20 Million and Counting

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.gigaom.com/2004/11/20_million_downl.php' target='_blank'>http://www.gigaom.com/2004/11/20_million_downl.php</a><br /><br /></div>"<i>RIAA take that. You might accuse all of us of being thieves. Bit Torrent usage might be exploding, but research by Ipsos-Insight shows that most of us are happy paying for tunes. The study shows that the number of paying down-loaders increased 150% In First Half Of 2004, bringing the total to a whopping 20 million Americans.</i>"<br /><br />I've actually decreased my music downloading over the past few months due to iTunes still offering crappy 128kbps downloads. Where are the freaking lossless versions? :evil:

[Brandon Miniman]

"RIAA take that. You might accuse all of us of being thieves. Bit Torrent usage might be exploding, but research by Ipsos-Insight shows that most of us are happy paying for tunes. The study shows that the number of paying down-loaders increased 150% In First Half Of 2004, bringing the total to a whopping 20 million Americans."

I've actually decreased my music downloading over the past few months due to iTunes still offering crappy 128kbps downloads. Where are the freaking lossless versions? :evil:

I agree with you James - in an age where the computer is steadily becoming the center of all media, it is truly unacceptable to have to contend with bitrates of 128kbps. I've heavily considered using iTunes, but have been discouraged completely from doing so just on the mere basis that I don't enjoy listening to digital audio that lacks fidelity. I then wonder what the underlying reason is for the low quality -- an attempt to preserve server capacity? My guess is that, in general, iTunes users listen to their tunes through headphones or a 2 speaker computer setup, and thus need nothing more than 128kbps simply because their phonetic setup cannot reproduce the outstanding quality that higher-end headphones and speaker setups can.

[James Fee]

You might be right about Apple's reasons, but they want me to stream those songs to my Home Theater System? Don't think so.... :x

[BugDude10]

I suspect that they (the online retailers) think that 128kbps is an acceptable trade-off for quality vs. file-size. And if you were to listen to your purchases only on your portable player or your PC (with crappy to midling speakers), then 128kbps is probably fine. But before I part with any of my hard-earned $$$, I want full, lossless files (e.g., .WAV files), so that I can make actual CD-quality CDs of my selections. Otherwise, I'll just buy the CD and rip it myself. (I know they may have some problem DRM-ing a .WAV file, but that's their problem, not mine.)

Beyond that, with the growth of broadband, downloading tunes at greater-than-128kbps-quality isn't much of a concern anymore.

Just my $0.02.

[Jason Dunn]

Considering that Apple only sells hard-drive based players which have much more storage than flash players, I think it has less to do with storage and more to do with quality. The record labels want there to be a clear difference between a 128 kbps AAC file and a 1024 kbps CD.

[James Fee]

The record labels want there to be a clear difference between a 128 kbps AAC file and a 1024 kbps CD.OK maybe, but where is my 192 kbps? :?:

[Jason Dunn]

OK maybe, but where is my 192 kbps? :?:

Oh, I hear ya - I think 160 kbps should be the new standard, it not 192 kbps.

[Brandon Miniman]

Considering that Apple only sells hard-drive based players which have much more storage than flash players, I think it has less to do with storage and more to do with quality. The record labels want there to be a clear difference between a 128 kbps AAC file and a 1024 kbps CD.

I like your point regarding record company’s ambitions to further elevate a physical CD from an electronic one by having quality caps at 128kbps, but at this point in music store game – haven’t the record companies been fairly compensated?

In a response to my own question (I like to step onto both sides for a moment), I think the big companies foresee the decline of the physical CD – why go to the mall to purchase a full disc, when you could download the entire piece from iTunes? They need to make some sort of incentive for the physical CD to remain on the shelves and selling, and perhaps they do this through the 128kbps cap.

[The Yaz]

To me, this is the real question. Could the 128kps "standard" for web downloads be a precurser to different qualities of downloads at different prices?

If the public starts to demand higher bitrate recordings, I believe the sites will give in only after charging a premium.

So 128kps will still go for $.99 per song/$9.99 per album, but add $.20/$2.00 for 160kps or $.50/$5.00 for Lossless-VBR. Then the higher quality recordings will be closer in price to physical cds.

Who knows, maybe for a dollar more, you could also download the album cover and linernotes as well.

In this way, they would appeal to a wider audience. People with small flash players can still decide quantity vs. quality, while the audio affecionados could collect the entire album, cover and all in a digital format.

Steve 8)

[Jason Dunn]

So 128kps will still go for $.99 per song/$9.99 per album, but add $.20/$2.00 for 160kps or $.50/$5.00 for Lossless-VBR. Then the higher quality recordings will be closer in price to physical cds.

I don't know if that will happen - Buy.com offers 256 kbps tracks, and they're no more expensive. I can guarantee that Apple's contracts specify 128 kbps, and if they want to offer higher quality downloads it will take a whole new round of negotiations and more money to the record studios.

[James Fee]

I don't know if that will happen - Buy.com offers 256 kbps tracks, and they're no more expensive. I can guarantee that Apple's contracts specify 128 kbps, and if they want to offer higher quality downloads it will take a whole new round of negotiations and more money to the record studios.And as usual, the consumer gets screwed.... :roll: