Behind the Apple-EMI Deal [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 2, 2007, 07:29 PM

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

Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/apple-playing-second-fiddle-drm-free-tracks-were-emis-grand-idea-249008.php) offers some additional details behind today's announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/02/8-core-mac-pro-tomorrow-doubtful/) that EMI would be selling their music without Digital Rights Management.

A few of the more interesting tidbits from Jeanne Meyer, EMI's Senior VP of Corporate Communications:

• EMI approached Apple about DRM free tracks, not the other way around.
• EMI is cool with any other music store doing DRM-free tracks. This is not an iTunes exclusive.
• Those stores can put songs in any format they want. The iTunes premium price and AAC 256 kbps format are Apple's Marketing decision.
• EMI made this move based on research that showed consumers want DRM-free tracks.
• They're doing this to get a bigger stake in online music, believing that even though CDs are 90% of their sales, those figures will shrink or stay flat. They're projecting that online sales should rise to to 25% of their sales by 2010.
• The DRM-free tracks should, they believe improve sales: Even as piracy gets easier, so does the ability to play songs on any MP3 player available. (That is, once some other music store releases EMI tracks on MP3.)

lu0s3r322

Apr 2, 2007, 07:32 PM

Di9it8

Apr 2, 2007, 07:32 PM

The marketing costs of downloaded music has to be much lower than CD distribution, therefore this is the way forward for the music business:D

EricNau

Apr 2, 2007, 07:34 PM

Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.

EMI is kind of making Apple look bad. :o

zap2

Apr 2, 2007, 07:35 PM

Wow...I would haev guessed it was Jobs righting for no more DRM, and EMI wanting the price increase. Either way Jobs did state he want no more DRM and now its happening.

Arcady

Apr 2, 2007, 07:37 PM

If one music company can "get it" then there is hope that rest will also find a clue. This is just the catalyst we need to push the others over the edge.

Maybe the MPAA will figure this out eventually. (Yeah right.)

Rocketman

Apr 2, 2007, 07:43 PM

Have they overtly stated yes or no on watermarking and to what depth of individuality?

Rocketman

P.S. Copy protection is a "new/failed thing".
Vinyl didn't have it, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD's didn't have it. Radio doesn't have it.

bluebomberman

Apr 2, 2007, 07:44 PM

Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.

EMI is kind of making Apple look bad. :o

Could also be Apple trying to throw an enticing bone to the other major labels, who are not as open-minded as EMI.

Putting DRM aside for a moment, I don't have a big problem with more $$$ for 2x bitrate.

Curtis72

Apr 2, 2007, 07:52 PM

This is not at all suprising. Jobs wrote the now famous "open letter" and EMI called him on it. I alway saw Jobs' letter as a facade. Apple was quite happy as things were going.

Stella

Apr 2, 2007, 07:55 PM

what's gonna happen when people find out that it was Apple's idea to raise the price? then they'll think, oh we're just paying $0.30 for higher quality music when we could have been paying the same price.

If you don't want to pay the extra 30cents then don't. You can still buy the drm music and same price as yesterday.

Your given a choice.

Rocketman

Apr 2, 2007, 07:57 PM

tveric

Apr 2, 2007, 07:58 PM

dontmatter

Apr 2, 2007, 08:00 PM

Interesting. Most of this was implied in the EMI press release linked to earlier: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

Of particular note "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."

New wholesale price indicates that apple is probably paying more for these tracks. However, it might be five cents, and apple sees room for profit. We'll have a better idea when we see the competition's prices.

Yeah, looks like apple did a great job of manipulating the press into good publicity/exposure, when EMI was the one making the policy. Just look at the webpage of the press release if you want to see that apple is superior at marketing.

What shows me that it was EMI's initiative is that it didn't happen until EMI wanted it to, whereas if apple had initiated, it could have gotten the independent labels that already sell their music without DRM at places like emusic.com long ago.

imcquill

Apr 2, 2007, 08:01 PM

bigbossbmb

Apr 2, 2007, 08:04 PM

what's gonna happen when people find out that it was Apple's idea to raise the price? then they'll think, oh we're just paying $0.30 for higher quality music when we could have been paying the same price.

they are differentiating a superior product with a small price difference... they need to keep the DRM'd 99cent tracks around to not piss off the other labels. This is the label's decision to remove DRM and Apple wants to support it, but not overly pressure the other labels into it.

also, the storage cost of this music is 2x the original tracks...plus the time to re-encode.

Rychiar

Apr 2, 2007, 08:04 PM

Lancetx

Apr 2, 2007, 08:07 PM

I guess we'll see if this is actually the truth or not once other music services begin offering "premium downloads" like iTunes is doing. If others begin to offer DRM-free tracks encoded at a very high bitrate for 99 cents, then we can point the finger at Apple for raising the prices. But not until then.

FWIW, EMI's chief exec said this at the press conference today... "Remember that we don't set the retail price. We set the wholesale prices. We're making available downloads in standard form and in premium form. Retailers can take them or not take them." "Our products and our prices are available to everybody."

IMO, I take that to mean that they are likely offering the "standard" tracks to retailers at one price point and the "premium" tracks at another (higher) price point, but time will tell for sure. If that's the case, and Apple is indeed paying EMI more for the premium tracks, you can hardly blame them for passing that additional cost on to the consumer.

SiliconAddict

Apr 2, 2007, 08:10 PM

The iTunes premium price and AAC 256 kbps format are Apple's Marketing decision.

So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever. :mad:

I guess we'll see if this is actually the truth or not once other music services begin offering "premium downloads" like iTunes is doing.

MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go. Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM. If that is the case then a standard CD is "premium" music.
At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.

chrisgeleven

Apr 2, 2007, 08:12 PM

I just ripped a couple albums in 256kbps AAC. I am very impressed with the quality. Any sane person will never tell the difference between this and an uncompressed version.

msandersen

Apr 2, 2007, 08:17 PM

While Apple is entirely entitled to provide higher-bitrate singles at a "premium" price, and I for one would buy them, it is insulting for them to say they can't remove DRM on the lower-bitrate songs as they don't want to force users to pay more. If DRM is there to protect against piracy, and the higher-bitrate songs are sold without it, then it makes absolutely no sense to force it on people happy with 128kbps singles, nor equate DRM-removal with extra cost. It should not be a "privilege" to be able to play it on other players or software. I doubt you can tell the difference in quality on an iPod, nor do most people have quality Hi-Fi equipment hooked up to their computer, so frankly 128kbps would suit most just fine who may not even know what "bitrate" means.

Also, it should be noted that it was said that the Albums would all be 256kbps with no DRM at no extra cost, so does that mean if you buy a DRM-protected single and take up the offer to complete an album, will you get a new copy of the single in high-bitrate non-DRM format? I would assume so, as anything less would be a ripoff and disincentive to buy singles, as opposed to providing incentives to "upgrade" to a full Album.

Peace

Apr 2, 2007, 08:18 PM

EMI would have NEVER done this had Steve Jobs not written that open letter.So regardless of who started it I'll happily pay $1.29 for a 256k DRM-free song.

As soon as Apple updates this in May I'm gonna pay the extra $.30 per song to update my large library too!!

This is a good start by two people who understand the music business.Let's hope it has a domino effect.

k2k koos

Apr 2, 2007, 08:18 PM

what's gonna happen when people find out that it was Apple's idea to raise the price? then they'll think, oh we're just paying $0.30 for higher quality music when we could have been paying the same price.

i see nothing wrong with this decision,paying more for better quality, the only risk for Apple is however, that others may decide to undercut Apples pricing to try and gain market share.
However, I don't see that happening too quickly, also those companies will want to make money.

:apple:

Doctor Q

Apr 2, 2007, 08:20 PM

EMI approached Apple about DRM free tracks.EMI would have NEVER done this had Steve Jobs not written that open letter.Which came first?

k2k koos

Apr 2, 2007, 08:20 PM

So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever. :mad:

MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go. Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM. If that is the case then a standard CD is "premium" music.
At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.

If MS makes their store compatible with iPods, maybe, I ain't gonna buy a Zune.... So it'll be iTunes for me for the foreseable future.

maxterpiece

Apr 2, 2007, 08:27 PM

..they need to keep the DRM'd 99cent tracks around to not piss off the other labels. This is the label's decision to remove DRM and Apple wants to support it, but not overly pressure the other labels into it.

This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents??? As far as I understand, the ITMS database holds all the music in unprotected format and adds the DRM as each individual downloads the music. That means that they wouldn't have to reencode everything to offer all EMI music without DRM.

Instead, not only do they screw with the simplicity of the ITMS by offering tracks in two different qualities for two different prices, something that they have repeatedly refused to do when labels have requested so (IE raise prices on new singles). TO me the only rationale for apple keeping the DRM'd tracks is to get more people to buy DRM'd, iPod only music. They have no other excuse.

The same goes for all the independent labels that sell music on ITMS. Almost every independent label licenses their music to be sold DRM free. Apple chooses to put DRM on it. Their is no cost to apple. Well, actually, it we are to believe Jobs' notorious letter, they would save money, bc there would be less music to worry about upkeeping DRM on (this was jobs' rationale for not licensing fairplay to other MP3 player companies or music stores).

EagerDragon

Apr 2, 2007, 08:33 PM

Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.

EMI is kind of making Apple look bad. :o

We knew EMI wanted more money, who is to say that they did not raise Apple 30 or close to that for the distribution of DRM free?

Yes Apple set the price, But as EMI stated, they quoted their price for Wholesale and Apple set the retail price.

EMI charged anywhere from 1 to 29 cents more. Closer to 29 is likely.

theBB

Apr 2, 2007, 08:36 PM

I'll decide on the truth in EMI's statement based on availability of EMI songs at eMusic, which does not carry any, yet. If they were willing to sell anybody their songs without DRM at the old price points, I don't think eMusic would say no.

I am pretty sure EMI, along with other major labels, was asking for a price rise and doubling the bitrate was the only way Apple would say yes to that demand. I still think 30c premium is a bit too much, as the new bandwidth and storage requirements probably cost Apple only 2cents, if that. Even if inflation should take each song to $1.10, this is a 10x markup... In a few years, they will probably get rid of 99c options all together and leave us with $1.29 versions only.

poopooplatter

Apr 2, 2007, 08:36 PM

MarcelV

Apr 2, 2007, 08:36 PM

MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go. Doesn't MS sell songs on Zune Marketplace as 192 CBR, and so does Urge? iTunes Store's AAC is 256 and is VBR, so that will be much better quality, not even discussing the baseline sound between WMA and AAC on same bitrate.

Lancetx

Apr 2, 2007, 08:37 PM

So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever. :mad:

If you choose to only believe EMI's spin, sure.

MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go. Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM. If that is the case then a standard CD is "premium" music.
At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.

If DRM makes no difference to you at all, then by all means, buy from Microsoft if they offer higher bit rate songs for less money (but with their own very proprietary DRM always included).

MS certainly hasn't been kicking anyone's butt in music, much less Apple's, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. And if you don't like the way Apple is "pulling all the strings", I'm quite sure that Microsoft has a Zune that they would love to sell you. They need all of the help that they can get with that thing. ;)

smqt

Apr 2, 2007, 08:38 PM

A very clever way to get applauded for a price raise, that otherwise would only have created negativity.
No judgment, it's actually what I like about apple: that they attach commerciality to things that are more or less meaningful. Never just the one or the other.

EricNau

Apr 2, 2007, 08:38 PM

TO me the only rationale for apple keeping the DRM'd tracks is to get more people to buy DRM'd, iPod only music. They have no other excuse.
...Or convince customers to buy the "premium" version who otherwise wouldn't.

msandersen

Apr 2, 2007, 08:39 PM

...I thought aac was supposedly perfect at 128 and thats what made the files smaller and better than mp3. If ther gonna sell it unprotected it should be uncompressed. What does apple lossless exist for if not that. then u could encode however u want...tho cds r still cheaper and easier:rolleyes:
No-one's said 128kbps AAC was "perfect", but equivalent to, I think, 160kbps MP3. It is "perfect" for most users, who won't be able to tell the difference on their iPods or Lo-Fi PC speakers. Audiophiles prefer higher-bitrate songs played through high-quality headsets or Hi-Fi equipment. 256kbps AAC is well beyond "transparency", the point where human hearing can't tell the difference between it and a CD. I think 160kbps AAC is "perfect" and is definitely at leas t as good quality as those who rip to MP3 at 256kbps, but it's at the end of the spectrum where it is hard to tell the difference anymore. And frankly, who cares if our cats and dogs can tell the difference.

Apple lossless exist for archival purposes, be it of CDs or restored vinyl. It is not meant as a distribution format. It is way too big for that. You get around 50-60% compression with lossless formats, meaning maybe 15Mb for your average song, as opposed to 3-6Mb for AAC or MP3 (depending on bitrate and format). In an all-broadband future of Terabyte storage as standard, Lossless formats may well become the norm for distribution, but utterly impractical for now.

poopooplatter

Apr 2, 2007, 08:43 PM

EMI would have NEVER done this had Steve Jobs not written that open letter.So regardless of who started it I'll happily pay $1.29 for a 256k DRM-free song.

As soon as Apple updates this in May I'm gonna pay the extra $.30 per song to update my large library too!!

Hearing from people like you always makes me feel real happy about having Apple stock.

Thank you!

Mainyehc

Apr 2, 2007, 08:44 PM

So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever. :mad:

At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.

I, for one, want to see it the other way around (which is happening already). I don't think Apple is screwing anybody... It seems EMI is partially responsible for the tiered pricing model, so I'm figuring M$ and others will either sell DRM-less tracks at a premium, or at a loss (or at a smaller profit than Apple's).

M$, OTOH, was responsible for actively screwing its PlaysForSure partners when they launched the Zune Marketplace. Bear in mind that both PlaysForSure-based stores and Marketplace sell variants of the WMA format and Janus DRM, whereas Apple uses the open AAC standard and the much "fairer" FairPlay DRM. Anyway, DRM-ed or not (preferably NOT), I'd rather see AAC come out on top of the standards battle than WMA any day of the week... M$, after all, spent billions trying to kill MP3 and f*%#ed Apple's QuickTime business for years on end (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html), so they could charge exorbitant fees to the entire industry, which is what M$ seems to do best... Nice, eh? :rolleyes:

G5Unit

Apr 2, 2007, 08:44 PM

ReMaDi

Apr 2, 2007, 08:45 PM

Wow, i certainly didn't see this coming. I bet on a Beatles anouncement.

Regarding the 1,29 vs 99cent price:
For me this is irrelevant and not a big issue. I only buy albums.

twoodcc

Apr 2, 2007, 08:49 PM

i'm still not so sure that this was a good move....we'll see i guess

Brandon Sharitt

Apr 2, 2007, 09:00 PM

I'm glad to hear that this is not an iTunes exclusive. Maybe someone else will come along and sell non-DRM MP3s at $0.99 or maybe they will finally open their cataloge to eMusic, though iTunes would still be a good bet for albums with the high quality non-DRM tracks. Now we just need high quality video with no DRM, which is what is keeping me from buying an Apple TV.

Stella

Apr 2, 2007, 09:02 PM

Pure speculation, with nothing to back this up.

Your treating SJ as some kind of revolutionary god.

EMI would have NEVER done this had Steve Jobs not written that open letter.

piltupso

Apr 2, 2007, 09:02 PM

I see apple as in a great position on this they get to up the price of some of their offerings and appear to the masses as the champions of DRM free music on one hand while on the other hand keeping most of their library safely locked away under their own management software. I guess you can get away with the when you have the rabidly loyal fan base Apple has.

Peace

Apr 2, 2007, 09:03 PM

Pure speculation, with nothing to back this up.

Your treating SJ as some kind of revolutionary god.

God? no..

Revolutionary? Yes..

gmanrique

Apr 2, 2007, 09:04 PM

Apple has openly said to all the labels: get rid of DRM. EMI though about it, tried it, and then decided, let's do it, let's call Apple. What is there not to understand, or to be surprising about who called who?

About the price, Apple has always stated what is the ammount of money they make out of each tune. I guess that is based on the 'whole sale price' given to them by the labels.

Although EMI is not telling Apple what to charge for each song, they stated today that now they offer a 'new' product, that is higher rate and no DRM, and negotiated also as a 'wholse sale price'. EMI even called it the premium product. I think, if EMI were charging the same, they would say so. So, based on the evidence at hand, I don't think it is Apple doing this.

Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.

