ears and then tell someone else...


By invidious on 5/12/2009 4:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Its amazing how fast CDs have become obsolete. I got my first mp3 player in 2000 and it could hold 16mb of data.

Some day our children are going to look back and laugh at how we used to burn our music onto glass with lasers. Although I guess it is better than how our parents carved it into plastic.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/12/2009 9:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, there are other services available (I personally use Amazon's MP3 store as much as possible), but the commercial was specifically referencing iTunes and Zune Pass.


By Exodus220 on 5/12/2009 9:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
The only time I use the Amazon MP3 store is when they have those amazing deals of 100+ songs to download for only $0.99. I have found a couple of those deals and that is truly worth it. Paying $1+ for a song just seems crazy to me.


By Bateluer on 5/12/2009 10:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
I have not seen any sales like that at Amazon, but admittedly, I don't check their music collection every day.


By killerroach on 5/12/2009 10:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
They've had a couple of sales along those lines, although the huge "99 songs for 99 cents" has largely been of classical music. (Regardless, I now have about a gig and a half worth of Beethoven and Mozart on my computer...) Even still, some of their normal sales are fantastic (new release albums for $2.99-$3.99 at times, classic albums that are featured have dropped as low as .99-$1.99, etc.).


By therealnickdanger on 5/12/2009 9:58:22 AM , Rating: 4
Amazon.com has the best MP3 option, IMO. High quality, no DRM, regular sales, deals of the week (and deals of the day). Most albums are never over $10 - even if it has 20 songs.


By ksherman on 5/12/2009 10:14:10 AM , Rating: 1
Sounds a lot like iTunes Plus downloads. Occasionally some albums are $12, though they are usually the deluxe what evers with music videos too.


By Fenixgoon on 5/12/2009 11:20:29 AM , Rating: 2
yep, I just bought an album from Amazon so I wouldn't have to put up with iTunes' DRM crap.


By frobizzle on 5/12/2009 12:15:02 PM , Rating: 4
The question:
quote:
So who has the better service, Apple or Microsoft?

The answer:
They both suck!


By Sazar on 5/12/2009 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 3
Honestly, Zune Pass is a lot more interesting because for $19 a month, you are getting unlimited music access including oldies, new songs and obscure items as well.

I am not a big fan of iTunes personally and would probably not even get close to it if not required for syncing with my iPhone.


By Oregonian2 on 5/12/2009 3:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about the people who have a decade worth of CDs they've collected? Whole different ballgame there.


Only a decade's worth? :-)

I bought my first CD player in about 1983 or so (Sony CDP-101, still have it in a box in the garage somewhere as a 'collectable'). More like a quarter-century of CD's (yes, I've a few and have ripped a lot of them into high datarate MP3's for my Archos player).


Limewire and Piratebay
By Exodus220 on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By MatthiasF on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By acase on 5/12/2009 10:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
A: Pirks


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By Pirks on 5/12/2009 5:26:51 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, I wanted to owe my life to Amazon MP3 but the bastards won't let me to! They say I'm not a US resident so I must screw off and buy my music at iTunes! What an insult!

And now some fucking asshole acase is telling me about Apple? Please shut up! Or fix Amazon MP3 idiots, then I'll forgive you. Maybe :)


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By Bateluer on 5/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By dmitriid on 5/12/2009 10:40:29 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, right.

Fact 1: Artists get a tiny fraction of what consumers pay for their music. So tiny that piracy doesn't even affect this fraction
Fact 2: Despite piracy legal digital downloads are soaring
Fact 3: A digital track that has never had any additional costs like producing a CD, printing a CD cover, delivery to stores by trucks etc. simply cannot cost as much as a track on a physical medium

Considering the facts above, why would I ever want to spend over a dollar on a track that I download digitally? Just to ensure that Richard Branson can by an island every two weeks?

Same thing is happening in books, actually. See the actual crime of stealing my money with Amazon Kindle, for instance


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By rcc on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By jonmcc33 on 5/12/2009 11:55:06 AM , Rating: 4
We're not justifying pirating, we're just not buying the BS that music artists are starving. As said, most of the cost of a CD doesn't even go to the music artist. It goes to the middle people, those that produce the product, ship it and sell it. Music artists make more from concerts, guest appearances and promotions. You can't pirate any of that.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By mikefarinha on 5/12/2009 12:03:06 PM , Rating: 1
I admit that I download music from P2P networks. I have found great music that way which ended up with me buying CDs. Had I not done that there would have been many CDs that I wouldn't have purchased.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By waffle911 on 5/12/2009 5:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! Who wants to pay for new music you haven't heard before only to have it turn out to be total crap? And besides, a good deal of the pirated music I have found on P2P networks is not even close to CD quality, even supposedly "lossless" files. If I really want to enjoy the music, I'd rather buy a CD and rip lossless, or better yet, get a brand-new LP and make a digital recording directly from that on its very first play. CD's don't hold a candle to a real record fresh off the press. Some would also argue that audio cassettes have the potential to be better quality than CDs; this used to be true in the early days of the compact disc, but not anymore.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By RubberJohnny on 5/12/2009 8:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some would also argue that audio cassettes have the potential to be better quality than CDs; this used to be true in the early days of the compact disc...

