Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage

[johnee]

A few questions for everyone to ponder...

Am I paying more for DRM-free or quality?

If I'm paying more for quality why not just release the tracks as apple lossless? That way I can use them in whatever format I wish.

If it's for lack of DRM, then why can't I get either 128 or 256 ( or even Apple Lossless ) sans DRM?


Let's face it, this is not a traditional Apple business decision. It does not make the lives of it's users easier in any way. This is a move to fend off iTunes from further anti-trust scrutiny without impacting iPod sales.

Let's face it, iTunes is tailored for the average joe computer user/music listener. Only nerds and geeks log onto MR and debate apple's decisions until they look dog puke.

The average consumer sees they can get music without any restrictions AND it's in better quality. That will justify the extra 30 cents to them.

 

[poopooplatter]

To me, I think songs are woth $1.99 each. I really would pay that and I'd think that's fair.

Really? So you'd pay $26 for an album with 13 songs?

 

[mpetason]

Ditto. I really hope that a new iPod does come out this fall instead of next Spring which some rumor sites have reported. My iPod Photo is getting long in the tooth and short on the storage.

new Ipods are going to have audio jacks that automatically upsample all music to 320kbs. . hahaha.

 

[rew]

You're joking, right?

Let's look at this.

You could pay 79p (in the UK) for a lower quality file, that doesn't matter if it gets shared because you're only allowed to bung it on 5 computers, and the quality's good but not brilliant.

OR

You could pay 99p for a higher quality track... Would you really want to then take the file that you've paid a premium for and slap it onto the internet? No. You've paid more for that track so you're not going to want to share it with people. I know for a fact that I don't want to be sending files I've paid for all the way round the world. I've licensed my 5 iTunes libraries, I know who's computers they are and I don't have a problem with them listening to stuff I've bought. Aside from the 3 people who've got my library authorised, I'm not going to let anyone else have my files. There's a degree of trust involved in this, but I can guarantee you, there's some watermarking in the new files that will be able to identify people who upload their purchases.

No, I'm not joking.

And I don't understand your logic - what you're saying is that a person who illegally shares their iTMS music at 99c will NOT share it under this plan... because it costs more? How do you make that sort of correlation, especially given the multitude of torrents out there that originated from a person who actually bought the material at whatever cost?

But let's say that you're right. So now, as a person who doesn't share his paid for music, I am essentially paying a 30 cent premium because someone ELSE might have shared it.

And this is still a good thing how?

 

[sishaw]

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

Fiona Apple's high notes are another example--at least I can hear the difference.

 

[suneohair]

A few questions for everyone to ponder...

Am I paying more for DRM-free or quality?

If I'm paying more for quality why not just release the tracks as apple lossless? That way I can use them in whatever format I wish.

If it's for lack of DRM, then why can't I get either 128 or 256 ( or even Apple Lossless ) sans DRM?


Let's face it, this is not a traditional Apple business decision. It does not make the lives of it's users easier in any way. This is a move to fend off iTunes from further anti-trust scrutiny without impacting iPod sales. iPod owners will still continue to buy 128AAC DRM because it's easier and cheaper and won't bloat their library. EMI gets a shot in the arm to a mediocre business and ability to court iTunes users. End users get a choice between small and DRM and huge, no-DRM, and costs more. AAC is not a universal format and is another subtle jab at non-iPod owners since many will have to convert to mp3 in order to use.

If they offered Apple Lossless it would be a whole new ballgame since you would be getting 100% of the functionality of a CD ( 100% quality, reconversion to multiple bitrates, burn to a disk, .... ) without the hassle of B&M stores. The studios win because they would have almost 0 duplication and distribution costs.

For me I'll continue to buy real CD's for now.

AAC IS universal. Supported by these players: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Products_that_support_AAC

Read more and you will see that it is not an Apple creation, it was created in 97 and is apart of the MPEG-4 standard.

Apple Lossless is proprietary, so you would be shutting out everyone with a different played something you whined about just a few sentences earlier.

I rip in lossless but I am going to see if I can tell the difference between 256 and lossless.

Paying more, whatever. DRM free and higher quality for .30, and only on single tracks. Albums are still $9.99, so in many cases it is cheaper than a CD.

 

[HiRez]

The only thing I don't get is that if you don't go for Lossless why not go for the highest AAC encoding (i.e. 320 AAC)?

I agree, that is odd. Maybe it was just for marketing reasons because it's easy for people to understand "twice as good". Stillm the difference between 128 and 256 is much much larger and more noticeable that the difference between 256 and 320. Chances are I'll not only upgrade all my 128 tunes (really glad they are offering the upgrade), but will buy a lot more new stuff without feeling bad about it. $1.29 for non-DRM, good quality tracks is awesome, it's really everything I have been wanting from the iTMS. Now the question is, when will the other bloodsucking leech labels submit? Bravo to EMI.

 

[Chef Medeski]

So, what, having a condescending tone lends validity to your argument?

You keep on implying that you're getting more out of this deal. If by "more" you mean "they're not going out of their way to cripple my music files!" then sure. I simply don't believe, as I stated in my post, that the absence of DRM somehow means that I should have to pay more. Obviously this is just my view. As far as compression goes, again, this isn't a feature that should cost extra money (or at least not 30 c worth).



