Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple and EMI will be holding a joint press conference at 1pm London time, 8am EDT, to discuss "an exciting new digital offering."

Late last week, a MacRumors source indicated that the event would revolve around the removal of Digital Rights Management (DRM) from EMI tracks in the iTunes store. Unverifiable at the time, we did not publish the information until yesterday, which has since been echoed from the Wall Street Journal.

We will update this story periodically throughout the event as new information becomes available.

Audio Webcast (http://w3.cantos.com/07/pjxrobbi-703-5zvx0)

Confirmed: DRM-free Music: MacRumors user stomer (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=102904) has found slides from further in the webcast that confirm that the announcement will revolve around "DRM-free tracks at twice the sound quality."

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/04/02/Slide5_300.gif

EMI Press Release (http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm)
Apple Press Release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html)

Updates (Time is EDT, Chronological Order)
- 7:53am Audio Feed has become available
- 8:02 Music playing over audio feed now
- 8:06 Greetings...
- 8:09 Going to have to be patient a bit longer... live performances first.
- 8:10 Performance by The Good, The Bad, and The Queen
- 8:23 We are focused on giving the consumers a truly compelling experience
- 8:24 Our research indicates that consumers are willing to pay a higher price in order to play their music on any player.
- 8:24 Announcing premium downloads. Free from DRM, and higher sound quality.
- 8:25 Upgrade ability as well.
- From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade
- 8:28 Steve takes stage.
- 8:29 "Next stage in the digital music revolution"
- 8:31 Premium tracks will be 256 kbps AAC
- 8:32 Available next month (May)
- From press release: All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.
- 8:35 End of formal conference, begin of Q/A

- Q: When are the Beatles coming?
- A: Don't know yet.

- Q: You mentioned 2.5 million tracks available by year end... obviously that isn't just EMI...
- A: (Steve) Yes... that is our projection for other labels coming on board as well.

- Q: Now that the link between iTunes/iPod is broken, do you expect a decline in iPod sales?
- A: (Steve) I don't see a link, because you have always been able to buy music from elsewhere (CD's) and put it on your iPod. We're going to keep working to do the best job at what we do, and we are going to hope that consumers agree.

- Q: What's the point on keeping DRM on standard tracks?
- A: (Steve) We don't want to force-raise the price on anyone.

[ Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_EMI_Press_Conference_Coverage) ]

[LastLine]

So for the ignorant of us here - who does EMI cover?

[aspro]

So for the ignorant of us here - who does EMI cover?

Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EMI_labels) what you are after?

Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_signed_to_EMI)?

[brightlights]

So for the ignorant of us here - who does EMI cover?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_signed_to_EMI

[liketom]

i've opened the WM stream but there is nothing to say it will be starting , have i connected right?

[xJulianx]

Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EMI_labels) what you are after?

Wow, thats alot more than I thought! I'm gonna be so stoked if EMI drop DRM.


EDIT: Actually, there are next to no artists that are signed to EMI that I listen to, and if I do, I already have their albums. Oh well, still going to be a step forward for the iTunes music store regardless if DRM is dropped.

[macintel4me]

Wow, this really could be true after all. Man, Steve and Apple are relentless in their pursuit of consumer product excellence. So much for that econ theory that says a monolopgy does NOT innovate. Apple has 70-some marketshare and still doing this!!!! :eek: Simply amazing!!

[chrisgeleven]

So much for that audio stream.

[liketom]

you'd think they would at least let it stream via QT too:rolleyes:

[motulist]

I didn't expect a live stream! This is awesome, it's like an unexpected macworld presentation! Can't wait till it starts! :D

[longofest]

So much for that audio stream.

It get bogged down? Figured it might... I hopped on early to make sure we could provide coverage, so we'll keep updates rolling :)

[68164]

At least they could offer QT seeing as though its an Apple event...well half Apple anyway...

[Iggy]

Don't EMI own Apple Records?

Bird & the bee! cool.

[thefunkymunky]

Anyone have a direct link to the stream?

[chrisgeleven]

I just got the Real player stream working again.

Right now it is just music playing.

[Lone Deranger]

I think the EMI webmasters rather underestimated the fervour of the Mac community.

So much for that audio stream.

[boer]

Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EMI_labels) what you are after?

Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_signed_to_EMI)?

Yeah, don't check first hand sources (http://www.emirecords.co.uk) or anything.

[ppnkg]

Wow, this really could be true after all. Man, Steve and Apple are relentless in their pursuit of consumer product excellence. So much for that econ theory that says a monolopgy does NOT innovate. Apple has 70-some marketshare and still doing this!!!! :eek: Simply amazing!!


uhm... a monopoly? not really...

[Project]

Im having much better luck with the Real Audio stream. Theyre playing some music right now. Im forgoing my lunch break for this so it better be big!

[caipirina]

This is incredible ... Steve Jobs as special guest, Mr. QuickTime himself ... and you can only get the audio in WM and RP .. thats not a good sign ... :mad:

[macintel4me]

you would have thought that maybe, just maybe, the audio stream could have been using Apple technology like QuickTime or an iTunes digital radio station. Oh well... :o

[Chris Bangle]

This is incredible ... Steve Jobs as special guest, Mr. QuickTime himself ... and you can only get the audio in WM and RP .. thats not a good sign ... :mad:


im furious

[mhuk01]

it's starting! lol staff canteen! :D

[chrisgeleven]

Looks like it is starting!

[stomer]

Confirmed. DRM free music.

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide1.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide2.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide3.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide4.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

[mhuk01]

definately drm!

[Project]

yep its on

[Project]

bloody hell. forget the music! give the announcement!!!

[macintel4me]

uhm... a monopoly? not really...
By any reasonable defination, Apple has a monopoly on digital music players. Really.

[macintel4me]

Get to the point already!!!

[motulist]

OOoo! It sounds like he's headed toward dropping DRM! I can't believe it's actually gonna happen!

[Iggy]

Haha it's the biggest room in the EMI building.

Good the bad and the queen!

[chrisgeleven]

Ok, EMI president just said that they have an exciting new digital initiative, but first there will be some live music.

I have to say, for a record label exec, he seems to be interesting.

[fireworks501]

Music??????????? Are You Kidding Me??????????????????

Get This Damned Announcement Out Of The Way

[Project]

did anybodys stream just cut out for the live music?

wtf

[motulist]

Oops! Silence. Someone's getting fired.

[Compile 'em all]

Real stream working fine here. I am using windows though (at work :o).

[fireworks501]

Oh joy, music. Are you kidding me?

[liketom]

did anybodys stream just cut out for the live music?

wtf
DRM protected live stream :D

[Project]

Im partial to some Damon Albarn, but jesus christ put this at the end like Apple do at Macworld!!!

:mad:

[motulist]

WARNING: Spoilers!

Confirmed. DRM free music.

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide1.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide2.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide3.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide4.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

[Bobthemonkey]

Def DRM, especially with the Albarn quote.

The Good, The Bad and The Queen..listen, they are good.

re. the previous post, they cann't be suggesting you have to pay more for DRM free, all th is talk of a premium product with enhanced sound qaulity, and upgrading existing content.

[chrisgeleven]

That slide is weird. How can non-DRM tracks have twice the sound quality, but DRM tracks have standard sound quality?

Does that mean we get lossless DRM tracks and then lossy non-DRM?

[68164]

Nice work - good to see they haven't locked it right down!

[Konradx]

When i open it with Windowds media player..it says Closed 00:00/00:00. I guess they reached there limit on the stream.

[Applespider]

Ha... they giveth one hand and taketh away with the other...

so you only get DRM free if you pay for the privelege... and you only get the better quality if you pay for the difference. Given that it doesn't take any extra effort to encode at 256, it'll be interesting to see whether it's twice the price.

I wonder if consumers will vote with their wallets and stick to the DRM'd stuff.

[Evangelion]

By any reasonable defination, Apple has a monopoly on digital music players. Really.

Um, no they do not.

[codo]

DRM Free at last. Now I can go back and flag up the post of the Apple fanboy zealots who listed the reasons it would never happen from their repertoire of knowledge, criticising anyone who disagreed. Brilliant, fun for all!

Excellent move for the consumer.

[macintel4me]

HOLY ****!!

Slide 5 says

DRM-free track at twice the sound quality
or
Standard souquality tracks with DRM

Go frickin' Apple!!! Steve is the Jack Baur for consumers. :p

[captan]

Wow, is everything covered live these days? I mean, Steve Jobs keynote at WWDC or Nintendo keynote at E3 for instance I can understand, but isn't this a bit too much hype for a minor event/press release thing? Exactly how big is this news on the grand scale?

[motulist]

This performance is meh. It sounds like the album track probably sounds good, but I'm not impressed with this performance. I'll be charitable and say maybe it's due to the low quality of the audio stream.

