Poll: In the future will you pay $1.29 for DRM-free 256kbps songs, or stay with $0.99 songs?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: In the future will you pay $1.29 for DRM-free 256kbps songs, or stay with $0.99 songs? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=535)

[bartelby]

Not from iTunes. It doesn't have a big enough choice of music that I listen to.

[PlaceofDis]

well, i'll still buy the albums. i rarely buy single tracks as it is.

[Mgkwho]

I can only see myself using the iPod in the future :P or whatever else Apple comes out with. And I personally do not have an ear for higher quality songs...it just doesn't matter to me.

I voted 'depends on the song.'

-=|Mgkwho

[pilotError]

Now that they've made it an incentive to buy the whole album, it would depend on the album as well.

[Yvan256]

Apple® today announced that EMI Music’s entire digital catalog of music will be available for purchase DRM-free (without digital rights management) from the iTunes® Store (www.itunes.com) worldwide in May. DRM-free tracks from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality indistinguishable from the original recording, for just $1.29 per song.

My initial reactions:
- DRM-free? Extremely cool! Hell froze over -again-!
- 1.29$? Bummer.
- But we do get the option to upgrade our current songs! Very nice!
- And we also get 256kbps, which is really great!
- Available worldwide? Finally, something that's not only for the USA! ;-)
- I wonder if it'll be 1.29$CAD since it's 0.99$CAD for the current tracks
- How long before the other labels join in?
- How long before the labels remove the artificial barriers of countries? I want to be able to buy from all the iTunes Stores!

[devilot]

If I bought more digital songs, it'd be @ the $0.99 rate. I'm no audiophile. :o

[wordmunger]

I'll buy the 99-cent single songs. But mostly I buy albums, so those will be the DRM-free variety (at least when they come from EMI).

[Brandon Sharitt]

I don't buy music from iTunes due to DRM and low quality. I don't buy that many singles, but if I do, it'll be the non-DRM variety. If other labels get on board on the same terms, I may start buy most of my albums from iTunes.

[roland.g]

1. I only use an iPod, etc. so I could care less about the DRM-free that everyone clamours about.
2. Nor do I care for the higher price.
3. The higher quality is interesting to me. Don't know if I would hear it.
4. Already encode my CDs at 160 AAC. Wouldn't want my library at 256 for space reasons.

[Queso]

I'll definitely buy new stuff at the higher rate, and will upgrade some older ones too. iTunes has only replaced CD singles for me. I still buy albums on CD, although with this development that may finally change.

[Twinsbb17]

Not to support illegal file sharing or anything...but here comes a FLOOD of new torrents, with legally purchased high quality files.

[jettredmont]

1. I only use an iPod, etc. so I could care less about the DRM-free that everyone clamours about.


DRM-free is like insurance. You get it when you don't need it so it's there when you do. A huge cloud has been over my iTMS-purchased music; it's looking to start lifting soon.


2. Nor do I care for the higher price.


Not me. I love higher prices! Seriously, though, while I'd have loved to see songs in the future sold for the same 0.99, I can see Steve had to throw the record companies a bone here.

On the other hand, it's a lot better getting really high-quality music or that $0.30, and removing DRM, than just the price going up without any consumer advantages, which is what the record companies had been hoping for earlier this/last year.


3. The higher quality is interesting to me. Don't know if I would hear it.


It's funny, because just last week I had my first true dissappointment with iTMS-purchased music, in that a loud section of a song had obvious artifacts even my ears could hear. Vowed never to buy that kind of music from iTunes again; that vow might now be dissolved (it was an indie band, so not sure if they'll allow upgrades sooner or later).


4. Already encode my CDs at 160 AAC. Wouldn't want my library at 256 for space reasons.


Take the DRM-free 256kbps songs and re-encode at 160kbps. You'll not see much, if any, loss in quality (although you'll see just a marginal improvement over the cheaper 0.99 versions), and have the same size songs as you have currently. Of course, back up the 256kbps songs to keep around. You can fit lots of 256kbps AAC songs on a single CD which would otherwise hold one album.

Or, continue doing just what you're doing now, and if/when you decide you want more, pay for the upgrade cost then.

