Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage

[Project]

One thing I'm surprised to not find more discussion of: Albums. I had to read the EMI press release to figure out that albums will be high bit rate and DRM free, at the same price. To the many arguments of "if you want that, buy a CD", this is actually a great counter- generally less expensive, certainly more convenient, and much closer in quality to the origional, if you buy the album on itunes. I think this is the big step forward. Also, I think this is the music industry's response to the decline in album sales/rise of less profitable singles- make more profit on singles while encouraging sales of albums by giving them more value for the same price.

One thing i couldn't figure out- they said upgrade at 30 cents a song, but what about albums purchased before this announcment. free upgrade, or pay by the song, or no upgrade at all?

Here's the other big question: what about indies? is this EMI exclusive, or can anybody who wants it go DRM free?


dont forget - 'complete my album' has just been released in iTunes as well. So you can purchase some songs then get credit for those if you decide to purchase the rest of the album DRM free @ 256 AAC!

[Mr-Stabby]

I've just watched a report on this on ITV News (U.K) and it said that although Apple are shouting from the rooftops that you can now play your iTunes downloaded music on other MP3 players, they can only be ones that support AAC!

Is this true? Are the DRM free tracks able to be converted from either iTunes or Quicktime Pro? If so, to make it useable on other MP3 players just takes one click of the "Convert to MP3" button!?

Must admit it was quite weird seeing our local news people interviewing Steve Jobs!

[surferfromuk]

I've just watched a report on this on ITV News (U.K) and it said that although Apple are shouting from the rooftops that you can now play your iTunes downloaded music on other MP3 players, they can only be ones that support AAC!

Is this true? Are the DRM free tracks able to be converted from either iTunes or Quicktime Pro? If so, to make it useable on other MP3 players just takes one click of the "Convert to MP3" button!?

Must admit it was quite weird seeing our local news people interviewing Steve Jobs!

Yep, DRM free content in iTunes can quickly and effortlessly be converted into a number of other formats.

Go to Preferences - Advanced - Import Using ;
Just select from a number of formats - mp3, WAV, Aiff, AAC etc
You can set the bit rate if you want.

Then back to your library right click the track(s) and select 'convert to < your set import choice > and it will convert the track for you.

Super quick and effortless.

[matticus008]

I personally think this is a rip-off......They should keep the 99 cents for premium and lower it for regular...99 cents is too much for regular songs as it is...
Apple can't change prices for iTunes products on their own, and EMI certainly wouldn't have gotten on this no-DRM bandwagon if it meant making less money per track than their competitors. Why shouldn't they raise the price? You're getting more out of the deal (higher quality, greater freedom). iTunes prices are already lower than they were when the iTMS launched thanks to the declining dollar and ever-present inflation, so I don't really see the need to lower prices any further. (I'm not saying I'm opposed to the idea; that doesn't make it good business, though.)

And anyway, individual songs have historically cost more than $1, normalized to today's dollars. If anything, the higher price is more appropriate for the catalog as a whole. Look at the price of milk--a gallon used to cost as much as one song on a 45. It's obviously a bit of a stretch to track those two prices, but a gallon of milk today is $3 and a song is just $1.29.

[Rantipole]

Yep, DRM free content in iTunes can quickly and effortlessly be converted into a number of other formats.
[snip]
Then back to your library right click the track(s) and select 'convert to < your set import choice > and it will convert the track for you.

Super quick and effortless.
You lose a good bit of sound quality converting from AAC to AAC or MP3. Even starting at a 256 bit rate, you'll lose quite a bit of quality.

I'm excited about the upgrade-single option.

[Rantipole]

I've just watched a report on this on ITV News (U.K) and it said that although Apple are shouting from the rooftops that you can now play your iTunes downloaded music on other MP3 players, they can only be ones that support AAC!
No, there are several players which support AAC. That newscast, like many idiots, are confusing AAC with Fairplay.

[matticus008]

I usually think of it the other way. The album price is the normal price (albums in the store are often priced around $9.99 as well), and you're paying a premium when purchasing songs individually (although still saving money if you only want 1 or 2 songs).
Ah. I guess it's just a sign of the times--singles used to be the way music was acquired, and they brought out and popularized albums because they were a cheaper way to get music (sort of the Costco "bulk discount" mentality).

It looks like that has reversed. Albums are so commonplace that you think singles are marked-up extractions. (Two minute songs also used to be the norm for lots of pop [e.g. the Beatles--but I'm not that old]).

[ChrisA]

You lose a good bit of sound quality converting from AAC to AAC or MP3. Even starting at a 256 bit rate, you'll lose quite a bit of quality.