[bartelby]

So how long before the other labels follow suit?

[stomer]

HOLY SH-T!!

Slide 5 says

DRM-free track at twice the sound quality
or
Standard souquality tracks with DRM

Go frickin' Apple!!! Steve is the Jack Baur for consumers. :p
I want to know how much the 'premium' is.

[caipirina]

Confirmed. DRM free music.

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide1.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide2.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide3.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide4.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

What a great find .. someone will get fired at cantos for that :) having that hanging it out on the servers already ...


But if this is true ... I am actually more furious and think people will turn even more to piracy ...

First we buy crippled tracks ... then we shall pay more to uncripple them ??? yikes ...

How many more times are we paying for the same music ??? first you bought the vinyl .. then you bought the same music on CD, because it was cool and smaller ... now on iTMS .. because maybe your CD collection is stuck in storage or it is super scratched by now ... and now .. give us a bit more money to give it to you DRM free ... ha ha ha

[68164]

Will be the price be the same for the two options???

[musicus]

Nice work, stomer, but puzzling too. Higher resolution is good, of course.

[Belly-laughs]

Confirmed. DRM free music.

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide1.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide2.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide3.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide4.GIF
http://cache.cantos.com/webcast/static/4000/5242/5328/7133/Presentation/_213166cb-1ac6-62fd-d720-65b43583ad0c_/Slide5.GIF

great find! i especially like the last slide.

[DaveTheGrey]

DRM protected live stream :D

just what i was thinking when the music stoped playing... :D

plz call me when this "music" has ended...
... and it's gettin even worser... yak

Dave

[lu0s3r322]

haha nice score stomer

[Project]

the big questions is - how much extra is this premium?

$1.50 for double the sound quality and no DRM is a price worth paying IMO. Anymore than that then forget it.

[stomer]

haha nice score stomer
CTRL-U is your friend :-)

[kiwi-in-uk]

Press release here (http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm)

[motulist]

I want to know how much the 'premium' is.

Good question. I hadn't even thought that they might charge more for non-drm songs, maybe that's why they upped the sound quality so they could justify the higher price, which was probably demanded by the label in order to agree to no drm. It's quite a circular situation.

[bignumbers]

After watching the horrendously produced Adobe CS3 "announcement" and then this (audio-only) announcement thus far, I'm realizing how good Apple is at this stuff and how I'm expecting that level of production at any event.

[nc1000]

I can't believe Steve Jobs capitulated to higher prices for DRM free. Is that what 84% of consumers asked for? I don't think so.

[superduperjacob]

From the press release:
"Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price."

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13165/

[Applespider]

Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.

From EMI's press release. So albums are now a better deal. Upgrading at 20p a track... it could be worse...

[m2uk]

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=allBreakingNews&storyID=2007-04-02T120721Z_01_WLA7897_RTRIDST_0_EMI-APPLE-URGENT.XML

[clivegriffiths]

Well EMI have let the cat out of the bag already, check out http://www.emigroup.com/Default.htm and it mentions the DRM free annoucements and press release. Disappointed that its looking like its a premium product rather than just a shift towards DRM-free. Still its a step in the right direction!

[Evangelion]

Will be the price be the same for the two options???

Most likely not. Or do you think that they will offer them at same price, and consumers would be thinking "I could either get the hi-quality DRM-free song for 99 cents, or I could get the DRM'ed low-quality version for 99 cents. Which should I choose...."

[stomer]

the big questions is - how much extra is this premium?

$1.50 for double the sound quality and no DRM is a price worth paying IMO. Anymore than that then forget it.
It sounds to me that they will offer both DRM and non-DRM side by side, with the non-DRM stuff being sold at a premium.

[behindthecamera]

Press release:

EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire

Apple's iTunes store to be the first online music store to sell EMI's new downloads

London, 2 April 2007 -- EMI Music today announced that it is launching new premium downloads for retail on a global basis, making all of its digital repertoire available at a much higher sound quality than existing downloads and free of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions.

The new higher quality DRM-free music will complement EMI's existing range of standard DRM-protected downloads already available. From today, EMI's retailers will be offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality. EMI is releasing the premium downloads in response to consumer demand for high fidelity digital music for use on home music systems, mobile phones and digital music players. EMI's new DRM-free products will enable full interoperability of digital music across all devices and platforms.

Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group, said, "Our goal is to give consumers the best possible digital music experience. By providing DRM-free downloads, we aim to address the lack of interoperability which is frustrating for many music fans. We believe that offering consumers the opportunity to buy higher quality tracks and listen to them on the device or platform of their choice will boost sales of digital music.

"Apple have been a true pioneer in digital music, and we are delighted that they share our vision of an interoperable market that provides consumers with greater choice, quality, convenience and value for money."

"Selling digital music DRM-free is the right step forward for the music industry," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "EMI has been a great partner for iTunes and is once again leading the industry as the first major music company to offer its entire digital catalogue DRM-free."

Apple's iTunes Store (www.itunes.com) is the first online music store to receive EMI's new premium downloads. Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.

EMI is introducing a new wholesale price for premium single track downloads, while maintaining the existing wholesale price for complete albums. EMI expects that consumers will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free downloads from a variety of digital music stores within the coming weeks, with each retailer choosing whether to sell downloads in AAC, WMA, MP3 or other unprotected formats of their choice. Music fans will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free digital music for personal use, and listen to it on a wide range of digital music players and music-enabled phones.

EMI's move follows a series of experiments it conducted recently. Norah Jones's "Thinking About You", Relient K's "Must've Done Something Right", and Lily Allen's "Littlest Things" were all made available for sale in the MP3 format in trials held at the end of last year.

EMI Music will continue to employ DRM as appropriate to enable innovative digital models such as subscription services (where users pay a monthly fee for unlimited access to music), super-distribution (allowing fans to share music with their friends) and time-limited downloads (such as those offered by ad-supported services).

Nicoli added: "Protecting the intellectual property of EMI and our artists is as important as ever, and we will continue to work to fight piracy in all its forms and to educate consumers. We believe that fans will be excited by the flexibility that DRM-free formats provide, and will see this as an incentive to purchase more of our artists' music."

[caipirina]

I want to know how much the 'premium' is.

exactly ... it is in the word 'premium' ... which means 'more money' usually

ok .. 2 tracks over .. now they have some 90 mins clip something ??? see ya guys in 90 mins (stream fading in and out)

[macintel4me]

Okay...I bet even Steve is getting annoyed with all this music BS...

[Project]

20p extra at twice the sound fidelity?

Im sold.

[marco114]

it's starting!

[macbwizard]

It's about the Beatles

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070402/D8O84RC00.html

[clivegriffiths]

Press release:

Apple's iTunes Store (www.itunes.com) is the first online music store to receive EMI's new premium downloads. Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.


Actually thats not too bad. Was expecting double the price, but at just $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 difference and no difference on albums, thats really not too much of a big deal. Lets hope that this now leads the way to other labels doing the same!!!!

[marco114]

I would be nice if Apple did a slide show like this for their live events.

[motulist]

30 cent premium. Seems reasonable.

[Evangelion]

But if this is true ... I am actually more furious and think people will turn even more to piracy ...

First we buy crippled tracks ... then we shall pay more to uncripple them ??? yikes ...

It's not THAT bad. You can get the DRM'ed songs for .99. Or you can get the un-DRM'ed songs for 1.29. If you already have the DRM'ed song, you can upgrade to un-DRM'ed version by paying the price-difference between the two. So you are not paying any extra when compared to purchasing the un-DRM'ed version in the first place.

Also, albums are sold un-DRM'ed and with high bitrate by default, and the price stays the same.

[peharri]

the big questions is - how much extra is this premium?

$1.50 for double the sound quality and no DRM is a price worth paying IMO. Anymore than that then forget it.

From the PR:

Apple's iTunes Store (www.itunes.com) is the first online music store to receive EMI's new premium downloads. Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.

I assume "double the sound quality" means double the bitrate.

I wonder if Apple'll make this available to their independent publishers who have been screaming for a DRM-free option.

[OllyW]

Full albums the same price but at the higher quality with no DRM.

Looks like they are trying to boost album sales.

[zelmo]

So, if I but a DRM'd single from iTMS for $.99 and later decide to upgrade to the full album for $9.99, I will get the higher quality non-DRM edition, right?

Looks like a ploy to get people to buy complete albums, which is one of the things RIAA complained about in the first place [under the guise of 'losing the integrity of the album format' :rolleyes: :p].

[chrisgeleven]

Sounds like iTunes albums will still be sold at $9.99 and get the benefit of no DRM PLUS higher quality.

I am sold!

