Downloads are worthless.

[professorhat]

Yup, installed it the other day - looks like an excellent way of testing an album before purchase.

 

[fatboyslimfast]

Agree. The free version seems to have an advert every 3 or 4 songs, but they are only short and not too intrusive.

Definitely worth a couple adverts to avoid wasting £10 on an album full of filler...

 

[idc]

fatboyslimfast:Agree. The free version seems to have an advert every 3 or 4 songs, but they are only short and not too intrusive. Definitely worth a couple adverts to avoid wasting £10 on an album full of filler...

I have got the free version and some invites left if anyone wants to send me their e-mail address. You need to be invited to get the free version. On one album you get 2 or 3 very short adverts between tracks. You can by membership per month and get an advert free version. Searches are straight forward, but there are lots of groups missing from King Crimson to Pink Floyd. Hopefully, like itunes it will grow as it becomes more popular. It has a radio part too, but I have not tried it.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:You need to be invited to get the free version.

No you don't, that's the point.ÿ

 

[idc]

Octopo:
idc:You need to be invited to get the free version.

No you don't, that's the point.ÿ

Sorry, stand corrected. I was lucky enough to get an invite a while back and I was told then it was invite only.

 

[idc]

idc:Octopo:

idc:You need to be invited to get the free version.

No you don't, that's the point.

Sorry, stand corrected. I was lucky enough to get an invite a while back and I was told then it was invite only.

....and as it is free it is very good value and not at all worthless.......

 

[Anonymous]

idc:idc:Octopo:
idc:You need to be invited to get the free version.

No you don't, that's the point.ÿ

Sorry, stand corrected. I was lucky enough to get an invite a while back and I was told then it was invite only.

....and as it is free it is very good value and not at all worthless.......

They aren't downloads though, so it's not an answer to your question.

If the infrastructure in this country could support lossless streaming the battle would be won there and then.ÿ

 

[cram]

I think the infrastructure can support lossless. An album encoded as apple lossless is a smaller download than a movie

 

[Anonymous]

I've been giving Spotify a go over the last couple of days and, frankly, have been astonished at how good it is. With my Mac connected up to the amp the sound quality on Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk" was more than pleasing.

I've possibly heard one advert every 90 minutes to 2 hours and had to spend some time before failing to find any albums I wanted to hear.

 

[Anonymous]

cram:I think the infrastructure can support lossless. An album encoded as apple lossless is a smaller download than a movie

Streaming is a different technology, though up until recently I've been in the same boat, download wise. Whereas an average iTunes user will carry on as it does, there are potential businesses not to mention the ones already there with way of expansion.

I like music and I have internet (and Sooty & Co.) experience. Maybe I could do it?

 

[cram]

I wasn't actually talking about streaming.

But would be happy for anyone to sell lossless on the internet. Have a feeling that within the next 5 years Apple will no doubt allow you to upgrade your library to lossless (for some additional ££s of course)

 

[Anonymous]

Well Linn and B&W (and more I presume) offer lossless downloads in a variety of formats. The problem arises when the fashion IS lossless. No mainstream service could offer those capabilities. Let's keep it quiet, eh?

 

[idc]

Some great points raised. Downloads at 128kbps at 79p, with only a 20 second section of a track to try before you buy, you can see why there really was very little value. I think it is a sign of consumer honesty that so many people are prepared to pay for such a low level of service when free but illegal downloads are easily available. Tracks at hopefuly less than 79p, which are lossless and you can listen to the whole thing beforehand, the value is increasing all the time, excellent!

 

[Anonymous]

Is it just me or are you inadvertently arguing for free legal downloads? I would recommend you try the application Richard recommended. Through your iPod it should sound great and it's free.

 

[idc]

Not free, just much better value than at present. Can you play Spotify through an ipod?

