Jeremy wrote:

] If so, that is pretty lame. Why not 256 kbps? It's still
] not CD quality, but why skimp on what's nearly-free disk
] space?
]
From my A/B/C comparisons over the past couple of days, 128k AAC seems VERY close to CD quality, although discerning ears could hear some compression artifacts in the form of slightly less presence and very high (15-20kHz) frequency material (The "shimmery bright" frequencies). I think probably that the choice of 128k was due more to bandwidth considerations than ones of storage...

] album. Ultimately, the fee schedule should be progressive.
] By this, I mean that I should be able to buy the album a song
] at a time for 50 cents each, over time, and if the album
] contains more than ten tracks, I get the rest for them for
] free after buying the tenth.
]
The average album (12-14 tracks) comes out to being roughly the same price as a store-bought CD. I would prefer more of a discount myself, as well as some kind of upper price limit or some such. I have a number of 60-70 minute albums that have over 20 songs. You'd end up spending a bunch more for a full album in those cases.

I think the pricing strategy is slewed toward the majority of the radio-listening, album-disoriented public that is going to buy songs rather than full CDs. Apple's attitude seems to be that people who are really "into" music or specific artists are more likely to purchase the CD anyhow, and I really don't think I can argue with that point of view. Following on the above, I don't think that APPL intends to target this service to the people who are doing the majority of the file sharing. They're looking for people who want to buy songs they like without having to shell out $15-$18 on the full-length CD.

RE: Why EMusic is better then the new Apple service (maybe)