[Applespider]

So how on earth do you figure out which of your iTunes songs can be upgraded -or will iTunes be adding an 'Upgrade your Album' feature like the 'Complete your Album' feature?

[Project]

people... this is huge.

please tell me 265 AAC on iTunes

[acearchie]

yay no drm!!!

INcluding music videos!!!

Yay I love the good the bad and the queen

[caipirina]

oh .. no price difference between DRM / DRM free albums .. they want to push album sales again ...

(not in the press release .. but the guy just said that)

[steve jr.]

Woo Apple iTunes #1

[chrisgeleven]

Steve's coming on now!

[retrospek]

Steve on stage !

[Willis]

Ahh the sound of Steves voice... feel all fuzzy inside

[Gump]

You may or may not realize it in the heat of this amazing moment for consumers,
but we are witnessing a HUGE moment in the history of all music.
This is the beginning of a change in how music is viewed, heard and treated.

[chrisgeleven]

ENTIRE EMI catalog available on iTunes in May.

[applemax]

We Have To Wait Until May!!!!!!????? No!!!!!! :(

[SilentPanda]

So how on earth do you figure out which of your iTunes songs can be upgraded -or will iTunes be adding an 'Upgrade your Album' feature like the 'Complete your Album' feature?

There will inevitably be a *very* easy way to do it. It's Apple!

The DRM doesn't bother me at all but for any tracks I can upgrade I'm going to. Mostly to show the other record labels, "Hey... I dig not having DRM on my tracks."

Edit: Wow! Wikipedia is fast. It's already been updated. Crazy kids and your wikis.

[Project]

256kbs AAC

/sheds tear

[Dippo]

FINALLY. A music company that gets it!

I might go back to buying music again!

[macintel4me]

We have to wait 6 weeks...

[Bobthemonkey]

ENTIRE EMI catalog available on iTunes in May.

Entire, and that includes the Beatles :)

[motulist]

256 bit AAC! Awesome!

[chrisgeleven]

256kbps AAC, CONFIRMED BY JOBS!

[Willis]

256 AAC... sweet

[caipirina]

Ha ha ha ... Steve just said [selling stuff digitally]"it has been great for the musiclovers, the music companies and apple." ...

what about the artists ??? the guys who actually make that stuff ???

[chrisgeleven]

WORLDWIDE!

Also be able to upgrade entire library to higher qualtiy EMI songs for $0.30 apiece.

[macbwizard]

Steve is talking awfully fast.

[Dippo]

Upgrade current songs for 30 cents a song!!!

NICE!

[Willis]

Steve is really selling it. But then, thats what he's good at.

[macintel4me]

I can hear the screams of agony coming from the Redmond Zune camp. :D

[Project]

hes speaking fast because he is reading from his notes, lol

"Apple is reaching out to all of the other labels to other the same...."

Wow. Just wow.

[adamjc]

Steve is talking awfully fast.

Sounds like he is talking from a piece of paper! No Apple Keynote that's for sure!

[applemax]

I can feel a 'One more thing..." coming up :D

[jonnyblobby]

not sure if anyone noticed this, but the emigroup website stated that the webcast was about drm free music BEFORE it began. i checked it about 30mins before it started and it had it on the homeb page http://www.emigroup.com/Default.htm

press release: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

[macintel4me]

Who da Man?!? Steve, you da man!!

[bignumbers]

How many other audio players, phones, etc, play unprotected AAC? Neither my Treo phone or my GPS (Garmin Nuvi 660) play it...

Converting to MP3 will introduce an element of quality loss.

(And yeah, Steve was reading from his notes like he learned of this five minutes ago.)

[psionic001]

heh, SJ said that they had sold 2.5million songs. Isn't it 2.5B

[Konradx]

"$1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less)". No thanks. I could pay less for a cd, and have much higher quality lossless tracks instead of an increase to 256 kbps. A pass on this one.

[caipirina]

'we are working on it' (first question and reply in the QA)

[Willis]

Sky News: "whens the beatles coming on?"
Steve Jobs: "I'd like to know that too"
EMI: SOON, working on it

[marco114]

The key to all this is that it's not MP3. It's AAC. I don't think all players play AAC versions, no?

[boer]

I for one am going to reward EMI for this. THIS is the way digital content business is done!

[Project]

Konradx the albums are the same price DRM or DRM free.

[retrospek]

I for one am going to reward EMI for this. THIS is the way digital content business is done!

I agree - we need to support EMI now that they have made this change..

[gnasher729]

By any reasonable defination, Apple has a monopoly on digital music players. Really.

That is pure and utter nonsense.

If a customer makes a decision which music player to buy, there is no reason whatsoever to take the market share of the product into account. If there is a better player or one that you personally like better with only one percent market share, there is no reason not to buy it. The iTunes software will let you rip all your CDs in a format that will work on that player. You can download any music that you want from the iTunes Store's competitors.

Apple also cannot put any pressure on the music industry, because their percentage in music sales is tiny, only a few percent. They are quite successful in the tiny niche of selling music downloads for iPods, but that is all.

[Mgkwho]

Steve is talking awfully fast.

'Ya know I just rewatched the september '06 SE and Steve was talking a mile-a-minute. (I think that was the one I was watching...)

-------

Ooo and more labels coming on board too!

-=|Mgkwho

[Konradx]

Konradx the albums are the same price DRM or DRM free.

From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade

So albums are same price DRM free..but single tracks cost 30 cents more?

[boer]

How many other audio players, phones, etc, play unprotected AAC? Neither my Treo phone or my GPS (Garmin Nuvi 660) play it...

Converting to MP3 will introduce an element of quality loss.


Get an iPod, dummy! And by the way, AAC is a standard and about to get more ubiguitous support just because of this.

[adamjc]

Steve does seem to be promoting the fact that you can basically remove drm from tracks by burning them and then importing the tracks back into iTunes.

Could this be a bit of backhander to the other labels?

GO STEVE YOU ROCK!

[Dagless]

today is a good day.

But forgive me, is this really just EMI? What about other labels? Or is EMI the name of the big umbrella corp. for music (I literally have no clue here!).

[Queso]

Fantastic. Can you hear how the EMI guy is talking? "Trusting consumers to do the right thing. Confident it will grow sales". Brilliant :)

[GreatDrok]

The key to all this is that it's not MP3. It's AAC. I don't think all players play AAC versions, no?

Cheap MP3 players probably don't but many do including PSP. More to the point though, iTunes will be able to convert these files to MP3 since they aren't protected files :)

[Project]

Kondrax - yes. They said to encourage people to buy albums as opposed to just singles.

I say, this is a near flawless roll out...

[Dippo]

From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade

So albums are same price DRM free..but single tracks cost 30 cents more?

That's right!

It's just a marketing ploy to get you to buy the whole album.
EMI wants you to buy the whole album not just one or two songs.

[Queso]

A lot of Nokia phones support AAC :)

[Willis]

Sony tried DRM on cds... didnt work..

Steve you legend

[Enrico]

How about complete my album new feature?

Let's say I buy 1 or 2 premium tracks, will i be able to buy the premium album at 9,99-1.30x where x is the number of purchased premium tracks?:apple:

[Willis]

Interesting comment by Steve about videos. I wish Apple would hurry up with the movies though in the UK AND Tv Shows

[epochblue]

FINALLY. EMI is going to make some serious bank off me now. Gotta support the guys working with you and not against you.

[caipirina]

While I really think it is a step in the right direction ...

for me it still sounds like selling a cure / vaccine at a premium for a disease that they (the music industry) had released ...

[Gasu E.]

I can't believe Steve Jobs capitulated to higher prices for DRM free. Is that what 84% of consumers asked for? I don't think so.

I'd imagine at least 84% of consumers would prefer everything for free.:D

[Evangelion]

"$1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less)". No thanks. I could pay less for a cd, and have much higher quality lossless tracks instead of an increase to 256 kbps. A pass on this one.

The full albums still cost 9.99, and they are DRM-free and they have higher bitrate.

[SilentPanda]

A lot of Nokia phones support AAC :)

The XBox 360 supports AAC. Now with Connect 360 I could stream EMI music to my 360.

[Evangelion]

From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade

So albums are same price DRM free..but single tracks cost 30 cents more?

They do. But since you said "CD's are cheaper", then I guess you were talking about albums, no?

[bartelby]

EMI would make a decent amount of money off me if they hadn't dropped then deleted 95% of the artists when they bought Mute Records and it's subs.

[Applespider]

Tough crowd... for those arguing why have the 79p restriction since it really doesn't hold up. If you disagree with DRM in principle, why not remove it unless you want to take it as an additional revenue stream

[Thataboy]

Some non-Apple players do play unprotected AAC. I believe the Zune does... I believe PocketTunes for Treo does (might be a premium version). I thought Sony products did as well.