[Queso]

Not to support illegal file sharing or anything...but here comes a FLOOD of new torrents, with legally purchased high quality files.
Which is different from the current situation how? If EMI can get 10% of those currently torrenting the music to purchase instead, they'll more than triple their sales. Treating people like adults is something that consumers respond to. EMI will increase revenue with this.

[danbolling]

That price increase really irritates me. Obviously they are offering the DRM-free songs at a higher quality because they want an excuse to raise prices. I don't want to pay more. I don't want DMR.

I would have been happy with same quality, DRM-free at $0.99. Apple and EMI, you were so close. Congratulations. You finally got me pissed off enough to go download a torrent client.

[macnews]

That price increase really irritates me. Obviously they are offering the DRM-free songs at a higher quality because they want an excuse to raise prices. I don't want to pay more. I don't want DMR.

I would have been happy with same quality, DRM-free at $0.99. Apple and EMI, you were so close. Congratulations. You finally got me pissed off enough to go download a torrent client.

Wait, you haven't downloaded a torrent client to date because you were fine with $0.99 cent DRM songs which were available. Now that you can buy non-DRM songs, BUT, the cost $1.29 you are going to download a torrent client - even though you can still buy the same $0.99 DRM songs? If this "pissed" you off so much you must anger easily.

I mean come on! Would I love $0.99 DRM free songs - yes. Do I think $1.29 is too much for DRM free AND higher quality? No. In time, it is likely price will come down. It will take years for this to happen but I think it will happen.

In the mean time, I think the option is good (I will use it) and the fact I can upgrade existing songs for $0.30 is awesome as well. I don't have to pay $1.29 to download a song I already paid for just to get the higher quality and DRM free - I can basically operate like this option has been available all along. That is what I call smart.

[LethalWolfe]

The higher quality songs might actually get me to buy from iTunes regularly (right now I'm pretty much just buy the occasional old single for nostalgic reasons from iTunes).


Lethal

[aristobrat]

That price increase really irritates me.
A price increase was coming, regardless.

Frankly, I was surprised that iTunes was able to offer US$0.99 songs for as many years as they did.

I can't think of anything else that I buy that's the same price now as it was four years ago.

How about you, Dan?

[Superdrive]

1. I only use an iPod, etc. so I could care less about the DRM-free that everyone clamours about.
2. Nor do I care for the higher price.
3. The higher quality is interesting to me. Don't know if I would hear it.
4. Already encode my CDs at 160 AAC. Wouldn't want my library at 256 for space reasons.

I'm pretty much in this boat. I use an iPod. I play my music on two computers. The DRM doesn't hamper me in any fashion at all at this point. If I need to, I can burn the music to a CD. If there's a song I like and I feel compelled, at least 30 cents is not a big hit...at one shot. But I'm a college student, so it adds up even more. Two high quality songs is a pint. :)

[autrefois]

So which is the bigger surprise, EMI and Apple's announcement, or the fact that there were *2* new polls posted today? ;)

Anyway, I think it's great that they give both options. People who are happy with lower price but lower quality with restrictions can keep on buying as they did before. Those who want higher quality or no restrictions can now buy higher quality for the higher price. And even "convert" their older purchased tracks to higher quality for a small price IMO.

Movement towards open standards, option for cheaper tracks still under the old standards. Sounds fair to me.

[TheAnswer]

I think I'll continue buying the 99¢ versions for now and only upgrade to a higher quality depending on the song or album or if I find a use for a song where the extra quality and lack of DRM would make it more suitable.

[FleurDuMal]

I have no idea whether this will be implemented in the UK, but if it is I'll probably stick to the 79p DRM and 128kbs track. I only ever buy tracks off iTunes so I can preview the album, or it's just a spur of the moment thing if I hear a song I like on the radio. They never go onto my Nano anyway, so DRM issues don't matter. And in 90% of cases I go out and buy the full album on CD anyway because one day I'm gonna put them all into lossless when I can get a decent stereo system set up, so sound quality doesn't matter.

If they ever allowed people to buy albums in lossless (which will never happen, I know), then I'd seriously have to consider giving up on CD's if iTunes proved to be cheaper - DRM or no DRM (I'm probably only ever use iTunes and iPod's anyway).