EMI is kind of making Apple look bad. :o

msandersen

Apr 2, 2007, 09:04 PM

...At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.
By MS, you mean their proprietary and DRMed Windows Media format? Because that's what they are pushing. Personally I refuse to buy WM formats, as it is vendor-and-platform specific. MP3 is too long in the tooth, I prefer open standards like AAC or Ogg Vorbis. Yes, AAC is proprietary and licensed, but an open standard nonetheless available equally on all platforms.

If this move by EMI and Apple result in non-DRM stores across the board, that will be Microsoft's worst nightmare, as their licensed DRM is all that keeps the stores using Windows Media. The industry may well standardise on AAC instead, the official successor to MP3, and that will be the end of Microsoft's dream of complete DRM and format control.
But of course, they will still have Video. DRM won't simply go away. MS has spent a lot of time and energy embedding Trusted Computing rights management into Vista to satisfy the movie studios so as to cement Windows' position as Media and Entertainment Hub of the future.

geerlingguy

Apr 2, 2007, 09:07 PM

New wholesale price indicates that apple is probably paying more for these tracks. However, it might be five cents, and apple sees room for profit. We'll have a better idea when we see the competition's prices.

Five cents would be a lot of Apple's profit margin on songs. Literally.

I am part of an indie band with a CD on iTunes (the Priestie Boyz' Lost in Ecstasy (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playListId=199861842)), and, of every song sold, we get $0.63. And we go through an online distributor, CDBaby, which also takes a cut from what Apple gives.

So, from our $0.99 song (which still has DRM), about $0.70 goes to CDBaby (of which we get $0.63). That leaves Apple with $0.30/song. And Apple has to pay for: servers, hosting, bandwidth, web design, iTunes developer team, marketing, and credit card processing with that $0.30.

If EMI is charging $0.05 more per song, that means Apple has only $0.25 to pay all their bills. And with twice the file size (256 kbps rather than 128), the bandwidth/hosting/storage fees will, assumedly, double)...

Therefore I find it justifiable for Apple to raise the price (I thought it was inevitable from the beginning... $0.99 couldn't last forever).

TheBobcat

Apr 2, 2007, 09:12 PM

The thing that's really starting to make me mad about all of this is the fact that everyone seems to be suffering from a flash case of mental retardation and can't it get through their head that AAC is NOT an Apple proprietary format.

That, and people really seem to act like this is some really obscure standard that's hard to get the rights to. Like how Engadget blasted Apple in its whiny article (http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/02/apple-and-emi-ditching-drm-is-good-but-its-not-good-enough/).

Almost no devices play AAC, and Apple is deliberately not making these downloads available in MP3.

nagromme

Apr 2, 2007, 09:15 PM

Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.

EMI is kind of making Apple look bad. :o

Yet EMI said they knew Jobs' stance already even before the open letter... so who formally "approached" who about this specific deal is just semantics. Did EMI approach Apple after Apple had said they'd prefer no DRM? That's my guess.

As for the price... has EMI said their wholesale cost to Apple is unchanged? Because of not, then yes, the precise .30 cent figure is Apple's choice, but the need for an increase may not be. (And that doesn't count doubling the bandwidth and tripling the storage/backup needs: now there's a 128 version AND a 256.)

Apple may be the villain, and EMI the hero, but what I hear from EMI to support that interpretation is too vague. Apple persuading EMI would be more in keeping with recent history.

iMeowbot

Apr 2, 2007, 09:19 PM

Apple has openly said to all the labels: get rid of DRM. EMI though about it, tried it, and then decided, let's do it, let's call Apple. What is there not to understand, or to be surprising about who called who?
EMI had been shopping this plan around to all the online music vendors before Apple published their "Thoughts on Music" tract.
Although EMI is not telling Apple what to charge for each song, they stated today that now they offer a 'new' product, that is higher rate and no DRM, and negotiated also as a 'wholse sale price'. EMI even called it the premium product. I think, if EMI were charging the same, they would say so. So, based on the evidence at hand, I don't think it is Apple doing this.
That's correct, the EMI offer always included higher prices for more generous rights. It was of course up to Apple to decide how much of the difference they would eat or pass along, and it was also up to Apple to decide on the bit rate and encoding format.

pizzach

Apr 2, 2007, 09:31 PM

I can't believe how many people are saying "Screw you apple!" when they have been given more choices and flexibility.

Complaint 1: Apple raised the prices. Even though you can get the same exact thing as you could before for the same exact price.

Complaint 2: My old music is now outdated, screw apple for the drm which you can conveniently update to DRM free with higher quality for 30 cents.

The complaint that makes any sense whatsoever is multi-tiered pricing. Hopefully that will disappear with time. Of course, a large file size costing more to download does have some kind of strange logic to it.

AidenShaw

Apr 2, 2007, 09:32 PM

Personally I refuse to buy WM formats, as it is vendor-and-platform specific.

I guess that you won't be getting a Blu-ray player, since they use WM as one of the supported codecs.

Nor an HD-DVD player (before they disappear) - yep, WM also.

But wait, Microsoft doesn't make Blu-ray players - and they run Java, not Windows. Where does this "vendor-and-platform specific" part come in? ;)

shawnce

Apr 2, 2007, 09:37 PM

This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents??? You ever hear of a carrot on stick? Hey other labels... look you can get more per song, like you have been pushing for, but only if you go DRM free. Oh and while we are at it we structured things to better encourage the sale of full albums just like you also bitched about.

Rocketman

Apr 2, 2007, 09:37 PM

Steve made clear from day one of iPod, privately he preferred no DRM. Labels feared a Napster like experience, and having some people buying music, and the remainder of folks just sharing it for free.

As it turns out that happened anyway, because one moment after DRM was stripped from a song or a song was ripped from a CD, cassette, radio airplay, or a DVD, it was "in the wild" anyway.

What iTunes offered was a superior "experience" for those folks disinclined to cheat, to at least not be inconvenienced for their good nature. That worked well. Then also the folks who were inclined to pirate also used iPods to listen to the material, and a fraction of those folks got sucked into purchasing music for lack of access to readily available pirated material, or the convenience factor.

iPod became a "fad".

So in the long forgotten background of Apple being agnostic/negative on DRM, EMI comes along and "leverages" their own dominant market position and says in effect, Apple we want more than 99 cents retail for a song. We want 1.30 which as you know we have been asking you for since day one. Here's what we will do. Let you offer it in a higher res format and a non-DRM mode and you can declare it "better" (following a public save face letter) and we will get $1.30 for a song which is out in the wild anyway, and we want more monetization of our content. You can claim a win (despite your 99 cent intransigence of the past) and we can declare a win based on "perceived quality and industry support", and the pirates are not only no better off, but less, since more people are attracted to LEGAL services if DRM is stripped. Ie. not ADDED against their will to begin with.

Rocketman

Digital Skunk

Apr 2, 2007, 09:39 PM

how about buying the CD for even less money and having uncompressed audio to rip as u see fit totally unprotected. Whoohoo! Seriously raising the price is stupid and so is a 256 bitrate. I thought aac was supposedly perfect at 128 and thats what made the files smaller and better than mp3. If ther gonna sell it unprotected it should be uncompressed. What does apple lossless exist for if not that. then u could encode however u want...tho cds r still cheaper and easier:rolleyes:

Yeah but then you have a bunch load of CDs and CD cases lying around your house with nothing to do but take up space. I live in a rather small corner of my house so the less material stuff I have the better. Would never buy a DVD that what Redbox is for. If I need to buy it I will buy it off of iTunes. These boxes and packages and material things take up too much space and create junk. Give it to me as binary and make me a happy camper:D

I do believe though that Apple should have made it uncompressed media files. Since the price is getting higher while others are getting lower for the same or relative low quality media why would they still sell it compressed. Might as well keep buying the AAC stuff and save a few MBs of space on each album and my my iPod. Just because it isn't as compressed as the other compressed version doesn't make it better.

Peace

Apr 2, 2007, 09:40 PM

jicon

Apr 2, 2007, 09:43 PM

This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents??? As far as I understand, the ITMS database holds all the music in unprotected format and adds the DRM as each individual downloads the music. That means that they wouldn't have to reencode everything to offer all EMI music without DRM.

Instead, not only do they screw with the simplicity of the ITMS by offering tracks in two different qualities for two different prices, something that they have repeatedly refused to do when labels have requested so (IE raise prices on new singles). TO me the only rationale for apple keeping the DRM'd tracks is to get more people to buy DRM'd, iPod only music. They have no other excuse.

The same goes for all the independent labels that sell music on ITMS. Almost every independent label licenses their music to be sold DRM free. Apple chooses to put DRM on it. Their is no cost to apple. Well, actually, it we are to believe Jobs' notorious letter, they would save money, bc there would be less music to worry about upkeeping DRM on (this was jobs' rationale for not licensing fairplay to other MP3 player companies or music stores).

I completely agree.

Why place DRM on free music files or Indie offerings? Apple wants to keep the music tied to the iPod.

I won't expect most people spending the extra 30% for the non-DRMd version of a song. To most ears, the 99cent version is fine, and Apple keeps the lock on your choice of hardware.

My concern is Mr. Job's reported battle with music labels to keep music at 99 cent price point. This might be the first of many concessions to raise prices on the iTunes store.

nagromme

Apr 2, 2007, 09:44 PM

nagromme

Apr 2, 2007, 09:49 PM

This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents???

Why not change all the existing songs? Because this is a business decision made in a context, and that context includes OTHER labels besides EMI. Big labels who don't like change. Big labels who will charge APPLE more for non-DRM songs. They won't be on board without a system they find palatable. Apple can gradually drag them into the future, but can't force the world to change to perfection overnight.

And in fact, EMI themselves apparently charge Apple more for non-DRM songs--so how is it hypocrisy for Apple to charge more in turn?

What about indie labels? Will they charge more too? Probably some would and some would not, and when those labels sign up, as Apple intends them to do, we'll see what the cost is. Maybe some songs will lack the extra charge. Maybe some DRM-free songs will lack the new high quality. Or maybe Apple will not complicate things futher--maybe the price points and bitrate and DRM option will be the same for ALL labels, even those who never wanted DRM--which makes more sense to me as a user.

I think you have to look pretty hard and WANT to find hypocrisy. There's not enough evidence to find it otherwise.

ChrisA

Apr 2, 2007, 09:54 PM

Thought I'd work this out. What does it cost Apple to send a song over the Internet. I'm talking just sending it. Not maintaining the data center. That's the expensive part I'm sure.

The rough cost of Internet connection in a co-lo canter is about $1K per megabit per month. Yes that is more then you pay for DSL or cable but the $1K buys you full 100% use of the 1Mb line, not shared with the whole subdivision or apartment house.

Assume a month is so many seconds long so the cost to send one bit is $3.8E-10 (unless I dropped a decimal point some place.) Figure a song is 4 minutes long so at 256Kb per second then it must be 60M bits. Cost per bit times number of bits is just over 2 cents.

But figure Apple does not operate at 100% and their Internet connection sits at only 25% utilized then the cost is 8 cents. 25% is a reasonable number. So we can guess it cost them not more then 10 cents to send a 256Kb track and half that for 128K.

Like I said, just the cost to transport the data. Not the cost of the equipment, people, electric power and so on.

If you want to know what it cost Apple to store a track. They will tell you. It turns out that anyone can put their music on iTunes if you pay Apple. They charge a setup fee plus about $10 per year.

nagromme

Apr 2, 2007, 09:58 PM

If you want to know what it cost Apple to store a track. They will tell you. It turns out that anyone can put their music on iTunes if you pay Apple. They charge a setup fee plus about $10 per year.

And how much additional does EMI charge Apple for a non-DRM track?

xenotaku

Apr 2, 2007, 10:07 PM

AidenShaw

Apr 2, 2007, 10:08 PM

IThe "vendor-specific" aspect of Windows Media is actually true. In fact, WM DRM will only play on Windows. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_DRM

Perhaps Wikipedia should think about Zune and other non-Windows platforms that can play protected WM content... :p

dmelgar

Apr 2, 2007, 10:09 PM

If you read the transcript of the questions on Thinksecret, the EMI person being interviewed said something to the effect that Jobs had always made his opinion on DRM known, implying that Jobs had always suggested DRM was bad. Sure EMI approached Apple this time, but Apple was just waiting because their stance was clear.

Agreed. Folks are too quick to complain about Apple. This Gizmodo article is very anti-Apple/Jobs. Look at the last section complaining that all tracks aren't DRM-free. Hello! The music labels set the terms. How Gizmodo gets mad at Jobs for having tracks with DRM is beyond me. Likewise they're having a cow because videos still have DRM. Geez. Be happy that we're moving in the right direction. If you sink the Apple boat, you may sink attempts to remove DRM. Microsoft clearly doesn't care about the consumer. Look at the deals they made with the Zune, paying a label for every player sold regardless of what music runs on it. Microsoft only cares about the big company big label interests and cares less about their customers. Lets show support for Apple trying to turn things around removing DRM.

nagromme

Apr 2, 2007, 10:10 PM

Perhaps Wikipedia should think about Zune and other non-Windows platforms that can play protected WM content... p)

Zune is not a computer operating system. What is your reasoning here? Do you mean to say that Windows Media is not proprietary because Windows computers AND Windows-only players can both play it? :confused: Or do you mean that Microsoft is one vendor you CAN trust with vendor-specific DRM? (I certainly-wouldn't--not after their own Zune and their own Plays For Sure DRM are not compatible.)

TO me the only rationale for apple keeping the DRM'd tracks is to get more people to buy DRM'd, iPod only music. They have no other excuse.

According to PiperJaffray (not an insider, just an analyst), Apple never HAD a lock on iPod users: only 5% of the music on iPods comes from iTunes anyway :)
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2626

Whatever the number, do you think Apple is sneakily trying to protect that partial "lock" when they have other much bigger advantages like mindshare and ease of use? Meanwhile publicly pushing for no DRM and putting their money where their mouth is today?

If Apple wanted DRM to force people into iPod-only music, this deal would not have happened today. Looking at Apple as the reason for DRM makes no sense, when the labels are so clearly the more interested party.

I have been a supporter of Apple through thick and thin, but this is pathetic. If this report is true and it was APPLES idea to charge a premium....just pathetic.

What report would that be? We have a vague statement from EMI's PR staff saying Apple has some say over its prices... just like Apple and every other online store has always had. it's a non-statement.

We also have reports that EMI charges Apple more for the DRM-less songs. THAT is a convenient omission by EMI perhaps.

Both can be true: EMI charging more, and Apple "deciding" what to do with their own pricing as a result.

So where's this persuasive evidence that makes you so angry at Apple?

Not to mention, it seems that albums may not even have a premium. If Apple got EMI to agree to only charge more for singles, that's very welcome.

I think I'll wait and jump to conclusions based on facts rather than vague PR-speak.

SeaFox

Apr 2, 2007, 10:13 PM

what's gonna happen when people find out that it was Apple's idea to raise the price? then they'll think, oh we're just paying $0.30 for higher quality music when we could have been paying the same price.

Yeah, kinda like when you have two different video cards that are component-wise the same, and one just has some features disabled and is sold at a lower price. It's totally unfair that you should have to pay more for the better performing card since the two cards cost the same for the manufacturer to produce! :rolleyes:

So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever. :mad:

MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go.

It's called "business" as in Apple can charge whatever price it wants for a product. If you feel Apple's price is too high when other music stores sell tracks of comparable quality for 99¢, you're free to shop there instead of at the iTMS. If many share your viewpoint and begin doing the same, Apple will change their behavior and lower the price. If you continue to buy the iTMS tracks and pay the higher price for the premium bitrate/DRM free versions, then apparently you were just exaggerating and they really weren't "too expensive" to begin with. This is how the free market works.

Keep in mind, though that Apple doesn't run the iTMS as a money-making venture in itself, but as a marketing tool to drive iPod sales.

Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM. If that is the case then a standard CD is "premium" music.

No, but considering albums bought in record stores come with linear notes, bonus hidden tracks, CDs, or even DVDs and are uncompressed audio, perhaps that makes them "premium".

Keep in mind the label of premium is used when comparing the new tracks to the previous tracks. Kinda like saying McDonald's new coffee is "premium" roast. It's not better than stuff you get at an actual coffeehouse, but it truly is an improvement over the coffee McDonald's used to serve. So the adjective premium is correct.

At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.
So in other words you're already biased against Apple, is it any wonder your arguments are so flimsy.