Put down the pipe mate.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By kmmatney on 5/13/2009 2:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
I have to admit that I have downloaded all the music that I originally purchased on cassette tape. I couldn't see paying for it twice.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By knutjb on 5/13/2009 12:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
If you were the one with the creativity making the music, or software for that matter, wouldn't you want to be paid for YOUR work. How many of you just show up to work and tell the boss no thanks I don't want the check. Don't get lost on "they have to feed their families" or "they own Bentleys". I really hate the class warfare tripe. All I see is excuses for theft.

Looks like MS has a reasonble plan for those wanting to find new music and not steal it.

Unless it's lossless or uncompressed it's crap. Meridian lossless article for those who want a greater understanding of the process. http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/mlp_jap_new....

As for the cassettes, I agree, put down the pipe.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 8:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Fact of the matter is that being able to download music as well as buying the cd does nto affect sales as much as record companies would like you to believe.

Radiohead made millions by releasing 'In rRainbows' online where you could choose how much to pay, even zero.

Nine Inch Nails gave away copies of their last 3 albums. I mean they were the guys posting the torrents. Their albums still sold loads of copies, physical copies.

If the record industry wants to stop losing money they need to stop bombarding us with manufactured trash and start letting real music be heard, instead of blaming it on pirates.

As for the cassette arguemnt, good luck convincing anyone of that, but I would say the original specification of CD players before we ended up with the current red-book standard were notably inferior in quality. I think the first CD's were only 10 bit audio (vs 16 bit) for example. This lower bit depth would neccesitate a large amont of audio compression (i.e. making it all the same volume) which is the ultimate enemy of any high fidelity format.

AS a footnote, CD quality is far from the best you can get. Just look at a 10khz square wave represented by 16bit 44khz audio. DVD audio and SACD are much better and offer 5.1 surround. Why SACD hasn't taken off I don't know, they play (albeit at cd only quality) in a normal CD player and offer high resolution multi channel sound for which no consumer available recording/writing deveices exist and ever will .


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By sbtech on 5/13/2009 6:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
You are calculating the cost to bring product to customer. Look at it like this. A song cost $1. You don't like it, don't buy it. But just because you don't like the price doesn't justify you stealing it.

Here is an analogy. A Lamborghini Reventon costs 1 million dollars(before tax). Now if you go about calculating the cost of making and delivering it, it might seem the asking price is unreasonable to you. But that doesn't mean you can go out and steel it. If you don't want to pay 1 million dollar(before tax), well then you just have to get a different car, a one that "you" think is of "right" price.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By just4U on 5/14/2009 11:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
If people are making money off of it and the musicians are not being compensated then I have a real problem with it but otherwise..

It's a poor analogy. I don't condone music piracy but by the same token I don't see it as stealing. It's a huge gray area that has turned many of us into hypocrites.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 8:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are calculating the cost to bring product to customer. Look at it like this. A song cost $1. You don't like it, don't buy it. But just because you don't like the price doesn't justify you stealing it.


How do I know if I am going to like the song or not if I have not heard it?


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By nct on 5/12/2009 10:43:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
And do you also know that many record company execs have new Bentleys to buy that depend on this income?


Fixed that for you.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By Alpha4 on 5/12/2009 11:01:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
many artists have families to feed that depend on this income
God forbid an artist's child has to snort less than grade-A quality cocaine.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By jonmcc33 on 5/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By stonemetal on 5/12/2009 11:57:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I sure don't care about any car salesman's family nor do I care about any music artist's family. They don't pay my bills or feed MY family.


They do every time they use a product or service created by the company you work for or use a something created by those that use your product or service.

How would you like it if homeless people started stealing what you do for a living and justified it by saying you lived in too nice a house. If you don't want to give them your money man up and go without.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 8:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How would you like it if homeless people started stealing what you do for a living and justified it by saying you lived in too nice a house. If you don't want to give them your money man up and go without.


Umm, they do? =)

Anyway, the ability to download music does not stop artists making money, this has been proven. Being a talentless manufactured fresh off the production line artist is what stops people buying your songs after they've downloaded them, heard them, and realised you suck.