Regardless, you can bet that everyone will now put AAC playback in their devices, now that iTunes users can switch players -- great move by Apple to further AAC adoption. WMA who? WMA what? Hahaha! :)

$1.29 for 256k non-DRM AAC? I'm there. $9.99 for a full album is now completely reasonable for those among us (like myself) who hate physical media.

Great job, Apple/EMI. Now, let's get started on making one worldwide store ;)

[caipirina]

Brilliant question that guy asked. Why, if they now are so against DRM .. why keep it on the cheaper tracks ??? HA HA HA

[Evangelion]

Brilliant question that guy asked. Why, if they now are so against DRM .. why keep it on the cheaper tracks ??? HA HA HA

Well, since the user gets less, he also pays less ... Or rather, since he can now get more, he also pays more ... HA HA HA ... ???

[psionic001]

Who thought he was about to say "You know, Life's a Bitch"

[Gasu E.]

By any reasonable defination, Apple has a monopoly on digital music players. Really.

By any reasonable definition, people who use phrases like "by any reasonable definition" without actually providing an example of a "reasonable definition" appear to be foolish. So here is a "reasonable definition."

In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monopolium - Greek language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Primary characteristics of a monopoly
Single Seller: For a pure monopoly to take place, only one company can be selling the good. A company can have a monopoly on certain goods and not on other goods.
No close substitutes: Monopoly is not merely the state of having a unique or recognizable product, but also that there are no close substitutes available for the function the good fills.
Price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.

[Cougarcat]

"$1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less)". No thanks. I could pay less for a cd, and have much higher quality lossless tracks instead of an increase to 256 kbps. A pass on this one.

Exactly my sentiments, until I realized that albums are still 9.99 for premium tracks.

[johnee]

From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade

So albums are same price DRM free..but single tracks cost 30 cents more?

Where is this information given? I guess I don't understand that policy. Why charge more for single tracks but not the album?

Since every business decision is made based on $, I'm assuming they will make enough money from selling singles to justify letting albums go for same price.

Either that or they are trying to be ethical, trying to support the album format so artist don't get discouraged about selling only one or two songs (but i doubt that's the reason).

[motulist]

Wow, that girl is a dumbass.

[Project]

what a lousy question at the end. smh

[acearchie]

Storage is going up, prices are going down. Its a good time to do this!

Steve Jobs

Interesting . . .

[Applespider]

what a lousy question at the end. smh

I thought the one about how many songs an iPod would hold was funnier

[Thataboy]

It is a bit odd that they are keeping the 99-cent versions with DRM.

But surely EMI wants to see what the results are. Do people prefer to pay 99 cents for low quality DRM, or $1.29 for high quality non-DRM? They (and Apple) will now have easy access to what consumers really want. If people buy the premium versions of the new Beyonce single, for example, 3:1 over the standard versions, then Apple can use that data to convince the other labels.

Ultimately, I think this is less about DRM and more about the labels' desire to up the price over 99 cents. They have wanted to do this forever, and Steve has said hell to the no. I imagine Steve said "look, we will sell versions at a premium, but NOT based on who is a big artist, or new releases, or hooey like that. kill DRM, give me 256k, and you can sell on iTunes for more money."

Now the next question is, will Steve allow the indies to follow suit quickly (since many have complained that they dont WANT DRM)? And how will the other big labels react?

[Dippo]

what a lousy question at the end. smh

I agree. She was just trying to attack at Steve Jobs, but of course he showed her.

[Compile 'em all]

This is really interesting. When asked about how much the 80 geg iPod will carry of these 256-kbps mp3s, jobs said that "storage prices has been going down,and capacity is going up. so it is a right time to do it".

Does this mean that will be see a 100-geg iPod soon ;)

[vincebio]

Steve Jobs

Interesting . . .


yip..

APPLE STORE UPDATED!!!!

500gb ipod 6g £99

not bad;)

[motulist]

500gb ipod 6g £99

not bad;)

Okay, let's see... £99, that works out to be about $999 USD.

[codo]

I was hoping whilst Steve was among the UK media, someone would press him for Television and Movie content in Europe, unfortunately, no journalist did.

[acearchie]

This is really interesting. When asked about how much the 80 geg iPod will carry of these 256-kbps mp3s, jobs said that "storage prices has been going down,and capacity is going up. so it is a right time to do it".

Does this mean that will be see a 100-geg iPod soon ;)

That is what I just said. . . but yeh I think so!

[jonnyblobby]

apple news: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html

[daneoni]

I thought the one about how many songs an iPod would hold was funnier

I dunno, maybe its just me but i thought that question was designed to get Jobs to say 'new ipods are coming out"....in his own way.

[Evangelion]

I agree. She was just trying to attack at Steve Jobs, but of course he showed her.

What was the question?

[Blue Buddha]

While I appreciate that this is a *big deal* in industry terms and great for Apple, I guess I'm still disappointed that the premium downloads are still only AAC instead of Lossless. Looks like my CD collection is going to continue growing for a while yet...

[Konradx]

That's right!

It's just a marketing ploy to get you to buy the whole album.
EMI wants you to buy the whole album not just one or two songs.

Oh i see. That sounds more reasonable.

[Mgkwho]

I guess the big way for labels to sign on is this increased price...

Oh, well. I guess it's the only download you'll ever need from now on! No more dupes of your own collection.

-=|Mgkwho

[caipirina]

They need to keep people interested in getting bigger, new ipods .. so yeah .. right time to do that ... and i thought apple was not big on the number game ... there might be something wrong with my ears .. but I don;t hear a difference between 128 and 192 or 320 ... and i just hate how all those mp3s keep cluttering my HD ... one copy is left on the computer, the other on the ipod ... if i wanted to use the music on my ipod to connect to one of my other macs for using it in an imovie .. no can do (unless i get some switchermaroo from versiontracker)

The way that apple makes us manage files .. sometimes utter clutter (tm)

And of course .. they had to find a way to hike up the iTMS prices .. seems they found a good excuse.

[jbembe]

The full albums still cost 9.99, and they are DRM-free and they have higher bitrate.

This is good for me, although I still buy mostly CDs for high quality and immediate backup copy, everyone gives me iTMS gift cards so it will be nice to be able to get high quality albums without DRM. Personally, I still like going to the local snobby CD shop and looking at all the different stuff out there that isn't promoted mainstream and getting it that way. But on the rare occasion it will be nice to get better quality from iTMS.

I wonder if they will have an upgrade-your-current-tracks feature. I would love to upgrade some of my lower bitrate previously purchased songs for 30cents each and have the DRM stripped as well!
NEVERMIND=> I just read the press release!! GREAT NEWS!

[Hattig]

That's not a bad deal. 256kbps AAC will be virtually indistinguishable from a CD, even on high end equipment.

The bitrate was the most important thing keeping me from paying money on iTunes. I can now buy the singles I like and not have to settle for average quality. I don't know if I'd still be willing to pay £7.99 for an album, I do like my physical media... maybe for those albums that come out at £15!

This is an admission that DRM doesn't work well for music, and that all it does is add cost overheads throughout the supply chain. Hopefully the combination of higher bitrate and no DRM will increase sales, and thus get the other music labels on board.

This should also silence Norway and Co. who said that Jobs' letter about DRM is all very nice but irrelevant. Now it is relevant. I wonder how much satisfaction he is feeling about putting one over them?

[gkarris]

I assume the higher quality means it takes more storage space.

Thanks for at least keeping the older format for those of us that are clamoring for space...

Jobs and EMI just took a huge bite out of the downloadable media industry.

Take that!

[Queso]

there might be something wrong with my ears .. but I don;t hear a difference between 128 and 192 or 320
For most types of music you won't if you're listening through iPod earphones. But if you pipe the same song to decent speakers via your :apple:tv you'll notice a big difference. I don't think the timing of this is coincidence.

[brandon6684]

I guess this an an obvious response to what has been going on with the record industry. Digital downloads are up, but are mostly on singles, so they raise the price on singles and make albums look more appealing. With this kind of structure, it probably looks more tempting to other albums. Once everybody goes this way, I wouldn't be surprised to see $0.99 DRM tracks quietly vanish. The labels get to raise prices, and Jobs doesn't looks like he's directly giving into them, and he get what he wants too, no DRM.

[a456]

Well, since the user gets less, he also pays less ... Or rather, since he can now get more, he also pays more ... HA HA HA ... ???

Maybe I'm none too clever, but I thought that you paid less for iTunes tracks because they didn't come with all the CD and packaging, transportation, shelving costs, etc.

Anyway, this was not really very exciting for the man on the street - next rumour please.

[Gasu E.]

Where is this information given? I guess I don't understand that policy. Why charge more for single tracks but not the album?