This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents??? As far as I understand, the ITMS database holds all the music in unprotected format and adds the DRM as each individual downloads the music. That means that they wouldn't have to reencode everything to offer all EMI music without DRM.

I assumed it worked in that the DRM was already applied, it was the tagging of who was authorized to listen to it that is added at the time of purchase.

Doesn't MS sell songs on Zune Marketplace as 192 CBR, and so does Urge? iTunes Store's AAC is 256 and is VBR, so that will be much better quality, not even discussing the baseline sound between WMA and AAC on same bitrate.

Where did you read they were VBR? I thought they would be CBR like the current tracks are 128kbps CBR.

chrisgeleven

Apr 2, 2007, 10:19 PM

No one will know until Apple releases more info if the songs will be VBR or CBR.

Mgkwho

Apr 2, 2007, 10:42 PM

I have so much respect for EMI knowing that they approached Apple. It really says a lot...about our opinions and about corporate companies and ethical? practices.

Nice to see that.

-=|Mgkwho

sith33

Apr 2, 2007, 10:46 PM

chrisgeleven

Apr 2, 2007, 10:49 PM

I have so much respect for EMI knowing that they approached Apple. It really says a lot...about our opinions and about corporate companies and ethical? practices.

Nice to see that.

-=|Mgkwho

I have to say, listening to EMI's CEO speak, it seemed like he *got it*. It may have been a good acting job, but he seemed to understand digital music and its potential. He also seemed pretty intelligent and made several funny comments during his little speech.

Sure it helps too that there is a $0.30 increase in the price for single songs, but ultimately, it took a ton of guts on his part to get EMI to even consider talking with Apple about DRM-less music. This is essentially changing how the record industry does business. Coming from a RIAA member, this is startling.

msandersen

Apr 2, 2007, 10:56 PM

I guess that you won't be getting a Blu-ray player, since they use WM as one of the supported codecs.

Nor an HD-DVD player (before they disappear) - yep, WM also.

But wait, Microsoft doesn't make Blu-ray players - and they run Java, not Windows. Where does this "vendor-and-platform specific" part come in? ;)
The specs for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD includes mandatory support for MPEG-2, H.264, and SMPTE VC-1 (Windows Media 9-based video, developed with over a dozen other companies), yes, that doesn't mean we will see any movies in WM format, though; h264 trounces WM comprehensively. And frankly that doesn't concern me unless I want to back it up, as long as it plays on whichever player I get. But that's a long way into the future. There are hardly any HD videos published, and very few players, all pricey. They are yet to decide on which format "wins", that may be up to the Early Adopters to decide.

All of which is besides the point, the topic being downloadable music. WM Audio is a proprietary Windows-Only format, barring illegal decoders, just as WM Player is a Windows-Only player. I'm not talking about licensed hardware. There was a player for OSX, which didn't play DRM'd files, since discontinued. So music stores selling music in WM format is tying you to Windows, moreso with DRM which mplayer etc can't play. Once downloaded via Windows, you can upload it onto various licensed players like your Zune etc, but you still have to use Windows.

SheriffParker

Apr 2, 2007, 11:33 PM

I just ripped a couple albums in 256kbps AAC. I am very impressed with the quality. Any sane person will never tell the difference between this and an uncompressed version.

It depends on the speakers.

iAlan

Apr 2, 2007, 11:36 PM

Interesting that it was EMI who wanted to de-DRM the tracks and Apple who set the pricing.

I am thinking that the price increase is being used to entice other labels to offer DRM-free tracks as well. I would think that EMI would receive more per track at the new price ppoint as a way to possible offset any impact from potential piracy of hte DRM-free tracks?

If there is more money in it for the labels then I think they will switch to DRM-free as well. If not, not much chance...

SheriffParker

Apr 2, 2007, 11:37 PM

Perhaps Wikipedia should think about Zune and other non-Windows platforms that can play protected WM content... :p

Perhaps wikipedia is a completely unreliable source that anyone can edit if they feel like it.

shawnce

Apr 2, 2007, 11:41 PM

It depends on the speakers.

It depends on a lot more then just that... but on the whole 256kbps is very close to CD quality if not beyond if encoded from master recordings.

jettredmont

Apr 2, 2007, 11:54 PM

• The DRM-free tracks should, they believe improve sales: Even as piracy gets easier, so does the ability to play songs on any MP3 player available. (That is, once some other music store releases EMI tracks on MP3.)

Ummm, Gizmodo and EMI do realize that many a non-iPod player is perfectly happy playing non-DRM AAC files, right? I mean, MP3 is not the only widely-available music format out there.

AidenShaw

Apr 2, 2007, 11:54 PM

It depends on a lot more then just that... but on the whole 256kbps is very close to CD quality if not beyond if encoded from master recordings.

I guess if you're listening on an iPod HiFi it seems that way...

http://images.apple.com/ipodhifi/images/indexfamilyoff20060228.jpg

If you're listening on an audio system that deserves the adjective "HiFi", you might disagree.

msandersen

Apr 2, 2007, 11:59 PM

I think, when she said, "I refuse to buy WM formats," she meant she would not buy "WM formats." She didn't say she would boycott all products that include optional WM support :)

She would, I assume, boycott a Blu-Ray title encoded as WM, but happily buy another format.

The "vendor-specific" aspect of Windows Media is actually true. In fact, WM DRM will only play on Windows. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_DRM

Hmm, never though of myself as a woman before...
I've already answered this post above, it has nothing to do with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, or any other Video standards. If, in the future, I got a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player, I wouldn't care what format it was encoded in, as it's for use in a player with a TV, not on my computer, and all players are required to support the specs, which include mpeg-2, H264, and VC-1. The VC-1 standard, which is based on WMV9 (and developed with over a dozen others), should play fine on any computer platform with compatible players, though I would prefer something where royalties don't go to Microsoft.

None of which has to do with downloadable music and DRM. WMA is Windows-only, that was my point. Even with a WMA-licensed player, you have to use Windows. I would like to see standardisation on AAC (or even Ogg Vorbis) as the replacement for the antiquated MP3 format, so I support Apple not including support for WMA in the iPod (iTunes is probably WMA-licensed, as it can import, but not play, WMA). It's a format-war out there, and I don't want Microsoft to win. DRM-less AACs can help in that regard, as it's mainly the DRM that keeps the other music stores with WMA. We must have an open non-platform-specific format. It shouldn't matter if I run Windows, MacOS, Linux, PC-BSD, or anything else.

stephenli

Apr 3, 2007, 12:02 AM

nagromme

Apr 3, 2007, 12:05 AM

I guess if you're listening on an iPod HiFi it seems that way...

...

If you're listening on an audio system that deserves the adjective "HiFi", you might disagree.

There's always something negative to be said about Apple if you stretch far enough, try hard enough, and use vague enough language :D

Its me. Why not using Apple Lossless instead?

Lossless means bigger files, slower downloads, and fewer songs in the same storage space. (In addition, Apple Lossless is not as widely supported as AAC/MP4.)

LagunaSol

Apr 3, 2007, 12:07 AM

All this does is make Apple look even more pathetic. For the same price that I can buy 90 DRM free high quality songs at emusic I could buy less than 9 on iTunes. Shame on you apple. Apple is getting cocky. They better remember what got to where they are, or they are going to start heading in the direction they were in the mid 90s.

Wow. First off, try to relax. Secondly, you can buy far more tunes on eMusic for the same money because they're tunes NO ONE WANTS TO BUY! And by "no one" I mean the general music-buying populace. Yeah, I'm sure you'll reply with the "corporate music sucks!" shtick, but I had an eMusic subscription and I simply couldn't find enough music that I really liked to make it worth the time or money. Sure, out of those billions of indie bands I've never heard of, I'm sure there are some I would really like, but I don't have the time to comb through all the dreck to find them. Instead of finding the Red Hot Chili Peppers, I find the "Red Hot Chili Peppers String Quartet Tribute." Yeah, thanks eMusic.

iTunes has top-tier pricing because it features top-tier acts.

Evangelion

Apr 3, 2007, 12:20 AM

I guess that you won't be getting a Blu-ray player, since they use WM as one of the supported codecs.

Does "one of the supported codecs" means the same as "WM specific"?

Evangelion

Apr 3, 2007, 12:37 AM

MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go.

Cnet says in it's review of URGE that at least in the subscription-scheme, tracks are not 256, they are 196. URGE FAQ doesn't tell any details of the files they sell, however.

And Wikipedia sez that WMAPro is as good as AAC at 128kbit/sec. But URGE does not sell WMAPRo, they sell regural WMA. And regural WMA is worse than WMAPro. So maybe they need the higher bitrate to be competetive soundwise?

And since you are so sure that URGE-WMA's sound better than 128kbit/sec AAC's from iTunes, then why won't you test it? Do a blind-test to see if you can spot any differences. THAT is the true measure of sound-quality, not some technological specs!

Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM.

It really is simple: "standard" is the 128kbit/sec tracks with DRM. "premium" is 256kbit/sec without DRM. There is a clear difference between the two.

At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt.

you are free to feel that way, no matter how misguided that might be.

ezekielrage_99

Apr 3, 2007, 12:43 AM

If Apple puts higher quality AAC and DRM Free music on the iTunes store I'll never buy another CD again.

mdriftmeyer

Apr 3, 2007, 12:53 AM

Wow...I would haev guessed it was Jobs righting for no more DRM, and EMI wanting the price increase. Either way Jobs did state he want no more DRM and now its happening.

So, a VP from EMI makes a claim, off-press and it's Gospel? Steve Jobs writes a letter and it's a ******** ploy?

Grow up. If EMI spun it that Steve pressured them what sort of mindshare does EMI have with it's artists, shareholders, etc?

iSlicer

Apr 3, 2007, 01:03 AM

Someone has to pay for the higher bandwidth! I don't think it is criminal that Apple is asking for a higher price. I mean, you can buy a Harmon Kardon stero system or a no name brand one too and guess what, you have the choice, just like you do here.

AvSRoCkCO1067

Apr 3, 2007, 01:07 AM

If Apple puts higher quality ACC and DRM Free music on the iTunes store I'll never buy another CD again.

They did...???

maxp1

Apr 3, 2007, 01:25 AM

I think this thread puts the period on the point that "no matter what you do someone is going to be unhappy about it".

I see this as a step forward. It's not the end of where things are going, it's just the beginning. It's a new market with DRM free major label music available through a legitimate source, no matter whether it cost extra or not. Stop gripeing and see where things go. Market forces are an amazing thing and now that the dam is starting to crack we should see great things happen.

Go out there and buy some DRM free major label music as soon as it's available even if it costs you a few extra dollars. Let the labels know that there's a huge demand and they should all offer DRM free music downloads. Then the free market can take over to drive prices down or quality up (which I would prefer)

Analog Kid

Apr 3, 2007, 01:30 AM

Wow. I haven't read all the posts in both of these threads, but just from scanning them I'm amazed at the amount of angst out there... You'd think Apple did something wrong.

They took the most popular car on the planet and released a sister model with a higher top speed and lifetime warranty for 30% more and people freaked out. (I know, I hate car analogies too-- they just come so easily).

I've never understood how people can be this upset when they can do everything today that they could do yesterday, and a little bit more.

Here's my take on everything so far:

EMI stepped up to the plate and swung at the ball rather than just taking the walk. The gauntlet has been thrown down before the other labels.
Apple has announced the first legal, large scale, digital distribution of DRM free music. We're seeing greater experimentation in the market place. Just as Zune didn't indicate the content providers were hell bent on tighting up on the reigns, this doesn't mean they're ready to let them loose either.
Two major complaints about iTMS have been answered-- data rates are going up and DRM is going out. For people that want even higher data rates, take this as a step towards your goals and a sign that nothing has to remain the same forever. I don't want to download a 400MB album, thank you, so lossless ain't gonna cut it yet.
While I'm always in favor of lower prices ($0.25 songs would be the sweet spot for impulse buys in my view) the album-oriented world has swung back into balance with this move to some extent.
You get music that is essentially CD quality for less than the cost of most CDs. (uber-audiophiles buy elsewhere)
There is a premium on buying individual tracks, but not so much as to discourage it entirely. Still cheaper than store bought.
You don't get penalized for trying a few tracks and buying the album later. In fact the new pricing model makes the rest of the album a rather attractive buy.

For people that don't like the changes, they can have the same tracks and albums they always did with the same limitations.
And lastly: nothing's ever good enough for you people...

Except for that last point, this is all good. Free, downloadable, full quality, unprotected digital music is not a business strategy, folks...

EricNau

Apr 3, 2007, 01:45 AM

maxp1

Apr 3, 2007, 02:05 AM

I think the biggest problem here is Apple's reluctance to remove DRM from all of EMI's music (not just the "premium" version).

It's slightly hypocritical. Apple is saying "DRM is evil" but at the same time they are still selling music encoded with DRM, even after EMI gave the green light to sell it DRM-free.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the bit-rate.

Actaully, look around, there are a lot of people complaining about the bit rate.

This move is all about tiny steps. Remember that Apple doesn't control much about the the content of iTunes, only the way it is digitally distributed. The music labels are not going to allow rapid changes. They're very risk adverse. So one label makes this offering on the largest music store. If it goes well the other labels will follow. Eventually we'll have a much more free market. But it's not going to happen all at once.

Marvy

Apr 3, 2007, 02:44 AM

I just want to know how anyone could possibly vote "negative" on this story on the front page. Are there RIAA lawyers logged into macrumors??? There's absolutely nothing about this that makes things worse for consumers - it's a win for everyone we care about - music lovers, music purchasers, Apple, ipod sales, iTMS sales.... christ, we should be rejoicing.

Oh come on, man! Could you tell me then what the hell is positive about this news item? I certainly see a negative aspect: Jobs clearly stated in his "open letter" that if he were offered the chance for DRM-free music, he would embrace it. He got the chance, and didn't take it. I don't know about you, but I find that a just a tad negative, no?

sdds

Apr 3, 2007, 02:55 AM

also, the storage cost of this music is 2x the original tracks...plus the time to re-encode.

oh come on, that's ridiculous. the store cost IS NOT increasing the price by more than probably a fraction of a cent. just do the math. the iTMS has got what, 5 million tracks? let's assume the average track is 5 MB in size. double that makes 10 MB per track. the bandwith to transfer that must be closer to 0.01 cent that to 0.1 cent. even if it gets transferred twice or three times to the same customer it won't make even the slightest dent into the $1 or $1.30 you paid for it. That's bandwith. Now, you were talking about storage. 5 million tracks at 256kbps would be, assuming 10 MB per track, a mere 50 TB of HDD storage. You and I are able to afford 5 TB of storage nowadays, thus 50 TB is a piece of cake for Apple. Even if they have double or triple backup available. 50 TB is not what it used to be. Besides, the cost of storage has probably come down to half the price from when the iTMS was started... Maybe not so much in the server storage market, but you get the point.
The time to reencode should just be CPU time. they won't have a bunch of CD tray serving monkeys do the task, they'll have AIFF or similar copies of the whole catalog somewhere plus a nifty script to correctly reencode the whole catalog for them. Hell, you could do that with a simple AppleScript! Just start it, make sure you've got enough storage allocated and come back in two weeks when the batch job is finished.

The server infrastructure behind the iTMS must be quite impressive but I guarantee you the increase in bitrate is not going to make a big difference.

ncoffey

Apr 3, 2007, 02:55 AM

msandersen

Apr 3, 2007, 03:29 AM

I think the biggest problem here is Apple's reluctance to remove DRM from all of EMI's music (not just the "premium" version).

It's slightly hypocritical. Apple is saying "DRM is evil" but at the same time they are still selling music encoded with DRM, even after EMI gave the green light to sell it DRM-free.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the bit-rate.

From re-reading the things EMI has said, it would seem that they are the ones stating DRM-free is a "premium" feature that their research says people are willing to pay more for; hence they charge Apple more, and they pass it on. The "regular" price, as covered by existing agreements, must still be protected by DRM. So I don't think Apple had a choice short of dropping the existing "normal" 128kbps DRM files, which obviously comes across as a price rise. This way, perhaps not entirely convincingly, they can still argue that they haven't put up the prices, merely added a premium service. In the long run they will have to choose between DRM or non-DRM, depending if the gamble works. Having both is not a viable long-term alternative. I'd be happy if they upped the "normal" to 160kbps with no DRM.

nagromme

Apr 3, 2007, 03:39 AM

I think the biggest problem here is Apple's reluctance to remove DRM from all of EMI's music (not just the "premium" version).