No, you loose some quality converting from 256 bit AAC to 256 bit MP3. If you let the MP3 bit rate go up you can preserve the quality. You are best off converting to variable bit rate MP3

[surferfromuk]

Don't know if this has been posted but it's a video clip off the BBC website showing the great steve (yes, you won't be dissapointed he is in black turtleneck) and his new buddy at EMI discussing this...Steve's looking mellow and upbeat!:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm

(top right - click 'watch')

[Stella]

Good move EMI, and Apple for putting actions to its words.

Hopefully this is the beginning of a new era of digital music, and interoperability. Good for consumers, good for music industry ( more sales ).

[SiliconAddict]

It's still AAC. I'd hardly call this interoperability.

If they went MP3, that's a different story.

Oded S.

AAC == MPEG4. Which IS a standard. Hell WMP even plays it as long as the extension is .mp4. Its not Apple's fault that no other player has bothered to support the codec until now. and really there is one reason for this....fairplay has made AAC support pretty much pointless. This could change now that you can download an iTMS track and theoretically play it on any player.

As for MP3. MP3 is the poor mans codec at this point. it was great at the turn of the century but things have changed. MP3 needs to be put out to pasture.

[OldTimey]

Engineers have developed digital signal processing methods built on these psychoacoustic principles which are perfectly capable of fooling the human brain into perceiving multiple sounds coming from locations other than the speakers from which they're really emanating. Again nothing extremely fancy in terms of the concept is being done... just alterations to frequency and amplitude which produces the phase characteristics that make sounds appear to be projecting from different locations... and not merely one complex sound at a time, but many complex sounds at a time.


There are products out there that can fool most people...most, not all. Expert virtuoso players can usually pick out sampled and synthesized instruments from real ones. But even with digital replication and modeling of physical sound, I can assure you that most audio and music industry professionals (for the most part those who actually do more than research)
will be able tell the difference between any modeled (to a "T" even) instrument @ AAC 256kbps and a true instrument recorded @ 24-bit 96KHz PCM. And I am confident most would prefer the "true" track. Total speculation I understand, but to live solely in the realm of numbers and whitepapers can really put one out of touch with practical reality.

The main reason digitally synthesized and sampled instruments (such as Synthogy's Ivory, for instance) sound so good is that they were recorded at very high bitrates and bit depths. You would have to be crazy to or just stupid to believe that 256kbps audio is good enough for even the crappiest multitrack demo recordings.

If you ask most digital photographers, what it is that contributes the most to their image quality, they will often list optics the highest, then CCD quality, and then megapixel count. And while, sure a 3MP picture through a 2500 dollar lens will probably look pretty damn good compared to a 8MP picture shot through the same lens downsampled to 3MP, perhaps even indistinguishable, the fact of the matter remains, @ 3MP you are stuck @ 3MP. You will never be able to retrieve that data back. While the eye might be more sensitive to dynamic differences than the ear, the analogy ports over ok. A 256kbps track using today's encoder's will never sound as "good" as a PROPERLY gain staged and mixed hi resolution recording, despite today's advanced codecs.

Sadly though, the over-discussed "loudness wars" have degraded the quality and dynamic range of most commercially available recordings to the point that yes, that Madonna track bought off iTunes is likely completely indistinguishable from the CD cut, even on the highest of hi-fi component systems.

Through your iPod headset, forget it. Youll never tell the difference in a thousand years of blind testing.

[Stella]

One thought - can anyone confirm -

Is this yet another u.s only DRM-less option that the rest of the world will have to wait 12 months and more, or is drm-less option going to be rolled out to all iTMS at once?

[EricNau]

One thought - can anyone confirm -

Is this yet another u.s only DRM-less option that the rest of the world will have to wait 12 months and more, or is drm-less option going to be rolled out to all iTMS at once?
US, EU, and British currencies were mentioned, so that would lead me to believe the offer is available worldwide (plus, EMI isn't even a US company; they're British).

[Stella]

A lot of mp3 players, and cell phones support AAC, for quite a few years.


Its not Apple's fault that no other player has bothered to support the codec until now. and really there is one reason for this....fairplay has made AAC support pretty much pointless. This could change now that you can download an iTMS track and theoretically play it on any player.

As for MP3. MP3 is the poor mans codec at this point. it was great at the turn of the century but things have changed. MP3 needs to be put out to pasture.

[synth3tik]

This is a big turning point. I hope the RIAA looks at this and see how bad they are to the industry.