Since every business decision is made based on $, I'm assuming they will make enough money from selling singles to justify letting albums go for same price.

Either that or they are trying to be ethical, trying to support the album format so artist don't get discouraged about selling only one or two songs (but i doubt that's the reason).

This has nothing to do with ethics. They make more money on album downloads than singles. So this policy does the following:

- makes album downloads more attractive relative to singles, encouraging some singles sales to shift to albums

- gives the music companies the opportunity to make more money on singles that do get downloaded

Don't forget, while there is only one way to buy singles (downloads) there are two ways to buy albums (downloads or CDs). So album downloads have to stay competitive with CDs. CDs have the advantage of "hard copy" which many people prefer, so download albums need an advantage of their own (in this case, price).

[aLoC]

This is a typically gutsy move by Steve, like when he changed the Mac over to Intel.

[Evangelion]

While I appreciate that this is a *big deal* in industry terms and great for Apple, I guess I'm still disappointed that the premium downloads are still only AAC instead of Lossless. Looks like my CD collection is going to continue growing for a while yet...

Can you hear any difference between lossless and 256KB/sec AAC?

[MacVault]

A very possitive change for users and the industry. But I think the DRM offerings should be lowered to about $0.79 / track, and the new DRM-free 256kbps songs should take the $0.99 price.

Also, someone asked Steve how this removing of the DRM will relate to videos and movies. Steve said video/movie content is a different thing altogether when it comes to this because unlike 90% of music out there, Movies and Videos are not sold without DRM on physical media. So, Steve uses this to say or indicate that video content should not be sold DRM-free. But he does not address the interoperability issue here.

At ~$9 per movie on iTunes, I am way less likely to buy a movie with DRM than I am to buy a $0.99 song with DRM. Steve: I would like my movies to be just as interoperable as the new DRM-free 256K EMI songs you will now be selling. I don't give a rats flying @$$ what percentage of DRMed movie content is sold on physical media.

[macintel4me]

256K AAC music is going to sound fantastic on my :apple:TV in my living room. I'm so impressed. I can't wait.

[Evangelion]

Maybe I'm none too clever, but I thought that you paid less for iTunes tracks because they didn't come with all the CD and packaging, transportation, shelving costs, etc.

I was comparing the cheap downloads to the "premium" downloads. You get more with the premium, so you pay more. And iTunes is still cheaper than physical CD's. CD's are usually between 19-21e over here. I could get them with 9.99e from ITMS.

[localoid]

Can you hear any difference between lossless and 256KB/sec AAC?

Everyone hears sound differently. Which means, some people will be able to hear the difference. Other won't... :rolleyes:

[joemama]

So now one person can now download a song for 30 cents more and email/copy it to their friends and they can play it no problem?

Hmm...the only thing you need is a player that plays AAC? Steve must be grinning ear-to-ear as this will completely increase sales of iPods.

Buy an iPod - use your friends music.

[SheriffParker]

This has nothing to do with ethics. They make more money on album downloads than singles. So this policy does the following:

- makes album downloads more attractive relative to singles, encouraging some singles sales to shift to albums

- gives the music companies the opportunity to make more money on singles that do get downloaded

Don't forget, while there is only one way to buy singles (downloads) there are two ways to buy albums (downloads or CDs). So album downloads have to stay competitive with CDs. CDs have the advantage of "hard copy" which many people prefer, so download albums need an advantage of their own (in this case, price).

Good points. Also, with the new "Complete my album" option, the leftover price will be like 8.70 or something, and will look more appealing.

If I want a CD on EMI in the next few months, iTunes purchase will definitely look more appealing. Well Done Apple!

[brandon6684]

A very possitive change for users and the industry. But I think the DRM offerings should be lowered to about $0.79 / track, and the new DRM-free 256kbps songs should take the $0.99 price.

Also, someone asked Steve how this removing of the DRM will relate to videos and movies. Steve said video/movie content is a different thing altogether when it comes to this because unlike 90% of music out there, Movies and Videos are not sold without DRM on physical media. So, Steve uses this to say or indicate that video content should not be sold DRM-free. But he does not address the interoperability issue here.

At ~$9 per movie on iTunes, I am way less likely to buy a movie with DRM than I am to buy a $0.99 song with DRM. Steve: I would like my movies to be just as interoperable as the new DRM-free 256K EMI songs you will now be selling. I don't give a rats flying @$$ what percentage of DRMed movie content is sold on physical media.

Maybe they'll pull the same thing with video and up the quality to HD and make it DRM free. The quality is a much bigger issue on video that for music for me, not to mention it's harder to circumvent the DRM with the video than music.

[johnee]

What was the question at the end of the presentation?

A lot of people didn't like it....

[Galex]

This is a very smart move by Apple (and EMI for that matter). The record companies have been complaining about iTunes' rigid price structure for ages, but have also been very confident in the merits of DRM. Now Steve's basically telling them: You want premium prices? Then get rid of DRM and increase the audio quality. Otherwise, you end up offering inferior products at lower prices. I believe the rest of the music industry will rush in once they get the message.

About the questions and answers: it's a pity that no-one asked if the tracks will be "watermarked" or not.

/Galex

[SheriffParker]

So now one person can now download a song for 30 cents more and email/copy it to their friends and they can play it no problem?

Hmm...the only thing you need is a player that plays AAC? Steve must be grinning ear-to-ear as this will completely increase sales of iPods.

Buy an iPod - use your friends music.

Yeah thats how its always been.

Its why the iPod was so huge to begin with. DRM has never been big in the music industry. Have you never heard of putting your friends music on your iPod??? Nothing new here.

The thing is, people still buy CDs. Its real easy for me to get free music, but I buy it anyway in order to support the industry and the artist, and also to feel good about the music I listen to. If a friend gives me some mp3s and I like them, I'll buy the CD. This DRM-free music will definitely appeal to people like me, who buy music as a way of supporting the labels and artists we like.

[johnee]

Don't forget, while there is only one way to buy singles (downloads) there are two ways to buy albums (downloads or CDs). So album downloads have to stay competitive with CDs. CDs have the advantage of "hard copy" which many people prefer, so download albums need an advantage of their own (in this case, price).

Yes, I see your point. This might convince some people to download an album instead of buy a CD.

I have done a few crude experiments where I would play the first 5 seconds of a song that I ripped, then play the same song from a CD. Even at high sample rates, the highs were higher, and the sound quality a bit less "muddy" from the CD, but if I hadn't done my little experiment, I would never have noticed it.

[cantos]

I work for the company contracted to stream this webcast. We are mostly a MacOSX shop here, we use exclusively Mac systems for video/audio capture, editing with Final Cut Pro, and program post-production. So, credentials out of the way....

There will be an MP3 (Podcast) encode of this webcast available for download on the EMI website later this afternoon, for those of you that missed it live.

(And yes, we'll be asking our developers to look at the Safari compatibility issue that some of you noted in emails to our support desk...)

[Blue Buddha]

Can you hear any difference between lossless and 256KB/sec AAC?

On my Nano, no. On my kit at home, it can vary depending on the style of music, but very much so; hence my disappointment.

[Porco]

It's fantastic news. DRM-free 256kbps tracks are a MUCH more attractive proposition, even with the slight price increase.

I do hope most people do the right thing, but I'm sure the 'convert to MP3' feature of iTunes is going to be employed more than it used to be...

That said, if people are determined to pirate music, they'd could and probably will still just go straight to an illegal file-sharing service. So either way, existing DRM isn't really working, and I think that is the bottom line - this gives all the people who were put off by the DRM and low bit-rate less reason to resist the convenience of the iTunes Store for purchasing music and video. I hope other music companies follow suit quickly.

[dmelgar]

This is great news for consumers!
This proves Jobs' power over the industry and that he's a champion for providing value to consumers (unlike Microsoft who panders to big corporations at the expense of consumers).

However, I wonder how good this will be for Apple. My opinion has always been that the reason the iPod took off is that Jobs negotiated the best DRM policy for iTunes/iPod, its a reasonable tradeoff, reasonable number of devices, its great that you can burn it to a CD. Everyone else had unrealistically restricted DRM that locked you in far too much.

Now this makes everyone on the same playing field with no DRM. iPod might still do ok because its so pervasive, but it also makes it look more limited because it doesn't offer subscription mode, you can't share music etc.

I hope people remember that it was Apple and Jobs that removed DRM from music. This is a monumental step in the right direction!

[Westside guy]

IBut surely EMI wants to see what the results are. Do people prefer to pay 99 cents for low quality DRM, or $1.29 for high quality non-DRM? They (and Apple) will now have easy access to what consumers really want.