It's slightly hypocritical. Apple is saying "DRM is evil" but at the same time they are still selling music encoded with DRM, even after EMI gave the green light to sell it DRM-free.

What about the fact that EMI apparently charges more for the DRM-less songs? EMI gave them the "green light"--with a price tag.

Apple's "reluctance" is reluctance to raise the price of the old 128 tracks. Can you imagine how much people would complain then? :D

You might be happy to see the .99 tracks vanish, replaced by $1.09 or something for the same old quality and no DRM--but I think you'd be in the minority. Meanwhile, you can get even better than that--for $1.29.

Apple HAS to compromise between our dream vision of the music industry and the music industry as it actually is--which includes more than just EMI.

I think they've found a great place to start--and the people complaining about it seem to have overlooked the actual facts of the situation--or are refusing to wait for those facts to appear :o

Analog Kid

Apr 3, 2007, 03:42 AM

Oh come on, man! Could you tell me then what the hell is positive about this news item? I certainly see a negative aspect: Jobs clearly stated in his "open letter" that if he were offered the chance for DRM-free music, he would embrace it. He got the chance, and didn't take it. I don't know about you, but I find that a just a tad negative, no?
This is what I was talking about...

He got the chance and he did take it. It can't be any more simple than that. Apple will be selling DRM-free music from EMI.

If you're complaining about the fact that the 99c tracks aren't DRM-free then at least state that in your tirade so you don't look quite so myopic.

Breaking it down into simple terms there are three positives and one qualified negative in this press release.

Positive: Bit rate is going up, DRM is going away, and albums will cost the same as they ever did.

Qualified negative: You have to pay more if your playback method suddenly stops supporting FairPlay and you only want to buy one track.

If you don't like the new files or the new price, then your world hasn't changed. You get the same stuff for the same price.

Mr. DG

Apr 3, 2007, 04:59 AM

This works out well for EMI in that they can raise the perceived price of a single download. EMI and a good deal of the labels have never been happy with the 79p price point. This gives them a way to push the price up - at no real cost to themselves - whilst also looking good in the eyes of the consumer. Smart move.

ezekielrage_99

Apr 3, 2007, 05:09 AM

They did...???

I thought they were talking about it, last night I purchased some music on iTunes (Australian Store) the file was still a 128kbps Protected AAC

teme

Apr 3, 2007, 05:26 AM

I think AAC-format for unprotected tracks is a mistake - it might be more advanced format than old MP3, but MP3 is more common and people know that it works always and it really is unprotected. Of course Apple can sell tracks in whatever format, but if some other music store begins to sell tracks in MP3-format at 0.99, that might take some customers away from iTunes.

aswitcher

Apr 3, 2007, 05:34 AM

I thought they were talking about it, last night I purchased some music on iTunes (Australian Store) the file was still a 128kbps Protected AAC

Changes come in May.

surferfromuk

Apr 3, 2007, 05:44 AM

Progress has been made. The world is better today than it was yesterday.

You can now buy 256K DRM free tracks.

Apple has elected to upgrade it's considerable infrastructure which will need to hold twice as much data for 2.5 million songs, double the bandwidth and server capacity and we the consumer is going to pay for that privilege - and this is right becuase no one else is going to pay for it are they ??

I don't know why the confusion or negativity - Apple isn't a government that simply taxes you or forces you to accept these terms nor is it M$ who can simply buy a market strangle-hold until all competition dry up.
They are a company and they need to make money or they wither and die. Thankfully Apple is currently succesful and from this all kind of great and incredible products are coming which are making all of our lives better and full of fun.

Be Thankfull and be Happy - Apple is 'trying to find the right way' through unchartered waters...

Seems like there is a lot of politics surrounding this and I'm not entirely sure that dissent isn't being seeded into some of these forums by trouble makers who want to control all our lives and remove 'options'.

Let's not forget that ALBUMS ARE NOT COSTING ANYMORE BUT ARE DRM FREE AND 256K AAC!!!. How is this a 'bad thing' ???

:)

Eraserhead

Apr 3, 2007, 05:52 AM

netdog

Apr 3, 2007, 05:54 AM

Other music players...feh!

iPod or death!

ezekielrage_99

Apr 3, 2007, 06:12 AM

Other music players...feh!

iPod or death!

Zunes cause cancer ;)

:apple:

Analog Kid

Apr 3, 2007, 06:13 AM

Except that most people don't know the difference, and other MP3 players will support AAC's as you can get them from iTunes ;).
I suspect this is true-- it will be interesting to see how well these other players do now that they can work with iTMS. I guess we'll see how much of the iPod magic really emanates from the music store.

This also might be part of the reason for the higher price on non-DRMed music. iPod is helping subsidize iTMS, while other players are not. iPod users can still use the 99c music, while users of other players have to kick in a bit more...

Eraserhead

Apr 3, 2007, 06:31 AM

iPod users can still use the 99c music, while users of other players have to kick in a bit more...

I never thought of it that way, cunning.

Queso

Apr 3, 2007, 06:44 AM

EMI would have NEVER done this had Steve Jobs not written that open letter.So regardless of who started it I'll happily pay $1.29 for a 256k DRM-free song.
No, EMI are responding to the European Commission, not Steve Jobs. Jobs has rather cleverly publicised his views knowing that the EC was going to force this. Now he can take credit for it.

BMG will be next to jump in, as they're Europe based too. Once again, it'll be down to EU pressure but Apple will get credit.

Damn good at marketing without spending a penny in Cupertino, aren't they?

I think AAC-format for unprotected tracks is a mistake - it might be more advanced format than old MP3, but MP3 is more common and people know that it works always and it really is unprotected. Of course Apple can sell tracks in whatever format, but if some other music store begins to sell tracks in MP3-format at 0.99, that might take some customers away from iTunes.
But if they want the same fidelity with MP3 they'll be looking at 320kbps, which takes up more space on the device as well as increasing the retailer's bandwidth costs. Also, if iTMS is not making much of a profit with its economies of scale, I can't see how smaller retailers can do so with higher kilobit tracks unless they too put their prices up. The main thing is if the other record companies follow suit we're finally going to get real choice.

Another side effect of this is that WMA is going to get abandoned by a lot of online music stores in favour of AAC or MP3. Why would a retailer use a format that cannot be played by 75% of their potential customer base?

Blue Velvet

Apr 3, 2007, 06:47 AM

Damn good at marketing without spending a penny in Cupertino, aren't they?

Geniuses. Seriously...

Top to bottom, they run an extremely tight, creative ship and are unparalleled in milking and spinning the story they want to tell, and getting others to fall in line. They make Microsoft look like a bunch of ham-fisted amateurs and crooks in the PR stakes.

Putting aside the actual product itself, from the keynote onwards, the iPhone launch will be a PR masterclass. Believe...

matticus008

Apr 3, 2007, 07:00 AM

It's slightly hypocritical. Apple is saying "DRM is evil" but at the same time they are still selling music encoded with DRM, even after EMI gave the green light to sell it DRM-free.
Hypocritical how? They could drop the 99 cent EMI songs altogether, but then I'd wager you'd be complaining about having to pay more for bands on the EMI label because they took away the option to pay 99 cents for them like all the other songs.

It's pretty clear-cut. The old catalog and arrangements are still available for anyone who wants them (i.e. doesn't care about DRM or bitrate, and so sees no need to pay $1.29). Giving customers a choice isn't hypocritical.

whooleytoo

Apr 3, 2007, 08:13 AM

glennyboiwpg

Apr 3, 2007, 08:18 AM

This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents??? As far as I understand, the ITMS database holds all the music in unprotected format and adds the DRM as each individual downloads the music. That means that they wouldn't have to reencode everything to offer all EMI music without DRM.

Instead, not only do they screw with the simplicity of the ITMS by offering tracks in two different qualities for two different prices, something that they have repeatedly refused to do when labels have requested so (IE raise prices on new singles). TO me the only rationale for apple keeping the DRM'd tracks is to get more people to buy DRM'd, iPod only music. They have no other excuse.

The same goes for all the independent labels that sell music on ITMS. Almost every independent label licenses their music to be sold DRM free. Apple chooses to put DRM on it. Their is no cost to apple. Well, actually, it we are to believe Jobs' notorious letter, they would save money, bc there would be less music to worry about upkeeping DRM on (this was jobs' rationale for not licensing fairplay to other MP3 player companies or music stores).

Wow... you guys are really dumb. Like people said... SJ has always made his opinion known about DRM. DRM existed and exists for the record companies NOT Apple. What would apple care if you downloaded a song and shared it on bearshare? Its the record companys that want to prevent that.

Case and point? The moment a record company comes to apple and says hey... we don't think we want drm songs on itunes, SJ said sure lets work on that.

Apple isn't screwing anyone over, but he does have to work in the politics of the music industry. Grow up people.

glennyboiwpg

Apr 3, 2007, 08:26 AM

There could be risk here for Apple, if other music stores can offer DRM free music for less. There's a lot of leeway to undercut Apple at 1.29 yoyos. However, since the iPod doesn't support WMA formats, even if other music stores strip out DRM they still won't play on it; unless they switch to MP3.

Still, while I'll certainly be upgrading my few hundred iTMS tracks; it just doesn't make sense to me to keep buying. eMusic DRM free: 34c iTMS DRM free: 129c

i haven't used emusic before but 34c a song? That got my attention. So I went to their site to check it out... You can't browse their entire site without signing up. WTF? How do I know if the site is any good? Yeah 34c a song is nice, but do they have the songs I listen to? Is the interface easy/initutive to use? I looked at urge, and although there isn't anything "hard to use" about it, I just found it kinda clumped together, didn't really know what went where. ITMS is different, everyting is nicely laied out and I can see what every thing does just by glancing at it.

If Emusic wants me to see what it has to offer, you have to let me browse before I buy.

blybug

Apr 3, 2007, 08:40 AM

what's gonna happen when people find out that it was Apple's idea to raise the price? then they'll think, oh we're just paying $0.30 for higher quality music when we could have been paying the same price.

I remember paying $0.99 - $1.29 for a crappy quality 45rpm single back in the 70s & 80s, beofre vinyl was phased out and "singles" ceased to exist. That single track purchasing has re-emerged in digital quality (even 128kpbs on most any player is an improvement over the old 45s) at the same price 25 years later is really quite remarkable. The portability and convenience that comes with downloadable music far surpasses anything that was available then, so I consider that even extra value for the price. Also consider that album purchases will gain the increased quality, lack of DRM, but will retain the same $9.99 price point. That's huge.

It would be sort of cool if they'd attach a "B-side" to some single purchases...odds are, like the old "B-sides" on 45s it's a song you'd never have bought anyhow, but if you like it might encourage you to go back and buy the whole album...

Shanesan

Apr 3, 2007, 08:47 AM

Top to bottom, they run an extremely tight, creative ship and are unparalleled in milking and spinning the story they want to tell, and getting others to fall in line. They make Microsoft look like a bunch of ham-fisted amateurs and crooks in the PR stakes.

It's not very hard to make a thick, juicy PR stake when they're serving up the truth. :)

When Microsoft just makes it that easy, it's a field day for PR guys.

:p <~ Thats the face a PR person makes when their job is done for them.

Marvy

Apr 3, 2007, 08:51 AM

This is what I was talking about...

He got the chance and he did take it. It can't be any more simple than that. Apple will be selling DRM-free music from EMI.

If you're complaining about the fact that the 99c tracks aren't DRM-free then at least state that in your tirade so you don't look quite so myopic.

Breaking it down into simple terms there are three positives and one qualified negative in this press release.

Positive: Bit rate is going up, DRM is going away, and albums will cost the same as they ever did.

Qualified negative: You have to pay more if your playback method suddenly stops supporting FairPlay and you only want to buy one track.

If you don't like the new files or the new price, then your world hasn't changed. You get the same stuff for the same price.

Dude, I love the new options the iTunes Music Store + EMI are giving us. But that is not the topic of this news item. For opinions on that, there is another thread.
This news was about how EMI approached Apple, and that it was Apple's decision to offer DRM-free music only for a premium. Of course you can find that negative! I'm just sick of these Apple-enthusiasts "not understanding" how people can find things negative.
Personally I believe Jobs might be using this strategy to increase sales on EMI's side, thus luring other companies in to applying the same strategy. Works for me. But can I understand people voting negative on the fact, that Jobs decided to hold on to DRM? Absolutely.

baleensavage

Apr 3, 2007, 09:03 AM

I'll decide on the truth in EMI's statement based on availability of EMI songs at eMusic, which does not carry any, yet. If they were willing to sell anybody their songs without DRM at the old price points, I don't think eMusic would say no.

eMusic has stated numerous times that they would be glad to sell stuff from the major labels if the major labels would let them. Of course there's always pricing to deal with besides DRM. Regardless, I hope that eMusic does get EMI soon. It would be really cool to be able to get major label stuff there along with the indie stuff.

Digitalclips

Apr 3, 2007, 09:07 AM

Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.

EMI is kind of making Apple look bad. :o

I suspect EMI approached Apple after Steve's open letter on the subject , although I don't know this for a fact.

Re price; EMI stated in the live announcement yesterday that they did not set the retail price.

Personally, I do not see anything that makes Apple look bad, far from it. As market leaders it could be argued they have most to lose yet Steve stated, and I for one agree, that on a level playing field of protection free music, iTunes and iPods will win due to being the superior products.

Photo Monkey

Apr 3, 2007, 09:29 AM

All very well talking about it, but when can we actually buy them!?

nickelcokes

Apr 3, 2007, 09:35 AM

Project

Apr 3, 2007, 09:43 AM

I think the 1.30 pricepoint was a clear strategic move on Apples part.

Now we have this:

128kbs Sony etc music @ 99
256kbs EMI music @ 130

Lets say a bigger pecentage of people buy non DRM EMI music than DRM EMI music, making EMI/Apple more money per sale. Clearly, the other record labels are losing out here and their insistance on DRM is proved wrong.

Im amazed though at people questioning Steves integrity on the DRM issue. Some choice quotes from 2003:

"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/ste ve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview/ [rollingstone.com]

and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.

"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own," said Jobs."

http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/ [macworld.com]

And then just yesterday:

Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?

A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 09:47 AM

It would be sort of cool if they'd attach a "B-side" to some single purchases...odds are, like the old "B-sides" on 45s it's a song you'd never have bought anyhow, but if you like it might encourage you to go back and buy the whole album...

Well, this was indeed just a marketing gimmick used for a long time by the industry but Apple does have its own equivalent. Each week iTunes features a free download. Like B-sides, they're not usually any good but once in a while you might find something. But an entirely new possibility arose with systems like iTunes (it really began with in store kiosks at Musicland, etc. but anyway...): Audition tracks. Having the ability to audition a track almost replaces the B-side mentality because you can make a decision right there and then as to whether or not you want it without having it tagging along and eating up bandwidth on your downloads.

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 09:53 AM

eMusic has stated numerous times that they would be glad to sell stuff from the major labels if the major labels would let them. Of course there's always pricing to deal with besides DRM. Regardless, I hope that eMusic does get EMI soon. It would be really cool to be able to get major label stuff there along with the indie stuff.

Major labels don't seem willing to move to the eMusic model while they are still working with the iTunes, Yahoo!, and Wal*Mart's trying to get the kinks worked out of the system.

I'm sure the floodgates will open once the legal download market is DRM-free, but I'm not so sure you are going to like it since without an reason not to sell signed artists it's going to crowd out the indie groups on eMusic quickly.

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 09:56 AM

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 09:59 AM

You ever hear of a carrot on stick? Hey other labels... look you can get more per song, like you have been pushing for, but only if you go DRM free. Oh and while we are at it we structured things to better encourage the sale of full albums just like you also bitched about.

I get the strategy, I just think if the bitrate was completely up to them they should have offered a Lossless option, at least at that premium price.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 10:17 AM

The only problem with this is the increased bit rate. I would gladly pay 30 cents more per song to have the copy protection removed, but I don't want every song to be twice the size. The songs I've downloaded sound fine at 128 kbps. Doubling my storage requirements for an imperceptible quality hike is just foolish.

There's a fix so idiot proof you'll kick yourself for not having thought of it... If you are willing, as you say, to pay 30 cents more per song for the freedom from DRM alone:

1. Buy non-DRM itunes
2. Convert non-DRM itunes to 128 or 192kbps or any other bitrate or format (there's no DRM to prevent this, remember? :D)

Problem solved.

