iLounge

1

Personally i think napster is pissed that the apple store is blowing the napster store out of the water.
To me ACC offers the same sound quality at a lowered size. The ipod will play both. If you want mp3’s bought online go to one of the other stores. Apple uses ACC with thier store. (big deal)

It would be nice to have apple allow mp3s sold on thier sight… but mp3 is inferior because of the reason above. Ogg vorbis an ACC are the better quality files. If mp3 stays the standard, then this will be another vhs vs. beta max

Better quality lost in that fight, only because of people fighting for a cheaper inferior product!

Stand strong apple!

Posted by Kaladon on March 9, 2004 at 6:48 AM (PST)

2

god i feel dumb… its AAC i kept hitting ACC lol!

Posted by Kaladon on March 9, 2004 at 6:50 AM (PST)

3

“The iPod is great if you’re happy to only shop at one record store.”

I don’t believe this to be a very accurate statement. The ipod in essence is an mp3 player and any store offering music in this format will be playable on an ipod, no? Even if music is offered in a WMA format, one can always change that format with certain software.

Posted by Poof on March 9, 2004 at 6:52 AM (PST)

4

Napster CEO is misinformed. WMA is proprietary. AAC is an open standard.

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html

Posted by Jamie on March 9, 2004 at 6:55 AM (PST)

5

Napster is just mad that they thought their name alone would make them very successful…

Posted by Schiano on March 9, 2004 at 6:59 AM (PST)

6

The link to the article doesn’t work… http://www.ipodlounge.com/Napster chief executive

Posted by Maduarte in Madison WI on March 9, 2004 at 6:59 AM (PST)

7

Wahhhh….Wahhhhhh…..

Posted by Cry Baby on March 9, 2004 at 7:00 AM (PST)

8

Kaladon, I’m not trying to be rude, but you got a bit more than just ‘ACC’ wrong.

No one I know of is selling MP3 files.  Napster sells WMA… quite a bit different.

Posted by BigSid in Los Angeles on March 9, 2004 at 7:00 AM (PST)

9

“Companies pushing a propriety agenda are consumer-unfriendly experiences because they’re cloistering them in an experience that they can’t leave and eliminating choice.”

this coming from a service that only works with WinXP.

No WinME, no Win2000, no Win98, an definitely no Mac0S. Talk about “eliminating choice.”

Posted by Starboard on March 9, 2004 at 7:02 AM (PST)

10

Emusic sells mp3 files (vbr).

Posted by Margk on March 9, 2004 at 7:04 AM (PST)

11

Jamie,

AAC is open, but Apple’s implementation is proprietary.

Posted by Albert on March 9, 2004 at 7:14 AM (PST)

12

Thanks Big Sid…. i wasnt aware of napster using just wma. I just got my ipod, so im new to all this hehe.

But none-the-less i think napster is just bitter!

Posted by Kaladon on March 9, 2004 at 7:17 AM (PST)

13

“No one I know of is selling MP3 files.”

Emusic

Bleep

Audio Lunchbox

OEbase

CD Baby

I could go on, but since it seems your horizon begins and ends with iTMS, there seems little point.

iTMS is like the Wal Mart of online music, while Napster is its lame K-Mart “competition”.

And yes, I know real Wal Mart also has an online music store, but right now that’s more like Big Lots or something.

iTMS is Wal Mart - get over it.

Posted by rewriting history on March 9, 2004 at 7:19 AM (PST)

14

It absolutely hilarious how they go off on iTunes, but even in the window you have the ability to convert .aac files into .mp3 for use with other players.  Now as far as .wma to .mp3 for use with iPods….. thats a different story.

Posted by If they used Itunes on March 9, 2004 at 7:29 AM (PST)

15

damn, it’s tough shopping in that one music store that has just about every piece of music in it that’s available purchase online. I really feel the pain there. I’d better move to napster, which has… uh… oh… wait. It has a name that used to mean something special… and.. uh… a CEO that is slightly less annoying than the one from SCO?

Posted by JC on March 9, 2004 at 7:32 AM (PST)

16

The link to the article doesn’t work… http://www.ipodlounge.com/Napster chief executive

By Maduarte on Mar 09, 04 8:59 am

I’m guessing this is the same story…

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8121

Posted by breathe on March 9, 2004 at 7:34 AM (PST)

17

or for the full and complete original story,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1164179,00.html

Posted by breathe on March 9, 2004 at 7:44 AM (PST)

18

Interesting point about Wal Mart and KMart, but I would compare iTMS to Target rather than Wal Mart. Wal Mart devastates the competition with cheap quality goods and rock bottom prices. Target aims to have slightly higher quality goods and slightly higher prices in a store atmosphere which is much more organized and inviting.

But the point you make is a good one—iTMS, in contrast to Apple’s approach with its computers—is aiming for mass acceptance with, essentially, kids and other casual music listeners (nothing wrong with that of course!) who are mostly going to buy singles.

Which is why until they make the downloadable files 256 kbps MP3s or whatever the equivalent is in AAC, I will buy very little music from the iTMS. Since I listen mostly to jazz or classical music and am usually interested in hearing the whole album, it still makes more sense economically for me to buy CDs for $13 than low quality downloadable files for $10.

So Mr. Napster, instead of making absurd and desperate statements, why not find a new market segment as yet unserved by the iTMS—ie, people like me who want the music in a high quality format—and give iTMS some competition? Your silly WMA files at 128 kbps aren’t worth my attention.

Posted by Paul D on March 9, 2004 at 8:13 AM (PST)

19

WOH WOH WOH Paul D. I agree with everbody that this napster guy is a goon, but just for the record:
64kbps WMA is theoretically equivalent to 128 kbps MP3. That’s half the size, 50%. 128 AAC is theoretically equivalent to 160 MP3, or 80%. So to say that 128 WMA isn’t worth your time is like saying 256 MP3 or 205 AAC isn’t worth your time.

Posted by Pigpen65 on March 9, 2004 at 8:25 AM (PST)

20

Pigpen, not sure I agree about the quality (based on my personal experience), but for the sake of argument:  AGREED—little or no difference in sound quality.

But, the size of a 64k .wma has *got* to be bigger than a 128k MP3…..correct?

Posted by breathe on March 9, 2004 at 8:36 AM (PST)