Well, I know what this consumer wants. :D Fairplay is pretty non-intrusive in my book; so that never stopped me from buying songs on the ITMS. However the fact that music was only available at 128kbps did stop me from buying (much) from the store.

I think the prices are a little high; but if I've decided to buy from ITMS I'm much more likely to spend the extra $0.30 to get the higher bit rate. However if I want the album, and the CD price is lower (like it often is, even at $0.99 a track) - I'll get the CD.

[Porchland]

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.

[Avatar74]

Can you hear any difference between lossless and 256KB/sec AAC?

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.

[failsafe1]

Interesting. In addition to the value added price increase I wonder if this could be a test for other price structure changes? Price creep could result in better things in other areas perhaps? I liked the .99 cents across the board structure but I like the fact I might be able to put music onto a different device also.

[Chris Bangle]

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.



i hope so

[Project]

What was the question at the end of the presentation?

A lot of people didn't like it....

She said something like

"how do you justify two different price points for what is the same tracks compressed at two different bit rates...as it doesnt *cost* more to make"

Aside from the software industry from the very start having tiered pricing for more features, this is more boneheaded by the fact that higher bit rates = more bandwidth costs.

+ twice the audio quality
+ DRM free

Features well worth that premium IMO, which is why her question was dumb. Even more so as it was the last question and its not everyday you get to ask Steve something on this issue.

[RubberChicken]

This is a great step forward. I think Apple's original implementation of DRM was very reasonable... for DRM, and the 128 rate was also good choice at the time. As Steve said, this seems like a good time to offer the extra quality as iPods are much bigger and cheaper, Internet speeds much faster.

I think the extra value is well worth the extra money, and will definitely encourage more purchases from iTunes.

[Marx55]

1kps
2kbps
4 kbps
8 kbps
16 kbps
32 kbps
64 kbps
128 kbps
256 kbps <-- WE ARE HERE NOW
512 kbps
1024 kbps
2048 kbps
...

So, how many kbps would be the Apple Lossless AAC?

Thanks.

[dogcowabunga]

I hope people remember that it was Apple and Jobs that removed DRM from music. This is a monumental step in the right direction!

They will remember.

Just like they remember how it was IBM who manufactured the first "IBM-compatible" personal computer. They remembered this while buying Compaq, Osborne, Leading Edge, Dell, etc. ...

Steve may be doing a great thing for music lovers, but if I were an Apple stockholder I would be very uncomfortable with today's news.

[johnee]

She said something like

"how do you justify two different price points for what is the same tracks compressed at two different bit rates...as it doesnt *cost* more to make"

Aside from the software industry from the very start having tiered pricing for more features, this is more boneheaded by the fact that higher bit rates = more bandwidth costs.

+ twice the audio quality
+ DRM free

Features well worth that premium IMO, which is why her question was dumb. Even more so as it was the last question and its not everyday you get to ask Steve something on this issue.

ah, thanks, I was just curious since some people brought it up earlier.

I also think these files will be larger which will increase storage/backup costs, but the larger file aspect will be most reflective, as you correctly brought up, in bandwidth.

[balamw]

So, how many kbps would be the Apple Lossless AAC?

Thanks.

Depends on the content, but it's typically ~500-800 kbps.

B

[onebloodonelife]

I was never truly bothered by DRM, but the lower quality made me choose not to buy from the iTMS. So, now that the quality is increased, I'm much more likely to buy from the iTMS. All in all, I'm happy with the announcement, and I hope that the rest of the record companies get their heads out of their a$$es and step up to higher quality and DRM free music.

[MacVault]

I work for the company contracted to stream this webcast. We are mostly a MacOSX shop here, we use exclusively Mac systems for video/audio capture, editing with Final Cut Pro, and program post-production. So, credentials out of the way....

There will be an MP3 (Podcast) encode of this webcast available for download on the EMI website later this afternoon, for those of you that missed it live.

(And yes, we'll be asking our developers to look at the Safari compatibility issue that some of you noted in emails to our support desk...)

Cantos.... Maybe you can tell your company to stop using two of the worst internet technologies ever conceived for streaming webcasts. Windows Media Player and Real Player were the only options for listening to the EMI webcast. The Windows Media otpion brought up the page but failed to connect or play anything. The RealPlayer option worked intermitently.

[Foxglove9]

I think it's a great idea and hopefully the start of a new trend in the industry. Options are always good.

Personally, I'll stick with the .99 DRM songs for now. That's the magic pricepoint for me.

[mpetason]

how much more idiotic can the record companies and apple get? they are charging more to have the ability to own your own music, plus they are upping the bitrate. the common consumer cannot tell the difference between 192/256/320/VBR or any other bitrate. apple and emi are just ripping the customer off even more with "twice the quality" of their current music? i thought they wanted everyone to think that their current music for sale was CD quality, does that mean that their new music is "twice CD quality", and the answer is no. charging more for a different encode of the same song that the normal user would not be able to tell the difference without encspotting it is ridiculous. this just gives everyone another reason to feel that the record companies are trying to rip everyone off.

why can't someone actually ask these questions during the conference? i'm just stunned, and cannot believe this. i have never bought a single song off of itunes, and never will. however the office... is something i do purchase even though it is available all over the net on torrents. support what you like, but don't be an idiot and pay more for something that isn't worth it.

[slughead]

This announcement is freaking AWESOME.

I don't care about the DRM so much as the SOUND QUALITY.

I can easily hear the difference between 128 and 256. I encode all my music into 320kbps MP3. $1/song is way too much for a crappy 128kbps file. Hell, that's the bitrate they use on MYSPACE! Lame!

DRM sucks too but the real reason I haven't bought any iTMS tracks is the former.


So, how many kbps would be the Apple Lossless AAC?

Thanks.

Lossless, when encoded with VBR, is 800-1500kbps (according to my experience)

[Gasu E.]

A very possitive change for users and the industry. But I think the DRM offerings should be lowered to about $0.79 / track, and the new DRM-free 256kbps songs should take the $0.99 price.


It's not going to happen. There are a lot of "wins" for the consumer in this move, but the primary driver for this was that there was an unanticipated shift from whole album purchases to singles due to digital downloads. This resulted in lower margins and potentially lower revenue for the music industry. The "win" in today's announcement for the industry is that they can both: recapture some margins through higher single prices; and shift sales back toward whole albums due to relatively better value in album download products.

[zap2]

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


I don't think Radiohead is one of the 2 biggest acts not on iTunes. Zepplin is on it, AC/DC. I'm sure there are more. They may important, but not as big as the beatles for iTunes to get.



Also I'll be updating all my coldplay music for sure(there are some of there song that sound pretty crappy from iTunes.)

[redAPPLE]

I wonder if consumers will vote with their wallets and stick to the DRM'd stuff.

hmm. that would suck, hmm?:o

[akac]

how much more idiotic can the record companies and apple get? they are charging more to have the ability to own your own music, plus they are upping the bitrate. the common consumer cannot tell the difference between 192/256/320/VBR or any other bitrate. apple and emi are just ripping the customer off even more with "twice the quality" of their current music? i thought they wanted everyone to think that their current music for sale was CD quality, does that mean that their new music is "twice CD quality", and the answer is no. charging more for a different encode of the same song that the normal user would not be able to tell the difference without encspotting it is ridiculous. this just gives everyone another reason to feel that the record companies are trying to rip everyone off.

why can't someone actually ask these questions during the conference? i'm just stunned, and cannot believe this. i have never bought a single song off of itunes, and never will. however the office... is something i do purchase even though it is available all over the net on torrents. support what you like, but don't be an idiot and pay more for something that isn't worth it.

Its not your music. Its the label's music. They are charging more for you to own a higher-quality, less imposing license music file. Just like I can buy Apple's OS X Server for 10 clients at $499 and their unlimited client at $999. Its not MY software - its Apple's.

A product is not simply the binary bits it comes with, but the agreement that it comes with. When you buy Photoshop, you do not "own" it. You can't go and make 10,000 copies and give it to your closest friends.

So the real question is - how much more idiotic can you and others like you get with your attitude?

[ElderBrE]

1kps
2kbps
4 kbps
8 kbps
16 kbps
32 kbps
64 kbps
128 kbps
256 kbps <-- WE ARE HERE NOW
512 kbps
1024 kbps
2048 kbps
...

So, how many kbps would be the Apple Lossless AAC?

Thanks.

Last song on Audio Apple Lossless I made is at 746 kbps.. but not sure if it compares too well. It's also 18.2MB for 3:22min of play.

[Evangelion]

Maybe I'm none too clever, but I thought that you paid less for iTunes tracks because they didn't come with all the CD and packaging, transportation, shelving costs, etc.

I was comparing the cheap downloads to the "premium" downloads. You get more with the premium, so you pay more. And iTunes is still cheaper than physical CD's. CD's are usually between 19-21e over here. I could get them with 9.99e from ITMS.