This is just like HDTV, paying $5000 for a better Slingbox alternative or modern-day video games. The purpose of entertainment is enjoyment. Enjoyment comes from quality of content, not excruciating detail. I don't need higher resolution to watch TV. I don't need full-quality pictures from my Slingbox when I am traveling and I want to watch a quick show. I don't need to watch people sweat in video games.

Tell this to the cadre of nitpickers who have torn apart AppleTV because it doesn't do 1080p. Then try explaining to them that statistically they are a minority. As much as I empathize and also agree that 128kbps AAC is sufficiently indistinguishable from 16-bit Linear PCM despite all layperson rants to the contrary, I think you're ice-skating uphill trying to rationally explain the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns to people who wear their purchasing habits on their sleeve like some people do with their religious beliefs.

I'll bet that part of the justification for doubling the bit rate of the songs sold on iTunes was to place demand on larger iPods. My 4 GB Nano is only slightly too small to contain all of my music; doubling the storage requirements makes the device inadequately small.

Good point about driving demand for larger iPods, but that's kind of a moot point because why go to the expense of trying to artificially create a market for an item that might have a smaller profit margin when keeping the file size down would be more profitable for Apple and convenient for consumers already saturated with iPods? The reason larger iPods are being made is because the demand for them is already there... there's no need to artificially create this demand from scratch, but I wouldn't dispute the idea that the Premium downloads certainly don't hurt accelerating this demand... it's just not the primary driver.

I think the real answer is that Apple sees ditching DRM as a window to a few key elements in a larger strategy...

1. The market is saturated with iPod and new devices like iPhone and AppleTV are emerging to broaden the spectrum of Apple's lifestyle presence. With their market share, Apple's in a great position to open up DRM now as a means of pushing out competing formats like Windows Media to clear the way for even greater brand presence which facilitates the so-called "halo effect"... minimal investment for non-iPod or non-Mac owners to touch Apple products/services that may lead to other purchases.

2. Attracting a growing demographic of fidelity-conscious individuals who incidentally also make up a significant portion of the "tech aware" users who understand what DRM is and don't like it. Many of these users also happen to have deep pockets, or at least good credit, and spend a significant portion of their take home pay on technology-related purchases. Getting this segment interested has a tremendous effect on Apple's brand equity as evidenced by the rapid surge in tech blog posts about Apple following Apple and EMI's announcement.

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 10:24 AM

You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.

I don't think $1.30 is competing. $.99 was the sweet spot, I think a lot of people won't go for the $1.30. I think a single like this is still cheaper than it was before iTS but raising prices like this is never a good idea.
Although I understand the tactics involved it sets a dangerous precedent that you can't explain away with bandwidth or storage cost. So next time Apple goes Lossless they'll just raise the price again to $1.50?

It's not about the price itself, it is about raising the price for a "premium", which by the way is the worst way to describe something that you already get in form of a CD.

whooleytoo

Apr 3, 2007, 10:29 AM

I get the strategy, I just think if the bitrate was completely up to them they should have offered a Lossless option, at least at that premium price.

I doubt most people could tell the difference between 256Kbps AAC and lossless, but the filesize would be far greater - certainly not suitable for iPods.

Not only would you fit fewer tracks (obviously), but for hard-disk based iPods the cache would fit fewer songs (two, at the very most) meaning a greatly reduced battery life.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 10:30 AM

I get the strategy, I just think if the bitrate was completely up to them they should have offered a Lossless option, at least at that premium price.

Problem with Apple Lossless is that it's essentially VBR. Datacenter management is a lot more complicated when you can't do simple math to know exactly what your requirements are at any given time.

But for that matter, arguing that a higher price should be "at least" a certain bitrate is kind of silly since there's a threshold above which the marginal difference really isn't perceptible. For AAC, that threshold exists around 128kbps to 192kbps. At bitrates above that, the marginal difference becomes near impossible for the average user to distinguish... or cost justify.

Since users will claim all sorts of things about their own powers of discernment there's no straight rationalization to introduce considerably higher bitrates UNLESS the market demand is ostensibly there. The poor sales of 24-bit DVD Audio and SACD relative to 16-bit CD don't paint a very promising picture in terms of what additional revenue Apple might hope to get by clogging up their datacenters at great cost to themselves, and clogging up users hard drives at little perceivable marginal benefit to them.

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 10:33 AM

I doubt most people could tell the difference between 256Kbps AAC and lossless, but the filesize would be far greater - certainly not suitable for iPods.

But... as others have pointed out... you can convert it to ANY format and not take the double (lossy)compression hit and make perfect CD's from it.

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 10:36 AM

I doubt most people could tell the difference between 256Kbps AAC and lossless, but the filesize would be far greater - certainly not suitable for iPods.

Not only would you fit fewer tracks (obviously), but for hard-disk based iPods the cache would fit fewer songs (two, at the very most) meaning a greatly reduced battery life.

Problem with Apple Lossless is that it's essentially VBR. Datacenter management is a lot more complicated when you can't do simple math to know exactly what your requirements are at any given time.

But for that matter, arguing that a higher price should be "at least" a certain bitrate is kind of silly since there's a threshold above which the marginal difference really isn't perceptible. For AAC, that threshold exists around 128kbps to 192kbps. At bitrates above that, the marginal difference becomes near impossible for the average user to distinguish... or cost justify.

Since users will claim all sorts of things about their own powers of discernment there's no straight rationalization to introduce considerably higher bitrates UNLESS the market demand is ostensibly there. The poor sales of 24-bit DVD Audio and SACD relative to 16-bit CD don't paint a very promising picture in terms of what additional revenue Apple might hope to get by clogging up their datacenters at great cost to themselves, and clogging up users hard drives at little perceivable marginal benefit to them.

You're right for AAC, the difference in bitrate grows smaller the higher yuo go. I do hear quite a difference going to Lossless though. And even though some people don't hear a difference (while some do) they still won't buy lossy music. I think Apple is missing out on business here. I for one, and many people I know, buy the odd tune from the iTS but still spend 99% of their money on CDs. With Lossless I think almost all of those people would never buy a CD again.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 10:41 AM

I don't think $1.30 is competing. $.99 was the sweet spot, I think a lot of people won't go for the $1.30. I think a single like this is still cheaper than it was before iTS but raising prices like this is never a good idea.
Although I understand the tactics involved it sets a dangerous precedent that you can't explain away with bandwidth or storage cost. So next time Apple goes Lossless they'll just raise the price again to $1.50?

It's not about the price itself, it is about raising the price for a "premium", which by the way is the worst way to describe something that you already get in form of a CD.

Do people really think that companies do pricing by throwing darts at a wall?

A lot of market research precedes retail pricing like this. The price point was more than likely derived from various studies, market surveys, test marketing, focus groups, historical sales data from similar business cases, etc. to figure out who the target market is, what additional margin they're willing to pay, and what else they may want to see in the product in order to justify the price point.

As an unscientific observation in general, I think many would agree that the subset of consumers who are most conscious about DRM are also considerably more likely to demand higher bitrate files. It is this subset of consumers whom Apple is targeting with this product so in a sense, yes, a lot of people WON'T buy it... not initially anyway. But if it does take off, Apple's got considerable wiggle room to reduce the margin and remain competitive against other services that might provide it. If it doesn't take off, the margin gives them proportionately more revenue for less product being sold.

Additional factors that went into the margin would include the marginal cost of data warehousing the 256Kbps AAC files, managing the content, managing the UI changes/updates for iTunes, etc.

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 10:48 AM

Do people really think that companies do pricing by throwing darts at a wall?

I don't think you want people to actually answer that question. ;)

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 10:54 AM

Do people really think that companies do pricing by throwing darts at a wall?

A lot of market research precedes retail pricing like this. The price point was more than likely derived from various studies, market surveys, test marketing, focus groups, historical sales data from similar business cases, etc. to figure out who the target market is, what additional margin they're willing to pay, and what else they may want to see in the product in order to justify the price point.

As an unscientific observation in general, I think many would agree that the subset of consumers who are most conscious about DRM are also considerably more likely to demand higher bitrate files. It is this subset of consumers whom Apple is targeting with this product so in a sense, yes, a lot of people WON'T buy it... not initially anyway. But if it does take off, Apple's got considerable wiggle room to reduce the margin and remain competitive against other services that might provide it. If it doesn't take off, the margin gives them proportionately more revenue for less product being sold.

Additional factors that went into the margin would include the marginal cost of data warehousing the 256Kbps AAC files, managing the content, managing the UI changes/updates for iTunes, etc.

Two things:

1. Apple is one of the few companies that actually almost does not do any market research.
2. Apple has had almost no raise in cost per song by the bitrate change. I would say $.01 if I were to exaggerate, so why again are they charging $.30 more?

whooleytoo

Apr 3, 2007, 10:54 AM

But... as others have pointed out... you can convert it to ANY format and not take the double (lossy)compression hit and make perfect CD's from it.

Sorry, I missed that point earlier. That's certainly true, that would be a definite benefit.

My guess is the "gain" in this case (ability to transcode and duplicate perfectly) isn't worth the "pain" (extra bandwidth, unsuitability for iPod use). Unless Apple built into iTunes the ability to automatically create lossy music files for iPod use, it would add to the complexity of the system for the general, non-audiophile user.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 10:55 AM

You're right for AAC, the difference in bitrate grows smaller the higher yuo go. I do hear quite a difference going to Lossless though. And even though some people don't hear a difference (while some do) they still won't buy lossy music. I think Apple is missing out on business here. I for one, and many people I know, buy the odd tune from the iTS but still spend 99% of their money on CDs. With Lossless I think almost all of those people would never buy a CD again.

You're falsely assuming that fidelity, rather than convenience, is the driving factor behind today's CD purchases for the average consumer. This may have been true 20+ years ago when first movers were purchasing CD players in the mid-80's but it is no longer the case. CD has also matured as a format and has gradually been leveling off and then declining for nearly ten years now. I saw the figures in 1996 and the writing was on the wall then.

Convenience trumps fidelity with the average consumer... There are formats in greater fidelity than CD audio that are readily available on DVD and SACD and today most DVD players either also play SACD or DVD Audio discs... yet the adoption of these two formats has been abysmally low. People aren't willing to pay the marginal cost for what most of them can't identify as a substantially perceptible gain in clarity.

But iTunes is growing because the UI design and purchasing system is idiot proof. Push a button, boom, your track downloads and works with your computer, your iPod, your AppleTV.

Even in the discussions with self-professed golden ears in here who insist that fidelity is important and they can tell the difference between 128Kbps AAC and 16-bit LPCM (a barely perceptible difference if you understand how digital encoding systems actually work)... Not one of them has thumbed their nose at Lossless or even 16-bit audio in deference to the ostensibly superlative SACD or DVD Audio formats. The crowds aren't exactly flocking to stores to pay more for these higher fidelity formats.

whooleytoo

Apr 3, 2007, 10:57 AM

Do people really think that companies do pricing by throwing darts at a wall?

Knowing the RIAA and their ilk, a dartboard would be an improvement.

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 11:00 AM

what's gonna happen when people find out that it was Apple's idea to raise the price? then they'll think, oh we're just paying $0.30 for higher quality music when we could have been paying the same price.

What is under Apple's control is the price that Apple charges. However, what EMI didn't mention is what Apple has to pay for every track. I doubt that has stayed the same. Obviously Apple is free to sell every track at a 25 cent less if they wish to do so and EMI won't mind, but you wouldn't really expect them to do that, would you?

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 11:02 AM

Sorry, I missed that point earlier. That's certainly true, that would be a definite benefit.

My guess is the "gain" in this case (ability to transcode and duplicate perfectly) isn't worth the "pain" (extra bandwidth, unsuitability for iPod use). Unless Apple built into iTunes the ability to automatically create lossy music files for iPod use, it would add to the complexity of the system for the general, non-audiophile user.

iTunes already has the ability and adding a "You have downloaded a high quality album, would you like me to create smaller files for iPod?" ( Yes/No ) would take almost 0 effort.

There are soo many benefits to Apple as well.

1) Backdoor price increase as more studios go "premium"

2) Most users will just notice that their iPod's/Mac's are filling up and get new, bigger iPods/Mac's.

3) Fends off criticism in the EU about anti-trust violations.

4) They probably watermark/tag the AAC and that would be difficult with Apple lossless

5) Now only a small fraction of a percent of potential users can complain about quality.

Studios win because

1) They make more on singles

2) One more nail in the coffin of the CD format

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 11:05 AM

Two things:

1. Apple is one of the few companies that actually almost does not do any market research.
2. Apple has had almost no raise in cost per song by the bitrate change. I would say $.01 if I were to exaggerate, so why again are they charging $.30 more?

allofmp3.com, which can sell music cheap because they don't pay the record companies/artists a penny, charges 3 cent per MB. For a typical four minute song, this is $0.24 per song at 256KBit. For a 60 minute record, it is $3.60. Since Apple pays $0.70 per song with DRM and an unknown amount without DRM, I think that Apple is actually cheaper once you remove payment for the artists from the equation.

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 11:06 AM

You're falsely assuming that fidelity, rather than convenience, is the driving factor behind today's CD purchases for the average consumer. This may have been true 20+ years ago when first movers were purchasing CD players in the mid-80's but it is no longer the case. CD has also matured as a format and has gradually been leveling off and then declining for nearly ten years now. I saw the figures in 1996 and the writing was on the wall then.

Convenience trumps fidelity with the average consumer... There are formats in greater fidelity than CD audio that are readily available on DVD and SACD and today most DVD players either also play SACD or DVD Audio discs... yet the adoption of these two formats has been abysmally low. People aren't willing to pay the marginal cost for what most of them can't identify as a substantially perceptible gain in clarity.

But iTunes is growing because the UI design and purchasing system is idiot proof. Push a button, boom, your track downloads and works with your computer, your iPod, your AppleTV.

Even in the discussions with self-professed golden ears in here who insist that fidelity is important and they can tell the difference between 128Kbps AAC and 16-bit LPCM (a barely perceptible difference if you understand how digital encoding systems actually work)... Not one of them has thumbed their nose at Lossless or even 16-bit audio in deference to the ostensibly superlative SACD or DVD Audio formats. The crowds aren't exactly flocking to stores to pay more for these higher fidelity formats.

Well, you're logic is flawed. The "crowds" don't exactly have all nice stereos nor a possibilty to play these discs as they need special players.
Lossless doesn't need another player. It plays on the same stuff you have right now. And besides, although I admit that there are more people not caring about quality than people caring, there are still a lot of people that simply won't buy lossy music and Apple is losing out at that end of the market.

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 11:07 AM

[QUOTE=snowmoon;3509981]2) Most users will just notice that their iPod's/Mac's are filling up and get new, bigger iPods/Mac's.

Since even a 4GB iPod takes $500 to fill at 256KBit, that is unlikely to have much effect.

4) They probably watermark/tag the AAC

Unless you have any evidence of this I would call it unproven ********.

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 11:08 AM

allofmp3.com, which can sell music cheap because they don't pay the record companies/artists a penny, charges 3 cent per MB. For a typical four minute song, this is $0.24 per song at 256KBit. For a 60 minute record, it is $3.60. Since Apple pays $0.70 per song with DRM and an unknown amount without DRM, I think that Apple is actually cheaper once you remove payment for the artists from the equation.

What's your point? Are you saying those are the bandwidth and storage costs?

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 11:16 AM

Two things:

1. Apple is one of the few companies that actually almost does not do any market research.

I'll be sure and tell that to my colleague who was a product engineer at Apple who, even as a technical person, was involved in Apple's market research. The very first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned was he killed many of the dead projects that weren't marketable and re-instituted a model of product development that involved introducing feeler products to gain feedback from consumers, analysts, vendors, developers, retailers, etc. as to what they like/dislike and then set in motion 2-year product cycles that ramped feature sets in from the feedback gathered from this heavy market research.

If anyone goes to tremendous lengths to understand what consumers actually want and then shapes their products and features around that demand, Apple is a leader at this.

I think the misconception arises in wanting to believe that Apple just designs cool stuff with nobody's direction but Steve's, and that somehow this is more implicitly noble/ethical than "evil" marketing guys just trying to figure out how to reposition Jello. Apple DOES marketing research, and they do loads of it... the difference is that they're not just trying to figure out how to re-brand refrigerators in Alaska... they're actually sending out engineers to understand how products are used in the real world, and what people like or dislike about them, and what other features they might want to see... and they do also take their consumer feedback through online and retail channels pretty seriously.

Hell, they even have one or more people at Apple retail stores monitoring user activity on their floor models from behind the scenes so they can understand how the average consumer interacts with their products and features.