[seashellz]

ZUNE, EAT YOUR HEART OUT!
(that is, if you are still in exstance in June)

[081440]

This is a great move forward for Apple and EMI! I hope this can show other recording companies to press forward with less DRM and higher kbps. :D

I can definitely hear the difference between 128 kbps AAC and higher bit rate levels (frankly to those who claim they can't I guess you need to buy better speakers) :cool:

The 30 cent cost increase makes sense since Apple has to double the bandwidth capacity for each song and more than double it's storage capacities since they will now have to have each song on their data banks in two versions, at least only for EMI songs right now.:apple:

[ppnkg]

One thing I'm surprised to not find more discussion of: Albums. I had to read the EMI press release to figure out that albums will be high bit rate and DRM free, at the same price. To the many arguments of "if you want that, buy a CD", this is actually a great counter- generally less expensive, certainly more convenient, and much closer in quality to the origional, if you buy the album on itunes. I think this is the big step forward. Also, I think this is the music industry's response to the decline in album sales/rise of less profitable singles- make more profit on singles while encouraging sales of albums by giving them more value for the same price.


It could be a big step forward yes, ...but what's missing today is artists who value the concept of an album...and music lovers who value artists who value the concept of an album...

[Stella]

ZUNE, EAT YOUR HEART OUT!
(that is, if you are still in exstance in June)


Excellent, the 5 Zune users can play iTMS content on their players without burn -> rip!

[Doctor Q]

It could be a big step forward yes, ...but what's missing today is artists who value the concept of an album...and music lovers who value artists who value the concept of an album...Given how we can pick and choose which songs to play, in any order, and set our iTunes and iPods on shuffle, we've gotten away from the idea that an album is a cohesive work of art. Albums are moreoften just a way to package the latest songs.

Given the Complete My Album option and the "free" higher quality and lack-of-DRM on albums, my habits of buying tracks one at a time are likely to evolve more toward album purchases.

[atomwork]

I agree with you. The vast majority of my collection is in 192k right now, because I can hear the difference in the hi-hats. Trance fans will nod their heads in agreement, as they can easily tell the difference in the two rates just by hearing a TR-909 open hi-hat.

I agree. However it's pointless to talk about this in a non-pro enviroment. Spinning on CDJs or Serato in a club - any MP3 format isn't as good as wav or Vinyl. The songs just don't get the true power they could get from the master.

Keeping that in mind I would have wished for a lossless format. I even would wish I have an option of 256, 320 or wav. I would pay up to 2 bucks for the songs.

Over on beatport.com you pay 1 buck extra for wav downloads.

[goosnarrggh]

Of course not. An "upgrade" from Home Premium to Business would cause you to lose features.
I'd lose Media Centre. I can't think of any other feature in Home Premium that isn't in Business. As far as migrating from Home Basic to Business, I can't think of a single solitary feature I'd need to sacrifice.

But in either case, I'd gain improved data encryption. I'd gain enormously improved networking flexibility. I'd be able to join a domain (as opposed to a workgroup). I'd gain the ability to login to a Novell Netware client.

I think I'm not alone in being in the position of placing much more value on the things I'd gain than the things I'd lose, in such a trade-off.

Basically, as it stands right now, if I want to be able to take a brand new Vista Home Premium laptop into work, I'd need to upgrade the networking subsystem. Vista Business contains that upgrade.

In Windows XP, there was a clear upward migration path from the lowest edition (Home) through the intermediate (Pro) and the full-featured (Media Centre). In Vista, there is a nonsensical path of trade-offs with features coming and going at random as you move "up" the price path (from lowest to highest: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate).

But because of a braindead marketing decision by MS, there's no path to migrate from any Home editions to Business despite value-added features being introduced through such a migration. I'd need to shell out twice as much to go to Ultimate.

Apple definitely has it right with its one-size-fits-all Mac OS X. XP's migration path was liveable. Vista's scheme is worthless.

[burntoutjoy]

Technically, you shouldn't be able to hear a difference between 128Kbps AAC and 16-bit Linear PCM... but some people will insist that you can despite a total lack of any technical understanding of how perceptual coding schema work relative to the A-weighted spectrum.

I'll be supporting the premium tracks, but mainly to help boost the figures for non-DRM file sales.

What the hell? If I can hear a difference, I can hear a difference - it's not about understanding it or not. At the end of the day, lossy audio compression takes away information, and that will affect the sound. At 128kps the codec takes away quite a lot, and although the AAC algorithm is loads better than the MP3 one (in general), it's still going to have a considerable impact if you have decent equipment.