[cantos]

I work for the company contracted to stream this webcast. We are mostly a MacOSX shop here, we use exclusively Mac systems for video/audio capture, editing with Final Cut Pro, and program post-production. So, credentials out of the way....

There will be an MP3 (Podcast) encode of this webcast available for download on the EMI website later this afternoon, for those of you that missed it live.

(And yes, we'll be asking our developers to look at the Safari compatibility issue that some of you noted in emails to our support desk...)

http://w3.cantos.com/07/pjxrobbi-703-5zvx0/

You can download the replay as a Podcast without opening up the page with the slides.

[motulist]

I have done a few crude experiments where I would play the first 5 seconds of a song that I ripped, then play the same song from a CD. Even at high sample rates, the highs were higher, and the sound quality a bit less "muddy" from the CD, but if I hadn't done my little experiment, I would never have noticed it.

I'm not saying you can't really hear a difference, but you shouldn't believe the results of your test. I've worked in music studios in the past and I've seen first hand a phenomenon that's very well documented - people don't just hear with their ears.

In the studio, there are some situations where in order to make people happy, you fool them. For instance, an artist who isn't self confident will hear a mix of his song and say something like "I don't know, it doesn't sound full enough to me." So you say "okay, I know exactly what this needs to make it fuller, let me patch a transmografier xzj-123 across the mix and it'll totally thicken it up." So you mute the mix, plug in a box that lights up and blinks, but isn't really in the signal chain, then unmute the mix the mix and say "How does that sound?" Almost every single time people will react like there's a noticeable difference. "YES! That sounds great! Don't change anything else, it's going on the album just like that!" And these are trained musicians and audio people.

If you're the one running the test, it's almost impossible not to trick yourself into thinking you hear a difference.

If you want an accurate test. Have your friend make a cd of 20 5 second snippets of the same segment of music, with some snippets being full cd quality and some being from mp3. Have him give you this unlabeled cd without saying anything about it. Then listen to all 20 snippets and write down which track numbers you think are mp3 and which are cd. If you can really hear a difference then you should get a very high number correct, like 18 out of 20. If you don't get higher than around 14 right than you aren't able to hear a difference.

And even this way isn't really totally ensuring that you're judging the snippets only on the audio quality alone.

[mpetason]

it doesn't cost more money to make the audio "higher quality", it's idiotic that they are going to make more money on something that they don't have to spend more money to make and that the common consumer will not even notice. i refuse to buy music online. when you buy something, you assume ownership. unless..... you are suggesting that buying music from itunes is a lease... then maybe you are right, you buy something that can be taken away by the person who sold it to you. hmmm... i love apple, but i refuse to buy into something that is "higher quality", when i can assure you if i sit you down and have you listen to 3 different bit rates, 192, 256, 320, and actually add in VBR as well, you won't be able to tell the difference. this is the age where everyone is all about HD, music isn't the same for the standard user who is going to think that they need better quality when they don't. look at piracy, standard was 192 for how many years? now it's VBR.

[Avatar74]

She said something like

"how do you justify two different price points for what is the same tracks compressed at two different bit rates...as it doesnt *cost* more to make"

Aside from the software industry from the very start having tiered pricing for more features, this is more boneheaded by the fact that higher bit rates = more bandwidth costs.

+ twice the audio quality
+ DRM free

Features well worth that premium IMO, which is why her question was dumb. Even more so as it was the last question and its not everyday you get to ask Steve something on this issue.

Allow me to add to your well-stated response...

There are label compensation issues... they may view part of the premium as a means of offsetting their concerns about piracy. Note I said "offsetting their concerns" not "offsetting piracy"... because losses due to piracy are not accurately estimable.

But mostly there's supply, demand and branding.

Apple doesn't have limitless storage at their datacenters. This model more than doubles storage requirements because they're holding the original file and then a file at twice the bitrate for each song.

The number of tracks available is limited, and the demand may exceed the supply.

Apple positions itself as a premium brand. If any of their products were priced too low, despite their hefty profit margin, the perception among consumers would decline. It's the same psychology as if someone buys a new Lexus they expect to pay upwards of $50k for it. At premium branding levels, consumers feel a sense of validation/affirmation over how much they pay for their products. Apple sort of straddles that line trying to be the user-friendly company but at the same time marketing very heavily toward affluent demographics... but they also do happen to make quality products and user-friendly services/software that are very appealing.

These factors combined make $1.29 a price that the market is readily willing to bear for the freedom from DRM and the increase in perceived fidelity/quality.

[Evangelion]

I can easily hear the difference between 128 and 256. I encode all my music into 320kbps MP3. $1/song is way too much for a crappy 128kbps file. Hell, that's the bitrate they use on MYSPACE! Lame!

AAC is not same as mp3...

[dmelgar]

1kps
2kbps
4 kbps
8 kbps
16 kbps
32 kbps
64 kbps
128 kbps
256 kbps <-- WE ARE HERE NOW
512 kbps
1024 kbps
2048 kbps
...

So, how many kbps would be the Apple Lossless AAC?

Thanks.

AFAIK there is no such thing as "lossless" AAC. The format on CDs is 16bit PCM which no compression. CDs datarate is 44000 samples per second, 16bits (2bytes) each sample for each channel. Makes 176k Bytes/sec or 1408kbits/sec. Thats lossless, ie not compressed at all.

You maybe thinking of Apple lossless (AIFF) which is equivalent to a WAV file on Windows, its a way of storing uncompressed 16bit PCM.

In computers you can compress any file, ie in Windows XP you can select to compress a file. Typically this uses a lossless compression algorithm. It works by removing redundancy in a file, such as a string of zeros and represents them as a simpler construct that takes less space, ie instead of having 200 spaces, it may note that there are 200 spaces, potentially using only 3 bytes instead of 200. In practice its much more complex but that should convey the idea.

With music, lossless compression typically doesn't work. The data tends to look random to lossless compression algorithms. MP3, AAC, etc. use perceptual encoding. They analyze the music to figure out what a person actually hears from it. The algorithm then removes music and information that it determines people are unlikely to be able to hear. This is lossy compression, ie you are removing music. Newer algorithms have better perceptual models and tend to be able to reproduce music well at lower bitrates (ie less information/data). AAC is still one of the best algorithms and is significantly better than MP3.

I can hear imperfections in 128kbps MP3 but as yet I haven't recognized the artifacts in 128kbps AAC.

[princealfie]

Hurrah for Apple! Okay where are the Beatles now? :cool:

[winstano]

http://www.yousendit.com/download/QlVqTkFqTSsxUUEwTVE9PQ

Entire press conference MP3 :)

[PODshady]

I could care less if tracks become DRM-free.... I personaly dont mind having the DRM tracks

[sishaw]

Apple has to create an incentive for record companies, who wanted DRM in the first place, to agree to non-DRM music. Hence the higher price. This will prove whether or not there is really a market for non-DRM music.

As for the bitrate, personally, I feel that on certain songs and with good headphones I can hear a difference, particularly ones that have very high or very low-pitched sounds. At any rate, I think this development rocks, and I'm very excited!!

256 AAC as the bitrate is awesome. I'm an eMusic customer, and I've always been pretty happy with their 196 MP3 (also non-DRM) encoding. This bitrate and format should be even better.

[Evangelion]

Everyone hears sound differently. Which means, some people will be able to hear the difference. Other won't... :rolleyes:

Yeah, like some people are able to hear the difference between speaker-cables that are on cable-elevators as opposed cables that are not....

[ElderBrE]

it doesn't cost more money to make the audio "higher quality", it's idiotic that they are going to make more money on something that they don't have to spend more money to make and that the common consumer will not even notice. i refuse to buy music online. when you buy something, you assume ownership. unless..... you are suggesting that buying music from itunes is a lease... then maybe you are right, you buy something that can be taken away by the person who sold it to you. hmmm... i love apple, but i refuse to buy into something that is "higher quality", when i can assure you if i sit you down and have you listen to 3 different bit rates, 192, 256, 320, and actually add in VBR as well, you won't be able to tell the difference. this is the age where everyone is all about HD, music isn't the same for the standard user who is going to think that they need better quality when they don't. look at piracy, standard was 192 for how many years? now it's VBR.

With all due respect.. that you can't hear the difference doesn't mean others can't.. For a very long time I've had my songs at "low" bitrates thinking it didn't make a difference.. but on some music styles it makes a huge difference, especially if you listen to them at a high volume. Ever since I noticed this, I started encoding on Lossless because to me, it made a difference, and the storage wasn't a big deal.

[dsnort]

....let me patch a transmografier xzj-123

Is that the C&H Model?