Apple has some of the most impressive product development roadmaps guided by market research so robust... That, and not simply Steve Jobs' good looks and charm, is a huge component of why they manage to stay ahead of the curve... why they introduce products at the right time (AppleTV product development coincided with a projected surge in HDTV sales)... and why when the public was scrutinizing iPhone which isn't even out yet, Apple is already focused intently on products that aren't due for another 1-2 years but are driven heavily by current market research that shows a big uptick in mobile internet access usage.

2. Apple has had almost no raise in cost per song by the bitrate change. I would say $.01 if I were to exaggerate, so why again are they charging $.30 more?

This is simply false. Maybe you're confusing the difference between fixed cost and marginal cost, but there is an increase in at least marginal cost. For each EMI tune the storage requirements triple... They store the 128Kbps file, PLUS the 256Kbps file for each song. Some of the fixed costs included updating databases and front-end UI to incorporate the new content on Artist/Album pages dynamically. Then there's additional marketing costs, yes they will actually spend some money advertising the new content and the money to do so doesn't magically fall from trees... they have to budget it.

Transcoding the 256Kbps files from digital high resolution masters also eats up processor time... That's a measurable per unit cost as well. And don't assume their finance people are sitting around watching YouTube instead of calculating these things.

Apple is still very much a business... they're a radically innovative business but they're also a smart business. Steve Jobs positions them as this outfit that oozes magic but the reality is that his statements are backed by keeping his finger on the pulse which means doing calculated market research and not just making vague Nostradamian shots in the dark.

manu chao

Apr 3, 2007, 11:19 AM

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 11:24 AM

Lets say a bigger pecentage of people buy non DRM EMI music than DRM EMI music, making EMI/Apple more money per sale. Clearly, the other record labels are losing out here and their insistance on DRM is proved wrong.

If the only change was that ten percent of customers who would have bought EMI songs anyway switch to EMI DRM-less, then this would be a three percent increase in revenue at no cost for EMI at all. There is just no way they can lose. I'd more think it will be around 30 percent doing that, which would mean nine percent increase.

On top of that EMI gets: 1. Money from all upgraders. 2. Money from people who wouldn't buy music with DRM on principle. 3. More money from album buyers because the new pricing structure makes album purchases more attractive.

And I think there will be money made from friends who share purchases. If two people want a record, obviously EMI wants them both to pay. With DRM, there is a good chance they don't buy at all. Without DRM, there is a good chance that one buys and makes a copy for his friend. Which is not legal, but still more money in EMI's pockets.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 11:25 AM

Well, you're logic is flawed. The "crowds" don't exactly have all nice stereos nor a possibilty to play these discs as they need special players.
Lossless doesn't need another player. It plays on the same stuff you have right now. And besides, although I admit that there are more people not caring about quality than people caring, there are still a lot of people that simply won't buy lossy music and Apple is losing out at that end of the market.

Were you paying attention to a single thing I said? First, SACD is playable on most Sony DVD players purchased in the last five years or so. DVD Audio is playable on most non-Sony DVD players purchased in the last five years or so.

Additionally, while there may be "a lot" (how many is "a lot", exactly?) there are many times more people for whom convenience is a bigger issue... iTunes sales of 128Kbps AAC files should be a huge indicator of this. It hasn't stopped iTunes Music Store from rapid, exponential growth in an entirely new distribution paradigm... It also hasn't stopped iPod from replacing the Sony Walkman/Discman as the ubiquitous portable player of the times.

Whatever Apple is losing to the tiny margin of people who want Apple Lossless, it's not much... Specific bitrate aside, the very usage of a variable bitrate format radically increases costs because predictable, compartmentalizable products have the least marginal cost factor. VBR amounts to custom sizes for every product on the shelf, and this increases cost in many ways... not the least of which is less than predictable data warehousing requirements on Apple's end.

How much do you actually think would be the marginal cost? Apple didn't say "Hey, let's screw the five out of 120 who want Apple Lossless"... they probably researched this and determined that the money they'd get from the few who'd buy at the price they'd be willing to pay wouldn't be enough to cover the additional expenditure nor would it be a significant enough market to generate enough iPod sales to justify taking such a loss.

Or do you think Apple just looks in a crystal ball to figure out pricing and product offers?

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 11:36 AM

1. Apple is one of the few companies that actually almost does not do any market research.

Apple market tested it's stores! They went through a dozen or more iterations in a warehouse before they rolled out the first retail store.

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 11:36 AM

What about indie labels? Will they charge more too? Probably some would and some would not, and when those labels sign up, as Apple intends them to do, we'll see what the cost is.

It will be $0.99 with DRM and $1.29 without DRM. In Apple's press release they said they are offering _exactly_ the same deal to all record companies. Just as they have done before: All independents got _exactly_ the same deal as the big record companies.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 11:39 AM

Stupid question: Is there a version of Apple Lossless that preserves the extra info in SACDs?

Sure, lossless is better than 256 bit/s AAC. But SACD is also definitely better than lossless/CD. I want iTunes to be able to handle SACD content.:D

No... iTunes can't handle SACD content. Different methodology all together.

iTunes CAN however handle 24-bit Linear PCM format in an AIFF container. This fidelity is arguably superior to SACD.. one of the limitations of SACD being its methodology of deriving amplitude values from only a 1-bit word length per sample versus a 24-bit per sample word length.

whooleytoo

Apr 3, 2007, 11:40 AM

iTunes already has the ability and adding a "You have downloaded a high quality album, would you like me to create smaller files for iPod?" ( Yes/No ) would take almost 0 effort.

There are soo many benefits to Apple as well.

1) Backdoor price increase as more studios go "premium"

2) Most users will just notice that their iPod's/Mac's are filling up and get new, bigger iPods/Mac's.

3) Fends off criticism in the EU about anti-trust violations.

4) They probably watermark/tag the AAC and that would be difficult with Apple lossless

5) Now only a small fraction of a percent of potential users can complain about quality.

Studios win because

1) They make more on singles

2) One more nail in the coffin of the CD format

The programming effort required for auto-downconverting to 128Kbps for iPod use would be inconsequential, however it would mean you'd have two copies of each song in your library which would be confusing - especially if you already have duplicates! (Apple could implement the downconverting transparently when syncing though).

It could well be the labels are nervous at the thought of online distribution of 'perfect' reproductions of their music. Obviously CDs are already out there, but they tried to limit their usage with copy-protection and failed. But there's no going back from lossless copies without DRM, if it lead to widespread piracy you can't revoke them, and you can't ship a higher quality sound file with DRM since it's already perfect (more or less).

Ultimately though, I just don't think the widespread demand for lossless music exists. Not enough people can appreciate the difference, and only a minority of those who can would pay extra for it. IMO.

shawnce

Apr 3, 2007, 11:45 AM

1. Apple is one of the few companies that actually almost does not do any market research.

Wow that is simply false.

Billy Boo Bob

Apr 3, 2007, 11:45 AM

I have been a supporter of Apple through thick and thin, but this is pathetic. If this report is true and it was APPLES idea to charge a premium....just pathetic. This is the final nail for me, im sticking with eMusic and done with iTunes. All this does is make Apple look even more pathetic. For the same price that I can buy 90 DRM free high quality songs at emusic I could buy less than 9 on iTunes. Shame on you apple. Apple is getting cocky. They better remember what got to where they are, or they are going to start heading in the direction they were in the mid 90s.

So Apple is expected to just eat it on the expense of tripling their storage requirements (yes triple... the original 128, plus the additional 256 = 3 X 128), and doubling the bandwidth (well, maybe 1.5 times if it ends up as 1/2 buying 128 and 1/2 buying 256).

I guess the guy running the storage unit where I have my excess furniture stored should provide me a 12 X 30 foot unit for the same price as my 12 X 10 foot unit, just because I don't want to have to stack anything inside... I want to spread things out a bit.

I don't get how some people want everything for nothing.

shawnce

Apr 3, 2007, 11:46 AM

(Apple could implement the downconverting transparently when syncing though). Apple already supports this capability in iTunes when syncing to a shuffle.

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 11:52 AM

Maybe someone else will come along and sell non-DRM MP3s at $0.99 or maybe they will finally open their cataloge to eMusic

The music industry currently charges Apple about $0.70 per song with DRM. EMI charges Apple an unknown amount for song without DRM. I think a 30 percent premium sounds reasonable, which would make it around $0.90, but maybe it is more, like $1.00. For that money, Apple has the right to sell the music in any format they like, at any price they like.

With these condition, nobody could sell songs at $0.99 each. And eMusic couldn't sell EMI music at their current prices; they would have to charge the same or very close to what Apple charges. Walmart might come out with a $1.19 price to muscle in through price as they usually do; anybody who wants to actually make money can't do that.

peharri

Apr 3, 2007, 12:00 PM

I get the strategy, I just think if the bitrate was completely up to them they should have offered a Lossless option, at least at that premium price.

There really isn't such a thing as "lossless" in the audio visual world, there's PCM converted to a format that uncompresses to the same PCM, but PCM is, itself, not "lossless" - it has a finite sample rate, and a finite depth, and anything that can't be represented by the combination of those two will end up lost.

In theory, if you were to take a 32 bit/88,200 samples/second PCM signal and compress it with a good quality so-called "lossy" codec like AAC, you should be able to store it with higher quality and a lower bitrate than if you convert it to CD Redbook PCM (14bit, 44100 samples per second, IIRC), and then distribute FLAC files.

So, me, personally, I'm not going to complain about it, 256kbps AAC sounds like it has the potential to be very high quality to me, assuming they're not just ripping CDs.

Romanesq

Apr 3, 2007, 12:35 PM

Stupid question: Is there a version of Apple Lossless that preserves the extra info in SACDs?

Sure, lossless is better than 256 bit/s AAC. But SACD is also definitely better than lossless/CD. I want iTunes to be able to handle SACD content.:D

It's great news about the EMI announcement with Apple and the 256 standard is welcome. If Itunes went to the next level with SACD, they could open a whole new gamut for many of us who love the quality.

CD 44K quality is not the end all by any means. One would think that it is based on the comments. SACD and albums both easily beat CDs.

I'll take the plunge in May when Itunes makes this available. :cool:

whooleytoo

Apr 3, 2007, 12:39 PM

Wow that is simply false.

I think it's based on previous comments that Apple doesn't use focus groups, which it doesn't as far as I'm aware.

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 12:50 PM

Wow that is simply false.

A lot of products are not market tested before launch, at least not on the scale other tech companies do that (e.g. focus groups, etc.) Show me different.

Diatribe

Apr 3, 2007, 12:55 PM

There really isn't such a thing as "lossless" in the audio visual world, there's PCM converted to a format that uncompresses to the same PCM, but PCM is, itself, not "lossless" - it has a finite sample rate, and a finite depth, and anything that can't be represented by the combination of those two will end up lost.

In theory, if you were to take a 32 bit/88,200 samples/second PCM signal and compress it with a good quality so-called "lossy" codec like AAC, you should be able to store it with higher quality and a lower bitrate than if you convert it to CD Redbook PCM (14bit, 44100 samples per second, IIRC), and then distribute FLAC files.

So, me, personally, I'm not going to complain about it, 256kbps AAC sounds like it has the potential to be very high quality to me, assuming they're not just ripping CDs.

Well, IF they are using the higher bit / sample original when compressing then I retract my statement of needing Apple Lossless.

nickelcokes

Apr 3, 2007, 02:52 PM

There's a fix so idiot proof you'll kick yourself for not having thought of it... If you are willing, as you say, to pay 30 cents more per song for the freedom from DRM alone:

1. Buy non-DRM itunes
2. Convert non-DRM itunes to 128 or 192kbps or any other bitrate or format (there's no DRM to prevent this, remember? :D)

Problem solved.

It's not that I haven't thought of this... but there are two issues with this solution:

1. I'm already paying extra to get the song without copy protection. Why should I have to go through the extra work to get the song in a format I desire? Apple should do the work for me. All they need to do is offer three options: $0.99 for DRM-enabled, 128 kbps, and $1.29 for DRM-free songs at either 128 kbps or 256 kbps.

2. Formats like AAC and MP3 are based heavily on human perception, and attempt to find an "optimal" compression solution based on the kind of information they can throw out at a certain bit rate. Re-encoding a 256-kbps stream at 128 kbps attempts to optimize this process based on a modified input waveform: the 256-kbps waveform, which is missing some data. This data may be imperceptible to a human, but how do we know it won't wreak havoc on the algorithm, introducing perceptible artifacts? I don't downsample my files, so I don't know if this is a real problem; I just think there is the potential for a problem.

Good point about driving demand for larger iPods, but that's kind of a moot point because why go to the expense of trying to artificially create a market for an item that might have a smaller profit margin when keeping the file size down would be more profitable for Apple and convenient for consumers already saturated with iPods? The reason larger iPods are being made is because the demand for them is already there... there's no need to artificially create this demand from scratch, but I wouldn't dispute the idea that the Premium downloads certainly don't hurt accelerating this demand... it's just not the primary driver.

This is partially true, but I know at least one person for whom larger file sizes translates to a new demand for larger iPods: myself. On my first-generation 4 GB Nano, I can almost fit my entire library; fewer than 500 MB worth of songs will not fit. Hence, I don't need a new iPod. However, if my library suddenly doubled in size, only half my music would fit on the iPod. That may be enough to push me toward buying an 8 GB Nano.

But there is another issue: I don't buy many songs from iTunes. For the most part, when I want music from my favorite bands, I run to the store and buy a CD. This gives me a pristine copy to store at home, as well as all the digital copies I could want. Plus, I get to read through the booklet. Hence, although a doubling in library size would drive me to a new iPod, Apple's decision won't increase my library by much.

I think the real answer is that Apple sees ditching DRM as a window to a few key elements in a larger strategy...

1. The market is saturated with iPod and new devices like iPhone and AppleTV are emerging to broaden the spectrum of Apple's lifestyle presence. With their market share, Apple's in a great position to open up DRM now as a means of pushing out competing formats like Windows Media to clear the way for even greater brand presence which facilitates the so-called "halo effect"... minimal investment for non-iPod or non-Mac owners to touch Apple products/services that may lead to other purchases.

2. Attracting a growing demographic of fidelity-conscious individuals who incidentally also make up a significant portion of the "tech aware" users who understand what DRM is and don't like it. Many of these users also happen to have deep pockets, or at least good credit, and spend a significant portion of their take home pay on technology-related purchases. Getting this segment interested has a tremendous effect on Apple's brand equity as evidenced by the rapid surge in tech blog posts about Apple following Apple and EMI's announcement.

I think these are very good points. Especially #1, since I am evidence of the halo effect. I've long been a FreeBSD user, and when my dad was looking for a good laptop with a UNIX-like environment, I pushed him toward an iBook. However, I never considered one for myself until a chain of events transpired: first, there were some power-management and audio quirks with FreeBSD on my bottom-of-the-line Dell notebook; second, I acquired an iPod and didn't like the coarseness of synching the unit with my FreeBSD machine; third, I observed that, after a year, the battery life on my Dell decayed from three hours to just over two. These things pushed me into an iBook. Later, when the first educational iMacs came out, I snatched the last one at my local Apple store. $2,000 in Apple equipment, which I only considered because of my iPod.

Cult Follower

Apr 3, 2007, 07:04 PM

im trying to get over this , i still can't beleive it!

AidenShaw

Apr 3, 2007, 09:37 PM

third, I observed that, after a year, the battery life on my Dell decayed from three hours to just over two.

Apple considers 50% (1.5 hours after a year) acceptable for LiON batteries. (http://www.apple.com/uk/batteries/replacements.html)

Good luck.

matticus008

Apr 3, 2007, 10:16 PM

I don't think $1.30 is competing. $.99 was the sweet spot, I think a lot of people won't go for the $1.30. I think a single like this is still cheaper than it was before iTS but raising prices like this is never a good idea.
It's a fact of life--not a good idea or a bad one. When you introduce a product that does more than an existing product, you charge more, even if the two cost exactly the same to manufacture. It's the way the world works, and there's no reason for it to go any differently.
Although I understand the tactics involved it sets a dangerous precedent that you can't explain away with bandwidth or storage cost. So next time Apple goes Lossless they'll just raise the price again to $1.50?
You don't go grocery shopping much, I suppose. The price of everything goes up over time, even though nothing's changed. It doesn't cost any more to make gas than it did a decade ago in relative terms (it does in absolute dollars because of inflation and arbitrary price increases elsewhere in the supply chain), but the price goes up substantially. Apple should be raising the price on all of its downloads around now, even absent any change in quality or DRM status.
It's not about the price itself, it is about raising the price for a "premium", which by the way is the worst way to describe something that you already get in form of a CD.
It's not "premium music" it's a "premium iTunes track." It's just branding differentiation. Hershey's "Special Premium" chocolate is still inferior to proper artisan chocolates, but it's better than their regular crap.

2. Apple has had almost no raise in cost per song by the bitrate change. I would say $.01 if I were to exaggerate, so why again are they charging $.30 more?
Double storage costs compared to the 99-cent variety; double bandwidth costs to transmit the files, and an unknown increase in royalty payments to EMI beg to differ. Real profits at 99 cents have also declined, so a higher than necessary premium price could stave off a catalog-wide price increase.

1. I'm already paying extra to get the song without copy protection. Why should I have to go through the extra work to get the song in a format I desire? Apple should do the work for me.
What work? Set up a batch (or use some of the free utilities that do it for you), drag the files in and walk away. It takes literally 10 seconds for me to set this up on a group of files. CDs come in a single format that you have to convert if you want something different (which is both slower and more tedious than downloads). Academic papers in PDF, TIFF images supplied online, and RAW images from cameras all follow this pattern. Why should music downloads be any different? If you want to store them at a lower quality or in a different format, you've got to do it yourself. That has always been true.

nagromme

Apr 3, 2007, 11:56 PM

Apple considers 50% (1.5 hours after a year) acceptable for LiON batteries. (http://www.apple.com/uk/batteries/replacements.html)

Good luck.

And what's Dell's policy? Just curious :D As you know, a service policy on paper has to cover cases of heavier-than-average use and worse-than-average charging habits. Such a policy is not an indicator of what the average user actually experiences.

(Or maybe you were just wanting to work in a random anti-Apple comment? In which case... carry on.)

2. Apple has had almost no raise in cost per song by the bitrate change. I would say $.01 if I were to exaggerate, so why again are they charging $.30 more?

What's your source of information about EMI not charging Apple more for DRM-free songs?

Evangelion

Apr 4, 2007, 06:49 AM

Going back to the "competition has been offering 256 for a long time already!"... Microsoft says this:

MSN Music digitally encodes tracks using Windows Media variable bit-rate encoding, with an average variable bit rate of 160 Kbps and a peak bit rate of 256 Kbps, offering some of the industrys highest-fidelity audio in a compact file size.

Link (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/msn/factsheet/musicfs.mspx)

So, as far as Microsoft is concerned, they do not offer 256kbps songs, they are (on average) 160kbps.

Of course, this music-store thing with Microsoft if "a bit" confusing. Is MSN Music same as URGE? Then we have Zune store as well.

Diatribe

Apr 4, 2007, 09:33 AM

What's your source of information about EMI not charging Apple more for DRM-free songs?

I wasn't talking about EMI, I was just talking about the cost of bandwidth and storage. It is very likely that EMI charges them more per song.

matticus008

Apr 4, 2007, 03:18 PM

Going back to the "competition has been offering 256 for a long time already!"... Microsoft says this:
Along those lines, peak bitrates are not the same quality as baselines. An iTunes track at 256kbps retains more of the original audio information than a Windows Media VBR with a maximum of 256 and an average of 160.

In any case, bitrate alone is not a measure of quality. I'd take 128kbps AAC over 160kbps WMA any day (from any online vendor).

I've yet to see any substantiation of the claim that Microsoft or any of the "most others" offering 256kbps from the "get-go."

BGil

Apr 5, 2007, 03:21 PM

The specs for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD includes mandatory support for MPEG-2, H.264, and SMPTE VC-1 (Windows Media 9-based video, developed with over a dozen other companies), yes, that doesn't mean we will see any movies in WM format, though; h264 trounces WM comprehensively.

1. I guess saying it was "developed by over a dozen companies" is your justification for using it but it's still pretty lame. WMV9 (non-VC-1) was "developed" by the same exact method and by the same exact companies. In fact, that was the issue with VC1 and WMV all along. Microsoft wasn't soley responsible for the development (as it is partially based on early MPEG-4 work) and therefore the patents got kinda messy.

All of which is besides the point, the topic being downloadable music. WM Audio is a proprietary Windows-Only format, barring illegal decoders, just as WM Player is a Windows-Only player.

Complete BS. Windows Media Audio and Video can be implemented on any platform just like AAC. For instance, Linspire can legal play Windows Media files (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3080897910.html).
Microsoft also stands behind Flip4Mac which allows WM content to be played (and encoded) on the Mac.
Real Player for Linux/Unix also (or will in the future) support Windows Media Codecs legally.

Just like AAC and MPEG-4, it is the DRM (Fairplay and Janus) that is limited to certian uses and platforms... not the audio/video format itself.

I'll step in here :-)

Come on Aiden!!

You know as well as I do wmv and wma or whatever MS calls them now only play on Windows Friendly platforms.Try to play a wma file encoded using WMP 10.or 11..It wont play on an iPod or in iTunes.
MP3 does..MP3 plays on almost any platform..

WM doesn't play on the iPod or iTunes because of Apple's choice. The Sigmatel and Wolfson chips that Apple uses for the iPod support Windows Media by default. Apple chooses to turn it off. Apple could license WM (as shown by Sorenson, Linspire, Real, Archos, Creative (they make a linux player that supports WM-DRM) and FlipforMac) but they simply don't.

mdriftmeyer

Apr 5, 2007, 03:41 PM

1. I guess saying it was "developed by over a dozen companies" is your justification for using it but it's still pretty lame. WMV9 (non-VC-1) was "developed" by the same exact method and by the same exact companies. In fact, that was the issue with VC1 and WMV all along. Microsoft wasn't soley responsible for the development (as it is partially based on early MPEG-4 work) and therefore the patents got kinda messy.

Complete BS. Windows Media Audio and Video can be implemented on any platform just like AAC. For instance, Linspire can legal play Windows Media files (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3080897910.html).
Microsoft also stands behind Flip4Mac which allows WM content to be played (and encoded) on the Mac.
Real Player for Linux/Unix also (or will in the future) support Windows Media Codecs legally.

Just like AAC and MPEG-4, it is the DRM (Fairplay and Janus) that is limited to certian uses and platforms... not the audio/video format itself.

WM doesn't play on the iPod or iTunes because of Apple's choice. The Sigmatel and Wolfson chips that Apple uses for the iPod support Windows Media by default. Apple chooses to turn it off. Apple could license WM (as shown by Sorenson, Linspire, Real, Archos, Creative (they make a linux player that supports WM-DRM) and FlipforMac) but they simply don't.

Yet they don't make a linux software codec to decode WM-DRM based files, even if they are legally purchased, under the GPL.

I've got music that is lossless that won't play in OS X or Linux thanks to it being this WM-DRM. I was given a degraded copy of the songs for free, but that wasn't the point of buying the lossless copies.

Flip4Mac does not support WM-DRM 10 or 11.

http://www.flip4mac.com/pdfs/dat_flip4mac_wmv.pdf

Peace

Apr 5, 2007, 03:52 PM

matticus008

Apr 5, 2007, 04:51 PM

Complete BS. Windows Media Audio and Video can be implemented on any platform just like AAC.
No, not "just like AAC"--WMA may be licensed for a fee; AAC has no licensing fees. WMA is a proprietary format (despite its origins) which is owned by Microsoft. They can change or terminate it at any time (WM10 content can't be played in Flip4Mac or Linux). Apple does not own AAC.
Just like AAC and MPEG-4, it is the DRM (Fairplay and Janus) that is limited to certian uses and platforms... not the audio/video format itself.
If only that were the case. WMA is limited to whomever Microsoft licenses it to, and only in the licensed incarnation. When Microsoft changes something, everything else breaks. Further, since this is about music downloads, you cannot step away from the format. No one has ever released WMA music DRM-free as far as I know, and Microsoft puts DRM on WMA files even outside RIAA mandate. The format requires jumping through hoops to avoid DRM.

Even once you get away from DRM, WMA is still an inferior codec technically, and there is still the nasty Microsoft-owned proprietary nature. Proprietary software is one thing; proprietary Microsoft software in areas that should be cross-platform is quite another. Look at what Internet Explorer has done to the Internet.
Apple could license WM [...] but they simply don't.
Yeah. Why should they?

BGil

Apr 6, 2007, 12:55 AM

Yet they don't make a linux software codec to decode WM-DRM based files, even if they are legally purchased, under the GPL.

I've got music that is lossless that won't play in OS X or Linux thanks to it being this WM-DRM. I was given a degraded copy of the songs for free, but that wasn't the point of buying the lossless copies.

Flip4Mac does not support WM-DRM 10 or 11.

http://www.flip4mac.com/pdfs/dat_flip4mac_wmv.pdf

No ****, sherlock. That's exactly what I said. The audio and video format plays everywhere (or at least it can if it's licensed) but the DRM does not. The same goes for Apple. AAC plays everywhere but Fairplay does not (legally).

No, not "just like AAC"--WMA may be licensed for a fee; AAC has no licensing fees.

Who told you that lie?
http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/MPEG4_fees.cfm?product=MPEG-4AAC

AAC actually costs more to license than WMA, a lot more usually.

More info:
http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/04/about-audio-codecs.htm

(WM10 content can't be played in Flip4Mac or Linux).

Not true for several reasons:
There is really no such thing as "WM10" content. The codecs (with one small exception) are WM9. Flip4Mac and Linux play this just fine in the non-drmed version.

Apple does not own AAC.

Obviously I never said they did so I'm not sure of your point here.
Apple does own Fairplay, which also doesn't play play everywhere.

They can change or terminate it at any time ...When Microsoft changes something, everything else breaks.

Your tinfoil hat is showing.

WM7, WM8, WM9 etc. all still work.

Further, since this is about music downloads, you cannot step away from the format. No one has ever released WMA music DRM-free as far as I know,
Classical.com, Puretracks, AllofMP3. Even if they didn't sell WMA tracks without DRM it's not it's impossible to rip your own WMA tracks. Apparently that thought must not have ever crossed you mind.

Microsoft puts DRM on WMA files even outside RIAA mandate.
Big Time Tinfoil hat. You know that you can go to WindowsMedia.com and use the search function to find all sorts of major-label songs without DRM, right? Furthermore, the old MSN store would actually had a whole section of free non-drmed songs and albums. Microsoft is actually okay with Real Networks and their Harmony project, Apple is the one who attacked them publically. Apple is the one who used DRM outside the labels mandate:

From Daringfireball
It is the case, though, that there already exist music labels that wish to put music on the iTunes Store without DRM protection — some of the independent labels have already bought into exactly what Jobs is arguing: that DRM does not combat piracy and that interoperability can only happen with DRM-free licensable file formats.

Jon Lech Johansen points to this piece by Randall Stross in The New York Times from last month, which mentions Nettwerk Music Group, the label that represents Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, and Barenaked Ladies. They sell their music on eMusic DRM-free; they want to do the same on iTunes, but Apple has, to date, refused. As Johansen writes, “Actions speak louder than words”. If Apple were to allow the independent labels to start selling DRM-free music through iTunes, it would eliminate any doubt as to Apple’s sincerity.2

http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/reading_between_the_lines

The format requires jumping through hoops to avoid DRM.
What "hoops" do you have to go through that you don't have to go through with Quicktime/iTunes AAC?

BGil

Apr 6, 2007, 01:06 AM

Yeah. Why should they?

Who cares? That's not the point. The original quote (below) by Peace made it seem like it was Microsoft's fault that iTunes, the iPod, and Quicktime don't play Windows Media files out-of-the-box. Obviously, this is untrue. It was an Apple decision and that's my point.
(Likewise, it's Microsoft's fault WMP11 doesn't play AAC files out of the box.. especially considering the Xbox 360 and Zune software do play AAC).

Hell, Microsoft struck a deal with Telestream so that Mac users can play Windows Media files within QT/iTunes. I only wish Apple would do the same for Quicktime/MOV files on Windows (although QT Alternative does a good job anyway).
You know as well as I do wmv and wma or whatever MS calls them now only play on Windows Friendly platforms.Try to play a wma file encoded using WMP 10.or 11..It wont play on an iPod or in iTunes.

maxterpiece

Apr 6, 2007, 02:58 AM

Wow... you guys are really dumb. Like people said... SJ has always made his opinion known about DRM. DRM existed and exists for the record companies NOT Apple. What would apple care if you downloaded a song and shared it on bearshare? Its the record companys that want to prevent that.

Case and point? The moment a record company comes to apple and says hey... we don't think we want drm songs on itunes, SJ said sure lets work on that.

Apple isn't screwing anyone over, but he does have to work in the politics of the music industry. Grow up people.

While I appreciate how thoughtfully this was worded, allow me to explain. Sometimes people say things that they don't necessarily mean. Whatever edge DRM that is exclusively compatible with the iPod gives Apple, they will take. That's more money in their pockets. So 5% of people's music on their ipods is DRM'd. While a lot of people have bought a few tracks on the ITMS (say 2% of their collection), I'd say there is also a 2-3% of people who have major investments in Apple's DRM, and the more people shift to buying music online, the more this becomes an advantage for Apple. If those 2-3% of people now have several hundred dollars invested in ITMS music, that's a pretty nice chunk of change Apple has, and that percentage will only grow.

Jobs will never come out and say, "Hey, you guys are right. We want DRM that is exclusive to the iPod BC we want to have a monopoly. That's right you antitrust people, you can pull out all your big guns and rip us apart!" His job is to make money for Apple.

I'm not saying that a large percentage of people are LOCKED to the iPod, just that there are financially significant percentage of people who, given the choice between an ITMS incompatible player that is somewhat superior to Apple's offerings, and an iPod, they are probably still going to stick with the iPod because they don't want to go to the effort of burn/ripping all the tracks they bought online.

I haven't read anywhere that other music companies had some agreement with apple that all tracks would be DRM'd. And if they don't, and apple really does want to put pressure on these companies to sell DRM-free music, all apple's got to do is sell these tracks for 99cents, watch them get sold like 10 times more often than DRM'd tracks (that's what EMI's research showed). Record companies are freakin hypnotized by money. They smell it and it's all they can think of. If they see that selling music without DRM will make them some major extra cash, rejuvenate their industry, they won't be embarrassed about past mistakes, they will jump on that opportunity like... some metaphor.

matticus008

Apr 6, 2007, 03:33 AM

Who told you that lie?
http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/MPEG4_fees.cfm?product=MPEG-4AAC

AAC actually costs more to license than WMA, a lot more usually.
Actually, it doesn't once you add in Microsoft's DRM licensing fees, which your source cleverly avoids discussing.

AAC has a maximum cost of $1 per player. There are no per-track licensing fees as with DRMed WMA. With AAC files distributed without DRM, which is the case here, WMA files have to be licensed. AAC ones do not. I apologize if I didn't explicitly state that I wasn't talking about per-device licenses (which apply to nearly all formats).
Not true for several reasons:
There is really no such thing as "WM10" content. The codecs (with one small exception) are WM9. Flip4Mac and Linux play this just fine in the non-drmed version.
You should tell that to the dozens of major websites with audio tracks and video clips that simply won't play on a Mac because of WM10 encoding. Why is all the free content wrapped in Microsoft DRM? Why won't Microsoft allow Flip4Mac to play the DRMed stuff? I guess they don't really stand behind it.
Obviously I never said they did so I'm not sure of your point here.
The point is that WMA is Microsoft-controlled and AAC is not controlled by a company which can manipulate the product to further its own goals.
WM7, WM8, WM9 etc. all still work.
Only if your device and/or player are licensed to the latest version. You missed the point. Microsoft can roll out WM12 tomorrow and suddenly all the players on the market are broken if Microsoft chooses to make substantial alterations. They can decline to license third parties they don't like, effectively locking them out. Microsoft has been known to pull moves like this.
Classical.com, Puretracks, AllofMP3. Even if they didn't sell WMA tracks without DRM it's not it's impossible to rip your own WMA tracks. Apparently that thought must not have ever crossed you mind.
Puretracks Classical.com use DRMed WMAs (MP3's are not DRMed) and AllofMP3 isn't a legal site. Further, when you rip WMA tracks, they are DRMed by default. I've ripped a handful of CDs in WM9 and found out that they wouldn't play on any other system or portable device (unless they were loaded onto the device using WMP on that same system).
Big Time Tinfoil hat.
Hardly. Windows Media encoders default to DRM and as above, users have ripped their content into a DRMed format without consent and beyond RIAA mandate. Apple has NEVER DRMed any content produced on user machines; iTunes makes standard, DRM-free AAC and MP3 tracks unlike WMP's default WMA+DRM.
What "hoops" do you have to go through that you don't have to go through with Quicktime/iTunes AAC?
Disabling the auto-DRM on Windows XP. Perhaps this has been fixed in recent versions and/or in Windows Vista. But I follow the "fool me once" rule and won't use anything that puts DRM on my files by default without informing me or asking for permission.

Creating Quicktime files or AAC on the other hand never defaults to DRM, on OS X or in Windows.

Kinkijim

Apr 6, 2007, 07:34 AM

A few interesting thoughts about the EMI / Apple state of play.

1) Shortly after the announcement of the final settlement of the Apple Inc vs Apple Corps dispute, Neil Aspinall (head of Apple Corps) resigned.

2) EMI has been looking for a merger / takeover for their music arm for the past year, mainly through discussions with Warner Bros, but these have come to nothing.

3) The Beatles back catalogue is released through EMI. We all know how SJ feels about the Beatles.

Does anyone else think there's a chance that Apple might be shaping up to buy EMI?

BGil

Apr 6, 2007, 10:13 AM

Further, when you rip WMA tracks, they are DRMed by default. I've ripped a handful of CDs in WM9 and found out that they wouldn't play on any other system or portable device (unless they were loaded onto the device using WMP on that same system).
Hardly. Windows Media encoders default to DRM...

Windows Media Player 9? LOL. Windows Media Player 10 came out in 2004 so your arguement is coming up on 3 years out-of-date.
WMP10 and 11, as well as every other WM encoder (from Microsoft or otherwise) do not DRM tracks by default.

Actually, it doesn't once you add in Microsoft's DRM licensing fees, which your source cleverly avoids discussing.

1. The DRM license fees aren't required to use Windows Media because DRM isn't required to use Windows Media.
2. Why would you compare the price of DRMed WMA to unDRMed AAC? That doesn't make sense. It should be DRM file verse DRMed file and unDRMed file vs unDRMed file. Alas, Fairplay is the only major AAC-capable (now that Real uses WMA) and Apple doesn't sell it.
3. Microsoft doesn't charge DRM license fees because they don't sell the DRM. It's all done through third parties.

AAC has a maximum cost of $1 per player.

WMA has a flat cost of 10 cent per player.

There are no per-track licensing fees as with DRMed WMA.

Non-DRMed WMA has no per-track license fees either.

You should tell that to the dozens of major websites with audio tracks and video clips that simply won't play on a Mac because of WM10 encoding. Why is all the free content wrapped in Microsoft DRM? Why won't Microsoft allow Flip4Mac to play the DRMed stuff? I guess they don't really stand behind it.

THERE IS NO "WM10 ENCODING"! You're just trying to pass off WM-DRM as being the same as WMA/WMV... which woudl be like saying Fairplay AAC/MPEG-4 files are the same as non-DRMed AAC and MPEG-4 files. Why don't iTMS files play on Linux, or in Winamp, or in WMP? Or on the Xbox 360 (MS asked to license Fairplay for this) or on Sandisk players or on iRiver players, Creative players and on and on. See how easy it is to create a Red Herring? You should really stop doing it.

The point is that WMA is Microsoft-controlled and AAC is not controlled by a company which can manipulate the product to further its own goals.

LOL. Tin foil hat. Windows Media was created to further Microsoft's goals (i.e. to make money). I'm sure the voice insider your head is telling you that next week MS is going to make some radical change in Windows Media and all current products will no longer work, planes will fall out of the sky and such... but really that makes no sense considering it would massively affect Microsoft's bottom line.
AAC is controlled by Dolby (Via). Just like VC-1 and OOXML it is an ISO standard created largely by one company.

Only if your device and/or player are licensed to the latest version.

Bull. My software from 7 years ago still plays Windows Media 8. My old school Creative player (think 1999 or 2000) still plays WMA. FFDshow from years ago still plays Windows Media. My Mac running OS 9 still plays Windows Media.

Hell, the media player I built in my first college programming (4 years ago now) class still plays Windows Media.

Microsoft can roll out WM12 tomorrow and suddenly all the players on the market are broken if Microsoft chooses to make substantial alterations.

LOL. And Aliens could invade too.

They can decline to license third parties they don't like, effectively locking them out.

You mean like Apple declining Real, Sony, Napster, Yahoo, and Microsoft (for the Xbox 360)?

Disabling the auto-DRM on Windows XP. Perhaps this has been fixed in recent versions and/or in Windows Vista.

3 years ago.

matticus008

Apr 6, 2007, 04:06 PM

Windows Media Player 9? LOL. Windows Media Player 10 came out in 2004 so your arguement is coming up on 3 years out-of-date.
WMP10 didn't magically undo the damage created by everything else. It's not like 2004 came (LATE 2004, by the way) and suddenly everyone had WMP10 and everything was peachy-keen again. People have posted about this problem right up through 2007. Four years of user content was unknowingly and unapprovedly DRMed by Microsoft.

2. Why would you compare the price of DRMed WMA to unDRMed AAC? That doesn't make sense. It should be DRM file verse DRMed file and unDRMed file vs unDRMed file.
Because we're talking about the availability of music in the marketplace. Nearly all the WMA stores use DRM. These AAC files from EMI are not DRMed. Therefore, you look at what is delivered to the customer.
WMA has a flat cost of 10 cent per player.
And we've already established that we're not talking about player licensing, which doesn't matter at all when buying music (the topic of the thread). The player has already been purchased. No one is crying because their music player wasn't 90 cents cheaper.
THERE IS NO "WM10 ENCODING"! You're just trying to pass off WM-DRM as being the same as WMA/WMV
No, I'm saying that you NEED WM10 to play most content. That is because lots of that content is DRMed in a way not supported by WMP9.
LOL. Tin foil hat. Windows Media was created to further Microsoft's goals (i.e. to make money).
Microsoft's goal is to control the marketplace, not just to make money. To that end, they have aggressively isolated competitors and repeatedly broken things in their APIs with new versions. It sounds like you're not too familiar with Microsoft's history with consumer choice. Being convicted of an illegal monopoly should be telling enough.
AAC is controlled by Dolby (Via). Just like VC-1 and OOXML it is an ISO standard created largely by one company.
But it is an ISO standard which requires a working group to revise and a comment period. Microsoft can change WMA whenever it wants. Again, the origin of the format is not important; who controls it IS.
Bull. My software from 7 years ago still plays Windows Media 8.
Uh huh. But does your software play DRMed files or WM9 content? No. Because Microsoft moved on.
My old school Creative player ...
Not WM9. Talk about red herrings.
You mean like Apple declining Real, Sony, Napster, Yahoo, and Microsoft (for the Xbox 360)?
No, more like Microsoft licensing to Real and then updating its version and refusing to license the new version or develop for a particular platform, after that licensee has already paid lots of money and developed a dependence on the Microsoft format. You know, sort of exactly what Microsoft did to its PlaysForSure customers when it brought out the Zune and locked them all out of it.
3 years ago.
Closer to two years ago, and that's availability and not widespread adoption. Or does content from 2001-2004 no longer exist today? That's like saying, well, all the DVDs bought for three years could explode at any time. But we don't sell them anymore (just the tens of millions that we made back then), so it's all fixed. Unlike real products, you can't recall original content made by users.

BGil

Apr 6, 2007, 08:34 PM

WMP10 didn't magically undo the damage created by everything else. It's not like 2004 came (LATE 2004, by the way) and suddenly everyone had WMP10 and everything was peachy-keen again.
1. The "damage" was as simple as a checkbox in the options tab.
2. WMP10 was a free update. It was readily available to anyone who had a problem with WMP9 or earlier.

People have posted about this problem right up through 2007. Four years of user content was unknowingly and unapprovedly DRMed by Microsoft.

People here maybe. People here still complain about Windows 98/ME, WMP9, Windows XP pre-SP1 etc. like it's somehow relevant to the present day. You are very guilty of this.

Because we're talking about the availability of music in the marketplace. Nearly all the WMA stores use DRM. These AAC files from EMI are not DRMed. Therefore, you look at what is delivered to the customer.

Nice red herring. First check my original post and the issue I was dealing with. In no way was I limiting "AAC files" to "AAC files from EMI". Second, the claim that AAC is cheaper with or without DRM than WMA with or without DRM is plainly false. I have provided several resources to show this. Third, the idea of comparing what "is delivered to the customer" is stupid as the cost of the codec clearly isn't changing anything (as far as pricing) that the customer sees or deals with. Fourth, if "Nearly all WMA stores use DRM" (clearly not all WMA files are drmed) then it would only be proper to make the same distinction for AAC files, which also "Nearly all use DRM".

And we've already established that we're not talking about player licensing, which doesn't matter at all when buying music (the topic of the thread). The player has already been purchased. No one is crying because their music player wasn't 90 cents cheaper.

Great! Then we can agree that neither AAC nor WMA have any license costs per track. That much is contrary to the lies spread in this thread.

But it is an ISO standard which requires a working group to revise and a comment period. Microsoft can change WMA whenever it wants. Again, the origin of the format is not important; who controls it IS.
False. Dolby (and others) have changed AAC at their own discretion too. That's how MPEG-4 SLS, HE-AACv2, and HE-AACv1 came about. Apple even took it upon themselves to create another modified version of ISO MPEG-4 audio called Apple Lossless.

Uh huh. But does your software play DRMed files or WM9 content? No. Because Microsoft moved on.

Red herring. You said, Microsoft could/would come out with a new version and everything would stop working. I said WM7/8/9 still work. You said only if it is licensed to the current version. Obviously this is untrue because my media player still plays the exact same media it was designed to play the day it was built even though Microsoft has "moved on".
Does QT6 play H.264 or new iTMovie Store content? No. because Apple moved on.

I don't see anything different between how Microsoft handled the situation and how Apple or anyone handled it except for the fact that your Tin Foil hat stops you from acceptiing the truth.

No, more like Microsoft licensing to Real and then updating its version and refusing to license the new version
New version of what? You do know that Real uses the very latest in Windows Media codecs and DRM, right?

develop for a particular platform, after that licensee has already paid lots of money and developed a dependence on the Microsoft format. You know, sort of exactly what Microsoft did to its PlaysForSure customers when it brought out the Zune and locked them all out of it.

BS. Microsoft still actively develops and supports Playsforsure. In fact, Vista ships with Windows Media Player (playsforsure not Zune) and Urge (playsforsure) as the default. I'm sure in your fantasy world Playsforsure stopped working the day the Zune was released but in reality that's not true in the least bit.

Hell, since launching the Zune, MS has picked up several major new partners. Specifically, Netflix, Showtime, Walmart (video), Blockbuster, and the BBC. Maybe you should write them all an email an explain to them how Microsoft is no longer developing for Playsforsure.

matticus008

Apr 6, 2007, 09:31 PM

1. The "damage" was as simple as a checkbox in the options tab.
First you had to figure out that you needed to go there. How would you know your content was DRMed without your permission? How would you suggest remastering original content without the raw source footage still available? WMP10 did not undo anything previously encoded, and did not change the DRM default option. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/knowledgecenter/mediaadvice/0090.mspx#EAD.
People here maybe. People here still complain about Windows 98/ME, WMP9, Windows XP pre-SP1 etc. like it's somehow relevant to the present day. You are very guilty of this.
Again, please tell me how users are supposed to get their 3-5 years of content back after media player DRMed it. It's still relevant, just as Windows XP is still relevant over five years later.
Second, the claim that AAC is cheaper with or without DRM than WMA with or without DRM is plainly false. I have provided several resources to show this.
You're talking about device licensing, which is wholly unimportant. AAC in any form is cheaper than DRMed WMA. DRM-free WMA is a moot point--where can you buy it? This thread is about online music marketplaces. Yes, WMA's one-time *hardware* license cost is a maximum of 90 cents cheaper than AAC, if both the encoder and decoder is licensed. Tell me the last time someone had a problem with a player being less than one dollar overpriced. You're 100% correct that 10 cents is less than a maximum of $1 (but portable players don't do encoding; so a Zune, for example, only costs a maximum of 50 cents to license). A one-time higher price of 40 cents certainly beats a fee per track, no matter how low the per-track free might be.
Fourth, if "Nearly all WMA stores use DRM" [...] then it would only be proper to make the same distinction for AAC files, which also "Nearly all use DRM".
Yes, absolutely. Let's set that standard. Now, DRMed AAC files do not incur a per-track cost like MP3 (with or without DRM) or DRMed WMA. So you come out on top with iTunes and an AAC player over any of the other legitimate and non-subscription based online stores. Painfully simple, really.
False. Dolby (and others) have changed AAC at their own discretion too. That's how MPEG-4 SLS, HE-AACv2, and HE-AACv1 came about. Apple even took it upon themselves to create another modified version of ISO MPEG-4 audio called Apple Lossless.
You're still tilting at windmills. It's not new versions that are the problem, it's the anticompetitive use of those new versions to break support for former Microsoft "partners." Creating your own derivative for your own uses, as in those cases, are not used to control the market via a proprietary format. Sony's ATRAC, for example, is perfectly acceptable, because they created it for their own purposes (and I hate Sony far more than Microsoft as a company).
You said, Microsoft could/would come out with a new version and everything would stop working. I said WM7/8/9 still work. You said only if it is licensed to the current version.
Wrong. Reread the post.
I don't see anything different between how Microsoft handled the situation and how Apple or anyone handled it except for the fact that your Tin Foil hat stops you from acceptiing the truth.
The difference is that Microsoft has withheld new version support from certain vendors in the past on its products or intentionally changed things to make other companies look bad.
New version of what? You do know that Real uses the very latest in Windows Media codecs and DRM, right?
It was hypothetical, just like your statement it responded to.
BS. Microsoft still actively develops and supports Playsforsure.
I didn't say they didn't. They themselves abandoned it for their own player and locked out all other vendors from selling music for their Zune. Why would they do that? Why would they build partnerships only to snub them when they entered the market? Because it's Microsoft.
Hell, since launching the Zune, MS has picked up several major new partners. Specifically, Netflix, Showtime, Walmart (video), Blockbuster, and the BBC. Maybe you should write them all an email an explain to them how Microsoft is no longer developing for Playsforsure.
None of which are compatible with the Zune or the Zune marketplace (URGE), and none of which are exclusive deals. What happens to PlaysforShit doesn't matter at this point because Microsoft is clearly setting up its successor in the Zune.

Look, you're not even responding to the points made, and you've continued to gloss over the actual problems and Microsoft's proven anticompetitive track record. WMA is technically inferior to AAC to boot. AAC is an open standard; WMA is not. It's really not that hard. WMA, in the form it is offered to consumers in online music stores (i.e. with DRM), is more expensive than AAC because it incurs a per-track fee due to the DRM; AAC, with or without DRM, does not charge per-track fees.

snowmoon

Apr 6, 2007, 10:44 PM

1. The "damage" was as simple as a checkbox in the options tab.
2. WMP10 was a free update. It was readily available to anyone who had a problem with WMP9 or earlier.

Up until a few months ago I was a windows and linux user. I work with Linux professionally and am resident tech support for my entire family ( mostly windows ... ick ).

I had no idea that WMP9 DRM's personal encodings and I have steadfastly REFUSED to update WMP since they came out with that monstrosity WMP8 that was forced upon us with XP. WMP9 was another FORCED upgrade thanks to SP2. They reached their peak with WMP6.4 and everything else since then has been downhill.

And for the record WMP10 is a FORCED upgrade for Media Center edition and 11 is a FORCED upgrade for Vista. You can not back down from those releases to an earlier version even if you wanted to. Each one adds new DRM functionality that only serves to enhance MS and other companies at your expense.

I quickly abandoned the MS media framework for CCCP with Media Player Classic. I never looked back. I hear that 3rd party media players are actually much faster under Vista thanks to MS DRM bogging down WMP11.

Zune is the perfect example of why MS DRM sucks the big one. Had I actually used WMP9 my .wma'a wouldn't work on my Zune without re-encoding them down to another format. All of the money/time spent using PlaysForSure ( not ) media downloads would be wasted and they are cannibalizing their own market for this! They cultivated this DRM laden market of PlaysForSure and then stabbed all of their partners in the back with the Zune.

Go find a first gen iPod and sync it with iTunes 7 with the latest EMI tracks.... I bet it would work! This is why Apple is winning this battle with one hand behind it's back.