[freiheit]

Not to support illegal file sharing or anything...but here comes a FLOOD of new torrents, with legally purchased high quality files.

I doubt that very much since all of the music is already available DRM free on CDs and can be shared at any bitrate (256, 320, etc.). I can't see the Apple/EMI move increasing the number of illegal shares of music that's already available for illegal sharing from other sources.

[Arcady]

I'll definitely buy the DRM-free versions. Right now, I can stream my iTunes library of MP3 and AAC files to my TiVo, but only if they are unprotected. This kept me from buying much content on the iTunes store. Now that the files will work with my TiVo boxes, I'll start buying them.

[nagromme]

I'll buy some of each:

Fun songs I want in rotation for variety will stay .99 and thus use up less storage space.

My favorites I'll buy at 1.30 because I like the reduced compression on principle--even if I can't actually hear a problem with 128 versions. (The removal of DRM is not as important to me personally, but that too I support on principle.)

It's great that they'll allow an upgrade for past downloads.

[irmongoose]

I'd like to buy everything at the DRM-free, 256 rate, and also upgrade all my current music. I guess that depends on whether or not all the labels will come on board with this plan, but... we'll see.



irmongoose

[cornfedgrowth]

I would have paid $1.29 for just the Higher Quality. The fact that its DRM free just makes it that much more amazing. I dont think i'll buy a DRM track again.
-Alex

[zap2]

Not sure...my iTune collection is better pretty big, and I'd like to have as much stuff on it as I can. I'll put all music on it for sure, but if the high quality stuff from iTunes doesn't sound as good, then I'll just keep with the lower quality stuff, and if DRM ever because a problem I'll just upgrade it for .30cents

[gavd]

I'll probably buy the more expensive non DRM tracks, but I might still buy the lower quality, cheaper tracks on occasion.

[NewSc2]

Where's the option to just continue buying CD's and vinyl? Or beatport.com...

[esco]

finally...for the music I really wanted, I always bought it from a brick & mortar store to get it free of DRM and rip it at at least 192kbps AAC.

iTunes offers it free of DRM and 256kbps AAC? Count me in

[EricNau]

I haven't decided yet. I'm going to wait a while and see where the industry is headed.

[superfula]

I still won't be buying from the Apple store. My car only plays MP3s, so AAC does me no good.

[aussie_geek]

$1.69 au is enough for a song. there is no way i will pay more than that. since it is going onto an iPod, it doesn't matter about drm's.

as for the 256kbps, are you seriously going to notice the difference when playing through your headphones? anyway, these will fill up our ipods quicker. great marketing move for apple.

quote apple specs on ipod 20000 song 80 gb "Song capacity based on 4 minutes per song and 128-Kbps AAC encoding; actual capacity varies by content".. hmmm - fill that up with the new non drm stuff... :rolleyes:

aussie_geek

[wrldwzrd89]

I would pay more for the DRM-free higher quality version, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that one of the tracks they're selling interested me. I'm not really into the overwhelming majority of the stuff sold on the iTunes Store.

[jdechko]

I'll probably go for the upgrades as they're available. And buy the non-drm tracks going forward.

Assuming other record companies get on board, this opens up a few doors, in my mind.

1) No more debate of locking customers into only buying iPods - No more silly EU antitrust lawsuit - Now any player with AAC support (which is not owned by Apple, and therefore is not a proprietary system) can play the iTunes Store purchases (XBox 360, for instance) if the user purchases the DRM free track.

2) No more burning CDs to rip to MP3 to get onto other players/phones/etc. You can (probably & hopefully) just convert them straight-up from AAC to MP3 right in iTunes.

Of course, when I get an iPhone, that won't matter. :p

[aristobrat]

I still won't be buying from the Apple store. My car only plays MP3s, so AAC does me no good.
When you create a MP3 data CD in iTunes, doesn't it convert AACs on-the-fly (to be burnt)?

as for the 256kbps, are you seriously going to notice the difference when playing through your headphones? anyway, these will fill up our ipods quicker. great marketing move for apple.
I doubt it, but for what it's worth, from having read these threads, there appear to be a lot of folks who listen to their iTS-purchased content on higher-end stereos. They'd probably notice it.