Are you seriously saying that 128kps AAC is indistinguishable from a CD?

[burntoutjoy]

AAC is a CONTAINERIt's really not. 'AAC' stands for Advanced Audio Coding (as in, a codec). AAC and Apple Lossless files sit in an MPEG4 container. Apple Lossless is not related to MPEG at all, apart from the MPEG4 container it is usually used in.

edit: and yes, apple lossless really is lossless *sigh*
Hooray for people yelling off their head when they don't know what they're on about!

[johnmcboston]

Then again, all this depends on actually being able to use the store. Yet another evening where searches take 5-10 minutes, and samples are constantly 'rebuffering stream'. And of course general timeouts. I won't be able to buy anything at this rate, protected or not.

sigh.:(

[jiggie2g]

I'm very impressed by Good ol Jobsey he finally put his money where is big fat mouth is ,but i am even more impressed by the way he has managed to shut up all the doubters on the geek sites(i.e. daily tech , Slash dot , etc.). I truly believe this will be known as a memorable day in digital media history.

simply put this will have a domino effect on the entire Industry. every one gets what they want. Record Labels get the price hike they have been hounding Jobs over for the past year plus added revenue from all the upgrades customers will do for their current catalogs. customers get rid of DRM infection trash, geeks can now use just about any portable media device they want with out worry of compatibility Issues (I'm sure with this more and more player will support AAC). Audio Purist who hate 128bit AAC get the format that offers the best compromise of sound and storage.(no lossless is not a good compromise at 30MB a track).

Hard Drives and flash prices are free failing so the fact that 256kb AAC takes 2x the space is irrelevant. I fully expect to see a 120GB Touch Screen iPod by fall. :)

Last but not least once the other labels cave in to DRM free(Pray SonyBMG/Warner Music listen to reason). The Audio Industry will finally be DRM free and prove to the RIAA and MPAA that DRM has failed once and for all. The Movies Industry will follow suit soon after.

Thank You Steve Jobs for being the man who Killed DRM.

[redfirebird08]

This is a big step in the right direction. Hopefully the industry will allow users to choose between different levels of quality: $2 per song for lossless, etc. on down the line (a ridiculous rate when you consider that most albums in a physical store don't cost $2 per song and they are lossless). Besides the fact that I think online downloads are a ripoff based on the product you receive, I think this is still a huge step in the right direction. DRM is even worse than overpricing.

[redfirebird08]

The fact that the non-DRMd tracks won't be available in May and the lack of any other announcement today makes me think there will be a May music event.

1. There hasn't been a music event in a while.

2. Steve was noncommittal today on The Beatles.

3. The Beatles and Radiohead are the two biggest acts not on iTS, and both are on EMI.

4. :apple:TV is almost certainly going to get HD content soon.

5. Two big summer sequels start in May (Spiderman 3, Shrek 3), so Apple and the studios would have a good promotional opportunity to bring out the earlier movies in HD.

6. iTunes will probably need tweaks for the iPhone.

7. Apple has another couple of months to get another major record label or two on board with non-DRM music. (Steve hinted that others are in the wings.)

8. If there's not going to be a widescreen iPod until three or four months after the iPhone lands, May would be a good time to bump up drive size in the iPod, nano and shuffle.

9. A May iPod/iTunes announcement would clear the deck for Leopard and hardware in June.

Pirates 3 also comes out this May. Pirates is in Steve's court far more than the other two so that could be more achievable. :)

[MacVault]

:) :D This DRM-free-ness is TOTALLY, AWSOME, 1000% GREAT NEWS! But....
:mad: :( WHERE THE F$#&K IS MY LEOPARD???

[bartelby]

But....
:mad: :( WHERE THE F$#&K IS MY LEOPARD???

I don't know. Did you leave you're garden gate open?
You could try flyering the neighbourhood, someone must have seen a big cat roaming around.

[Diatribe]

What the hell? If I can hear a difference, I can hear a difference - it's not about understanding it or not. At the end of the day, lossy audio compression takes away information, and that will affect the sound. At 128kps the codec takes away quite a lot, and although the AAC algorithm is loads better than the MP3 one (in general), it's still going to have a considerable impact if you have decent equipment.

Are you seriously saying that 128kps AAC is indistinguishable from a CD?

I am afraid he is.

[Rantipole]

Posted in March 2005, beyotches! :D

I'm betting this will happen with a price increase. 128, 99 cents; 256, $1.49.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1323193#post1323193

:D

[Cult Follower]

This is sooo exciting! We are finally oving forward into the future of music distribution