RE: Limewire and Piratebay
By xti on 5/12/2009 11:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
<theReplacements> Do you know what insurance on a Ferrari costs?!?!?</theReplacements>


Not a terrible argument but a weird one.
By Insomniator on 5/12/2009 9:45:28 AM , Rating: 4
So after looking at the Zune Pass site I kind of get the idea that the 10 songs you get to 'keep' really just means that those 10 songs can now be used in anyway you want, on any player etc. Since really, most people I assume are only gonna keep and play the music on their Zune, who cares which ones you actually own or not? I suppose in the long run you are really just paying 1.50 per song instead of 1.00 but if the Zune is your only player you basically have unlimited songs for 15 bucks a month.

That does seem better than the normal 1 dollar per song system for most people at least.




RE: Not a terrible argument but a weird one.
By psychobriggsy on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not a terrible argument but a weird one.
By psychobriggsy on 5/12/2009 10:06:57 AM , Rating: 2
Um, where did I get 33,000 from (or 160GB!)... I meant 30,000 of course, but it doesn't change anything. It actually costs $15,000 to fill a 120GB GB iPod with 30,000 256kbps AAC songs bought from iTunes.


By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 10:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm, I thought songs were $.99 each, not $.49?


By clovell on 5/12/2009 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
The long run is here - the Zune Pass isn't new.


By tjr508 on 5/12/2009 6:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did Microsoft even use the iTunes 256kbps AAC bitrate in calculating how many songs fit on the device? At 8MB per song, 33000 songs is 264GB!


MS use Apple's advertised numbers. That seems fair enough to me.


By nayy on 5/12/2009 11:19:58 AM , Rating: 4
Not only that, you can use your zune pass in up to 3 players, which means that you would be paying $5 each, or if you discount the value of the songs kept its only $1.66.
It's makes for a very good family plan, even if it was meant for individual use.

http://www.zune.net/en-us/support/usersguide/zunem...

What I really hate is that the service is US only :(, this sorts of plans deploy internationally and across other platforms (read ipod) could really make a strong stand against piracy.


By omnicronx on 5/12/2009 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
Ya the article really does make it out as though you only get to keep 10 songs. In reality it is 10 songs DRM free, and of course you can always use an unlocker for those that know what they are doing. (FairUse4WM caugh..)

One thing to think about is the Studio support, not sure how it is now, but it was lacking when I had a month subscription when the store first opened.


By foolsgambit11 on 5/12/2009 4:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I do the math like this: you get 10 songs for $10 from both providers. Microsoft also charges you $5 for unlimited subscription use of the Zune music library.


Zune Pass
By PointlesS on 5/12/2009 12:04:08 PM , Rating: 3
This post probably makes me a MS fanboy but whatever.

I've been using Zune Pass for the past 3-4 months now and since then I've played 6,931 songs. I use it every day and I love it. I've found so many bands that I probably would've never listened to due to the fact that I can listen to anything at any point. The best part about it is that I don't own a Zune. I have a Sansa M230 that cost me $20 and it works fine. Like many here I don't care much for DRM, but if it's a music subscription service then what do you expect? I know I will never own my music but it doesn't bother me. It's cheap and I can download anything I want.




RE: Zune Pass
By menace on 5/12/2009 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow you spend at least 30% of your waking hours listening to music.

You Rock!

30,000 songs on a device. That's enough to listen for 6 hrs a day for a year without hearing a song twice.


RE: Zune Pass
By Sazar on 5/12/2009 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not that hard to do :)

I listen to music (with headphones) at work. I listen to music when I drive. I even listen to music when I am playing games at home.

Probably overall I listen to music about 30-35% of my waking hours.

I have been gravitating towards Pandora off my phone more and more but, until they figure out how to run the app in the background, a la the ipod app, I will continue to use the ipod app as well so I can surf the web at the same time on occasion.


RE: Zune Pass
By clovell on 5/12/2009 2:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
I listen to music when I write code and on my commute - 6 hours a day isn't unreasonable.

And seriously, who says you have to listen to it all? I mean - if you had to pay 'sticker' for some stuff, you'd likely never give it a chance.


Right
By SavagePotato on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right
By Bateluer on 5/12/2009 10:12:32 AM , Rating: 3
Every song on my Nano is legal, though 1/2 of them are not from iTunes.


RE: Right
By nayy on 5/12/2009 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Is nice to hear that you are clean! (Other wise RIAA would hunt you down and sue you to death)

But you have to admit that there is a great deal of casual piracy out there, the zune pass is an easy way to go legit if you were considering it but couldn't afford to. Don't get me wrong there will always be piracy, but the easier it is to be lawful the less piracy there will be; unlike the current RIAA/MPAA approach to make it "harder" to pirate content, which actually accomplishes near to nothing and just screws legal consumers.


RE: Right
By psychobriggsy on 5/12/2009 10:18:35 AM , Rating: 1
Indeed the basic premise (apart from somehow doubling the cost of filling the uncommon 120GB iPod Classic with iTunes purchased tracks) is flawed.