[SiliconAddict]

Only Apple would define 256 kb/s as premium quality. :rolleyes: sorry but I'm not biting on $1.29. .99 was already pretty spendy for a track. :(

[slughead]

AAC is not same as mp3...

It's not significantly (noticeably) better.

[motulist]

Is that the C&H Model?

Of course! But it's even better than that, I spent the extra money to get the adaptive reductivation chip! So that way when it transmogrifies it also reductivates adaptively!!!

[Dippo]

Watermarks, what about the watermarks?

Steve nor EMI mentioned whether these songs will be watermarked so they can be tracked back to the original buyer if they show up on P2P or such.

I can guarantee that these songs will be watermarked, which doesn't bother me, but I would think that they might get more Labels to sign on if they knew the songs were watermarked.

[slughead]

AFAIK there is no such thing as "lossless" AAC. The format on CDs is 16bit PCM which no compression. CDs datarate is 150k bytes/sec, since there are 8 bits in a byte thats 1200kbits/sec. Thats lossless, ie not compressed at all.

AAC is a CONTAINER

Apple lossless is in an AAC container.

Therefore, there is at least 1 lossless AAC format.

You bring up a good point though: Is Apple lossless truly lossless?

[Chef Medeski]

From the press release:
"Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price."

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13165/

AMAZING! I may finally buy from iTunes. $10 for an album that in finally a high enough bit rate (I personally like 320 VBR MP3, but this is fairly close). That is actually worth it for me. But uhhh... has anyone seen it up in the Music Store yet?

[hobbbz]

NPR announced that EMI will put the Beatles on iTunes. just heard it on the way to work.

[Agathon]

I think people are missing the point here.

This is a very smart and sneaky move for Apple.

If EMI allows all stores to sell DRM free songs, then Apple has won. Many players, even the Zune, support unprotected AAC. But the market leader with the vast majority of marketshare does not support WMA files.

Now that other retailers will be able to sell unprotected files that will play on the iPod, what reason is there for them to stick with Windows Media.

If all the labels abandon DRM, then Windows Media is basically dead as a digital music format.

[fblack]

Seems like a compromise was made-a way to keep apple's .99 price tag and give the record companies the higher prices they wanted.

I think the $1.29 price is fair. I think i used to pay 1.50 for vinyl 45s, years ago. The change in quality is a big thing for me. I hear no difference between 192 to 320 but tracks at 128 have always sounded "thinner" to me. Along with no DRM I may actually start buying stuff on iTunes now. :)

I wonder how they will manage the upgrade part tho, and how many people will go for that route?

[epochblue]

If all the labels abandon DRM, then Windows Media is basically dead as a digital music format.

That would make me VERY happy since all my music is in AAC currently :)

[mpetason]

With all due respect.. that you can't hear the difference doesn't mean others can't.. For a very long time I've had my songs at "low" bitrates thinking it didn't make a difference.. but on some music styles it makes a huge difference, especially if you listen to them at a high volume. Ever since I noticed this, I started encoding on Lossless because to me, it made a difference, and the storage wasn't a big deal.

I've ripped my share of CD's, and the best for size and quality is VBR. if they ripped in VBR there wouldn't be all this talk about quality. it wouldn't be lossless, but it wouldn't be bulky and have 256kbs when you are listening to a song that doesn't need that high of quality. lossless may be good for you, but for the common person, they don't need it. i have hundreds of CD's and am fine with VBR when i rip, if i'm too lazy i'll just do 192. i just don't see the merit in making a "higher quality" rip that costs more and doesn't have DRM. it's a step in the wrong direction. and the fact that you rip in lossless is fine, but most of the music that isn't bought, but downloaded is VBR and it is scene standard, meaning IRC, which.... is like the mouth of a river for pirated music. go download EAC, download lame, find out the VBR line of code, enter it in, and bam, perfect music for your listening ears. if everyone knew how easy it was to rip a CD even with copy protection, they would have no reason to pay for or buy it online anyways. go to best buy, buy the CD, put it on your ipod. it's that easy, or get into the music industry and get free CD's from labels before they come out, that's what I do... downloading music you pay for is a scan. and apple is the middle man. buy music directly from the band.

[Mac Fly (film)]

I urge everyone here to copy and paste this in this link, or write some similar feedback there and send it to Apple. This is our chance to get heard people:

"This EMI DRM-Free thing is good news. There are still a few small annoyances right now however; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with the .99c a song thing, that will still encompass DRM. I don't think going DRM-free is a risky move for any of the two cpmpanies involved (Apple or EMI), it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO, so the customer shouldn't have to pay for that luxury. 2. Another little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" etc. etc.

I think a better overall solution would have been to drop DRM completely for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM-free and .99c (128bit), and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles alike." (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html)

[Ha ze]

AMAZING! I may finally buy from iTunes. $10 for an album that in finally a high enough bit rate (I personally like 320 VBR MP3, but this is fairly close). That is actually worth it for me. But uhhh... has anyone seen it up in the Music Store yet?

these changes are coming in May

NPR announced that EMI will put the Beatles on iTunes. just heard it on the way to work.

Jobs said they would be, just didn't say when

[Evangelion]

Only Apple would define 256 kb/s as premium quality. :rolleyes: sorry but I'm not biting on $1.29. .99 was already pretty spendy for a track. :(

Well, it's premium if you compare it to the DRM'ed 128kb/s version. Above 256kb/s the differences would be neglible in any case.

[Avatar74]

AFAIK there is no such thing as "lossless" AAC...

...This is lossy compression, ie you are removing music. Newer algorithms have better perceptual models and tend to be able to reproduce music well at lower bitrates (ie less information/data). AAC is still one of the best algorithms and is significantly better than MP3.

I can hear imperfections in 128kbps MP3 but as yet I haven't recognized the artifacts in 128kbps AAC.

"Lossless" compression actually refers to whether or not the original signal can be reconstructed without error.

Strictly speaking, even CD audio omits data. Its format, 16-bit Linear Pulse Code Modulation (which has a bitrate of 1411Kbps at 44.1kHz), has a llimted dynamic range around 96dB. 24-bit LPCM by comparison has a dynamic range of 144dB... 1/f noise notwithstanding in both cases.

The key to perceptual encoding is not only that it works within the A-weighted spectrum (range of human hearing) but also because there are methods to decrease the data required to reconstruct the exact same waveform as a 16-bit PCM stream.

A simpler example of a lossless schema is ADPCM. Instead of recording the absolute value of amplitude at every quantization interval, Adaptive Delta PCM records only the difference between the present value and the previous value. This requires significantly fewer bits and the exact waveform can be reconstructed without loss from this data.

The idea I'm trying to illustrate here is that there are many ways to reduce data requirements without reducing fidelity. AAC is one of the most advanced codecs yet, superior fidelity compared to its uncle, Dolby AC-3, at every bitrate... even something as simple as the 20kHz low-pass filter prohibits aliased frequencies from appearing on reconstruction because aliased/foldover frequencies are a function of encoding frequencies above the Nyquist limit.

[Chef Medeski]

I assume the higher quality means it takes more storage space.

Thanks for at least keeping the older format for those of us that are clamoring for space...

Jobs and EMI just took a huge bite out of the downloadable media industry.

Take that!

You can convert the music to a smaller format. So if you want DRM-free but 128, then convert it down. Personally I would have never bought 128, but 256 just made me look.

[Music-Man]

I think this a momentous occasion in the history of the music industry and something that should not be down played.

But what I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the windfall that Apple will get from this. It will now be alot more appealing for people with other digital music players to shop on the iTS (assuming their player supports AAC). iTS has the largest range of music, more exclusive content, and now at the highest bitrate. It will also mean a lot more sales of TV shows and movies as more people visit the store, which in turn may turn into more sales of not only iPods, but also the AppleTV, MacMini etc.

More people with Apple products. :)

[chrisgeleven]

AAC is a CONTAINER

Apple lossless is in an AAC container.

Therefore, there is at least 1 lossless AAC format.

You bring up a good point though: Is Apple lossless truly lossless?

Apple Lossless is truly lossless. If you decode it back to a WAV file and compare it to the original WAV file from a ripped CD, they would be identical right down to the last bit.

[Diatribe]

Can you hear any difference between lossless and 256KB/sec AAC?

Even though you will have people (like Avatar74) claiming techinally you cannot hear the difference, it has been shown over and over that on the right equipment you can hear differences. It is just that most people cannot afford that kind of equipment.
That said 256 AAC is a big improvement over 128 AAC and without DRM I might be tempted to buy more stuff from the iTS.

[Dippo]

You can convert the music to a smaller format. So if you want DRM-free but 128, then convert it down. Personally I would have never bought 128, but 256 just made me look.

That's true, it would be no different than ripping a CD (high quality) to 128bit AAC (lower quality).