I must say I'm quite surprised at the generally positive response most of you are having to this.
I'm sorry guys, but this really should've been a "free" enhancement. 256k really should be the standard (and please don't say that Apple needs that much extra cash for the additional bandwidth), and it probably costs Apple LESS to not have to apply Fairplay.
The fact that we have to pay additional money to NOT have our tracks crippled is setting a really, really bad precedent. This would've been a huge step forward if it didn't cost extra. As long as there's any sort of tradeoff in order to not have music that I paid be crippled, then they still don't get it.
I find this really disappointing. Sell us our tracks without DRM and don't make us pay extra for the "privilege" and then you've got something, because at that point it means that you get it. Not until then.
Come on guys, this isn't a good thing. It's a step sideways.
Alternatively, the record companies could just say "screw you" to internet distribution in all its forms.
The pricing differential is to avoid cannibalizing their existing library AND to do in the short term what would take you and your argument years to prove. Allow me to explain...
If you went to the record labels and asked them to sell their product, to which they and they alone own the copyright and can pretty much tell you to go to hell if there's nothing it for them, for 99 cents a track without DRM... under PRESENT circumstances (yes, time travel to the past to change the history of DRM is not an option) they'd mostly laugh at you and you might scrape together a few small independent labels one by one and eventually go out of business trumped by bigger competition.
Apple's betting big by believing that they can sell DRM free tracks for $1.29 a piece... More importantly, they're doing it along side DRM'd tracks that cost less. This is a strategy with a surreptitious intent.
On the one hand it looks like they're justifying the "premium" file size. But on the other hand they're taking a stab at showing what I've argued all along... that if you treat piracy as a real (if illegitimate) competitor, and treat the song as though it is free but all the premiums are in the package, the service, the convenience, etc. people will be willing to buy it.
They proved this already by selling hundreds of millions of iTunes at 99 cents despite all the competition from FREE, I repeat FREE, downloads. This success most definitely has everything to do with the iTunes user interface, the seamless and idiot-proof operation and integration with iPod, and the quality of the hardware and software.
Clearly Apple understood what it would take to attract people to their service in the midst of a P2P era of free self-gratification... "convenience" being the key word. It had to be easier to use iTunes and iPod than it is to find crap on Limewire, Napster, etc. if they were to attract people into the fold. People argue all kinds of moral objections to the record industry but when it comes right down to it, people use P2P out of perceived convenience of snagging tracks for free and off a pretty large library. Only problem is those services aren't so convenient. The iTunes UI blows them away, and to get people hooked on it they introduced iTunes free to gain market penetration and some user familiarity before wheeling out iPod and iTunes Music Store.
Now they're doing it again... except the argument this time is to show that yes, it is possible to actually sell DRM-free tracks at a PREMIUM which customers will be willing to pay, given the right conditions.
Now, should there be a premium? Well, I could use another example that people often miss... Some argue that a-la carte TV programming is expensive. Well, sure it seems that way. But I also don't have to deal with commercials, which are what subsidize broadcast and the 900-channels-of-crap model of cable and dish. But few of the opponents of a-la carte have ever observed that key difference. Clearly they themselves are oblivious to the nuisance they're willing to endure to get streamed television at a discount.
Now are you feelin' me?
Yes, the terms were such that it attracted a large enough label to be Apple's guinea pig for this experiment... but the RESULT will be that Apple will have proved the demand for non-DRM tracks is tremendous and the larger library they're doing it with will generate large enough numbers that industry execs will be MUCH quicker to change their minds than if Apple had sold 50,000 tracks of some unknown artists from independent labels.
The net result can be the end of DRM... it may even result in a price normalization at or around 99 cents for 256Kbps AAC non-DRM if it replaces the current iTunes Store file standard. Even if the latter isn't the case, I think consumers will be willing to pay the premium for the increased bitrate, and the freedom from DRM.