People put their own CDs on - a ten year collection could easily be 200 CDs, or around 2500 songs. Ripped at 256kbps, that's around 20GB of music straight up - more than enough to fill a 16GB iPod Touch or 16GB iPod nano - far more common iPods.

People put their photos on - us geeks may not, but I've seen plenty of people going through their photo collection on the tube.

People put videos on.

People put podcasts on. These are free, and often a good 50 - 100MB in size - never mind video podcasts...


RE: Right
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 10:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
And this doesn't apply to the Zune as well? You can't count this just for the iPod and not the Zune as well if they can both do it. While it does change the costs, Zune Pass is still cheaper.

Can't forget bands that give away their music for free either.


Hrs/Month
By DuallyX on 5/12/2009 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 3
So with Microsoft I can temporarily have 2000hrs worth of music to listen to in a 744hr month. Faaantastic!




RE: Hrs/Month
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 12:01:22 PM , Rating: 1
You could get about an hour's worth of music from the Apple store each month at the same price. But hey, you can take the more expensive route if you want. I won't stop you.


RE: Hrs/Month
By aftlizard on 5/12/2009 2:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Or you can spend 44.44444 months spending 15 dollars per month for music at Apple to get 2000 hrs worth of music. Whatever floats your boat.


Albums
By Uncle on 5/12/2009 11:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
Years ago adverts would come out saying cd's sound close to an album. All this talk about 128,192,320,shows the consumer was and is still being hijacked by the Industry into excepting lower quality digital sound. The only thing I have to agree on is that cd's guarantee no scratches while listening. Carrying music around, mp3 the way to go, listening at home, nothing touches albums. I've read an article where the Industry says it has reached its pinnacle, and that going back to albums might be the way to go because it is easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that albums sound better. Using digital was 75% for their benefit, the rest was for the consumer. Most teenagers haven't a clue what good analog music from albums sound like. Albums were made redundant by the Industry, not because they were inferior in sound quality, but because the money was to be made in digital. Albums didn't disappear because no one wanted them, the Industry just quit making them.




RE: Albums
By kmmatney on 5/13/2009 2:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Albums didn't disappear because no one wanted them, the Industry just quit making them.


I grew up with records, 8-tracks, and cassettes, and the CD was a huge improvement as you could take it in your car, and the quality was much better for the average person. I had a record player/Cassette/CD combo stereo player in 1986 and CDs sounded the best on that player. If records can sound better than CDs, it probably on expensive equipment that most people didn't have. CD players were cheap and portable - no one wanted to buy records anymore.


RE: Albums
By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 9:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Years ago adverts would come out saying cd's sound close to an album. All this talk about 128,192,320,shows the consumer was and is still being hijacked by the Industry into excepting lower quality digital sound.


odd because bit rates and codec quality ahs been continually increasing since the introduction of MP3.

quote:
The only thing I have to agree on is that cd's guarantee no scratches while listening.


totally false, they may not be as vulnerable as vinyl, but they are still affected even by slight damage.

quote:
Carrying music around, mp3 the way to go, listening at home, nothing touches albums. I've read an article where the Industry says it has reached its pinnacle, and that going back to albums might be the way to go because it is easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that albums sound better. Using digital was 75% for their benefit, the rest was for the consumer. Most teenagers haven't a clue what good analog music from albums sound like. Albums were made redundant by the Industry, not because they were inferior in sound quality, but because the money was to be made in digital. Albums didn't disappear because no one wanted them, the Industry just quit making them.


I hate to break it to you, but an 'Album' is a bunch of songs written by the same bunch of people that deceided they should be released as one lump. The media they are released on is immiterial to whether it is an album or not.

I *think* you might mean vinyl...


A nod to analog
By Mclendo06 on 5/12/2009 9:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and you don't mind not getting physical goodies that come with CDs or records


Thanks for this. Yea for Vinyl!

Also, couldn't one just get the same songs the next month as long as they maintained the subscription, or do they have to choose new songs?




RE: A nod to analog
By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 9:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yea for Vinyl!


Still sounds as good as it did new after 1000 plays right?

or does it? =(


service
By Screwballl on 5/12/2009 10:28:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So who has the better service, Apple or Microsoft?


neither, they both suck. Remove all DRM and fill your devices with unrestricted music and media from all your burned, ripped and received media in your possession.
The Fair Use Act states we have the right to do what we want with the media we purchase. So if we buy a song from iTunes, we have the right to disable any DRM to play it on a Zune.
The DMCA/RIAA may have forced our lawmakers to pass secondary laws after the fact (illegal only if you bypass any encryption.lock down mechanism) but this means we have conflicting laws on the books, I hope we get someone with half a brain in a strong position to remove these junk laws from the books.