 

[Anonymous]

You want better value than legally free? Have you in your entire life come across an allowance that lets you listen to most mainstream and many, many other diverse albums in your entire lifespan? The freedom the internet and the will be supranet allows is obviously more than you can graspÿ

 

[idc]

Octopo:

You want better value than legally free? Have you in your entire life come across an allowance that lets you listen to most mainstream and many, many other diverse albums in your entire lifespan? The freedom the internet and the will be supranet allows is obviously more than you can grasp

You exaggerate and mis-represent my position. I am against illegal downloads. I am for far better value downloads from the likes of itunes, Amazon etc than are available at the moment (the move to higher bit rates is a step in the right direction) . I think Spotify is excellent value and gives a very good product. I have always though radio to be very good value. I think that CDs, and going back cassettes and vinyl have provided an OK value. They are too expensive at first release, but if you are prepared to wait they get to better value. (My last purchase; King Crimson, Three of a perfect pair for £5 out of Fopp)

At the moment downloads offer the worst value of all, which is why I started the post.

 

[Anonymous]

So, I think the conclusion is things are moving towards the better?

 

[up the music]

I've just dloaded spotif a couple of minutes ago. It found sightly obscure searches straight away (loads of Moondog and just one Lisa Knapp track). Fairly impessive for a comparatively nw and expanding service.

If these are 160kbps I'm listening to now, and the adverts are as infrequent as mentioned here it does beg some rather obvious questions. Except for portability, why on earth would anybody pay to dload a 128kbps MP3, you can listen to at any time in better quality. For that matter it even makes a lot of illegal dloading pointless.

Apple must hate this. I think it's marvellous and I'm only on my 3rd track. Looks like it beats LastFM too. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[cram]

up the music:Except for portability, why on earth would anybody pay to dload a 128kbps MP3, you can listen to at any time in better quality. For that matter it even makes a lot of illegal dloading pointless. Apple must hate this.

Well most places are selling music at rates of 256 and above, so that's one reason. I don't think it will have any effect on illegal downloading whatsoever. The people doing illegal downloads don't really care that that activity is illegal and it's not as it spotify is offering anything better.

For the record I think spotify is excellent but I kind of see it in the same bracket as radio.

 

[idc]

Octopo:So, I think the conclusion is things are moving towards the better?

Yes, hopefull. If the state of play was to remain with spending 79p a track or £8 on an album for a 128kbps download, I don't think the future was that rosey for legal downloads. The move to plus downloads is only one step. But lossless downloads at 50p a track and albums at £5, with artwork and lyrics that are in a format which is printable to create CDs, so something tangeable, now there is more value. All Apple and Amazon need to do to become more competitive with Spotify is to allow you to listen to the whole track. Then Spotify to sell downloads and away we go. Now online music and downloads are competitve with CDs and more importantly for the future, illegal downloads.

I switched to buying CDs again because I thought hold on a minute, I am paying for something that is no better in quality than illegal downloads. Professorhat's earlier comment about illegal downloads not being insurable means they are really worthless. Its like fake clothes, the quality is rubbish, but would you pay more for the real thing if its quality was not much better?

 

[Anonymous]

idc:ÿThe move to plus downloads is only one step. But lossless downloads at 50p a track and albums at £5,ÿwithÿartwork and lyrics that are in a format which is printable to create CDs, so something tangeable, now there is more value.

In my mind I pay for the audio. I'm too young to have been involved in the turntable fraternity involved in the LP CD massacre.

I buy the album. I don't flaunt the artist in any way (I understand their values). I understand through time people have grown attached to the aesthetics revolving a piece of equipment. In my view (though it seems the record industry bosses aren't faring too well) we need to change our way of thinking. Let me say it again, I've everything not against the CD - it's not up to us.

 

[cram]

idc:All Apple and Amazon need to do to become more competitive with Spotify is to allow you to listen to the whole track.

It's worth pointing out that Spotify's business model isn't yet proven whilst both Apple and Amazon have a more mature offering. As I've said before I don't think the offering of Apple/Amazon/Spotify etc. will have any effect whatsoever on illegal downloads. Why should they? The people doing the downloading don't really care about the difference in quality which isn't that big if you are listening on computer speakers or your Ipod. And if/when commercial sites start offering lossless downloads without DRM all that will happen is those files will find themselves on pirate bay etc. and the illegal downloaders will continue as before.

Anyway getting a bit off track...

 

[Anonymous]

Can I point out lossless versions of just about any album you choose are free for download.

It's an important point to make. It's not just the kids.ÿ

 

[cram]

Yes indeed, good point.