iTunes for Windows!

[RussSchultz]

Not to be rude, but people like the stereophile editor have a severe stick up their butt when it comes to reviewing any sort of psychoaccoustic modeling. They have expectations that border on silly, and essentially call anything that falls beneath their pristine ears unworthy. That includes that isn't 192/24 (or likely through their $500/ft cables, either)

As bitrates fall, it quickly becomes obvious that MP3 is actually the worst of the bunch, and more modern compression algorithms (like WMA, MP3Pro, and AAC) do, indeed, outperform it with less bits. Yes, there is truth to the WMA at 64kbps is equal to MP3 at 128kbps, though I'd not use 64kbps, but 96kbps WMA because 128 kbps MP3 has pretty obvious problems with predictive noise.

Its all a bit academic, though. The general populace can't tell the difference between 192kbps MP3 and the CD, and certainly not 320kbps. Certainly not through earbuds, or while jogging, or on an airplane.

 

[Gump]

I think the main point is that since we're paying for this consumers should expect something close to CD quality.

 

[Althornin]

My main problems with iTunes:

Per song cost:
At $1 each, this is about the same cost as buying a CD right now. Sure, you get instant gratification, but you dont recieve any real media - you have to burn your own.

Song quality:
If i am going to pay as much as a CD costs, they i demand CD quality. I rip to mp3 at very high quality. I also keep the CD should i desire a better listening experience - i can play it in my HTS directly, rather than MP3 via computer.

Limited Usage:
Usage is limited in a way that i personally think falls under fair use rights, and i am not going to pay equal amounts for less usage privileges.

Instant gratification:
The only upside. I can have that music NOW.

Basically, if i am gonna have to pay the same as a CD costs, i want CD quality, i want the same usage i get with a CD currently, etc.
I would much prefer a sliding scale payment based on quality. Say, $0.50 for the current iTunes offereng, sliding up to a full $1.00 for the WAV.
That along with no DRM would have me lining up.

Side rant: Why do they put DRM on these stupid things? IF people WANTED to steal, then they would simply STEAL THE MUSIC. It is out there for FREE (albeit illegal). The very fact that they are paying you for it means that they desire to reside in a "morally clean" environment, and ergo, DRM is retarded - it only impinges upon fair use, because those would would steal can do so freely anyways. Take any tune on iTunes. If i wanted to break their terms to STEAL music, i'd simply download the track off of kazaa/irc/ftp/gnutella/whatever. On the other hand, if i want to break their terms for fair use, they are restricting the use of a person who has demonstrated that he/she desires to NOT steal. Argh!!!!