No, I do not expect free music at full quality, but nice strawman argument. It's a pity you made it so obvious and then dedicated a paragraph tearing down an argument I obviously never made. Come on.

Well guess what. The beauty of capitalism is that you dont have to buy from Apple! Imagine that. Dont like their set-up dont buy. But you cant expect them to bend the rules of business for something that obviously is unrealistic. Especially complaining to them about that is just useless, they are probably lucky to just get it that small of a difference. I would give a hand to Jobs not bash him for not being enough. Personally I believe in free music, but Im not going to complaining to every company and store that charges music because its unrealistic.

 

[suneohair]

But let's say that you're right. So now, as a person who doesn't share his paid for music, I am essentially paying a 30 cent premium because someone ELSE might have shared it.

And this is still a good thing how?

This is a terrible assumption. People are going to share regardless, but I don't think the .30 "premium" is caused by that.

I think that if the popularity of these tracks is high, we will see the .30 faid away and the DRM version dropped.

 

[rew]

To me, I think songs are woth $1.99 each. I really would pay that and I'd think that's fair. For the past 2 years I've been getting them on iTunes for $1.00 less than my ideal price. Whoo, good for me!And now I can get them for $0.70 less than my ideal price.

I'm sorry you're unhappy, but I'm going to be buying a lot of music that STILL costs 35% less than what I think it's worth even AFTER this fantastic change.

Although if being unhappy is what you want, why don't you go around talking about how the songs should all cosst 50 cents? That would allow you to be even MORE indignant and annoyed.

If one song is worth 1.99 to you, then I can definitely see where you'd be happy with this. I think it's fair to say, however, that most folks would not want to pay that much, yes?

 

[localoid]

And your point is what exactly?

It is always like this. Some people hear differences and some don't. I only said that is possible given the right equipment.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the people that claim "tests show people can't tell the difference" are clueless about this subject and the what the "results" of such test are showing...

Even if most (the majority) of the people (in a test) can't hear the difference, that doesn't mean there weren't some people that could hear the difference.

I can hear the difference. I assume you can as well. Meanwhile, Joe Blow may not. Therefore, the conclusion that it's impossible (for anyone) to tell the difference is false. Some people will be able to hear the difference.

 

[snowmoon]

The average consumer sees they can get music without any restrictions AND it's in better quality. That will justify the extra 30 cents to them.

Not when they find out it cuts their nano's capacity in half!

 

[Diatribe]

the difference between the 256kbps and 320kbps are so negligible and in fact, some encoders are worse at 320 in that they have the same exact quality.

this is great news

I have never really checked whether there is a difference, but I definitely hear a difference between 320 AAC and Lossless.

Either way I am pretty happy about this, although I must admit I would have liked Lossless. I always said, that with offering Lossless I would never buy a singe CD again but this way I am still torn.

 

[Small White Car]

Really? So you'd pay $26 for an album with 13 songs?

No, of course not. Why the hell would I buy a whole album?

 

[longofest]

Nit-pick warning...

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

Not really. Oh how we forget how compressed CD's themselves are. Many recordings are done today at 192,000 samples per second at 24 bits for each sample before being mixed down to CD.

I'm not saying that final mixes need to be 192k, 24bit, but its good to remind ourselves that CD's are the end-all be-all. There are other, lesser-known formats as well (SA-CD, DVD-Audio).

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

AIFF = Audio Interchange File Format. Not Apple Lossless. Others have noted this.

 

[rew]

You just can't win!
People are forgetting the fact that deals cost money and that higher quality files take up more bandwidth.

Are you seriously implying that the cost of the extra bandwidth being used is going to even approach being 30c more for each file? Factoring in economies of scale that Apple most certainly commands?

 

[Diatribe]

I agree, that is odd. Maybe it was just for marketing reasons because it's easy for people to understand "twice as good". Stillm the difference between 128 and 256 is much much larger and more noticeable that the difference between 256 and 320. Chances are I'll not only upgrade all my 128 tunes (really glad they are offering the upgrade), but will buy a lot more new stuff without feeling bad about it. $1.29 for non-DRM, good quality tracks is awesome, it's really everything I have been wanting from the iTMS. Now the question is, when will the other bloodsucking leech labels submit? Bravo to EMI.

Yeah, as I said above, the real step I think is the one to Lossless, not only in sound quality but in longevity and ability to archive, etc.

I am not sure yet whether this will really alter the way I buy music as I always said upon Lossless offering I'd go iTS only but now I am not sure whether to still wait for that or start buying at that bitrate.

 

[Small White Car]

If one song is worth 1.99 to you, then I can definitely see where you'd be happy with this. I think it's fair to say, however, that most folks would not want to pay that much, yes?

Fact is, if you liked the old 99 cent tracks, they're STILL THERE. So why complain about another option coming into existance? Buy it if you want it but if you don't want it you can still get the EXACT same product as before.

I fail to see the problem.

 

[Diatribe]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the people that claim "tests show people can't tell the difference" are clueless about this subject and the what the "results" of such test are showing...

Even if most (the majority) of the people (in a test) can't hear the difference, that doesn't mean there weren't some people that could hear the difference.

I can hear the difference. I assume you can as well. Meanwhile, Joe Blow may not. Therefore, the conclusion that it's impossible (for anyone) to tell the difference is false. Some people will be able to hear the difference.

Yeah, sorry, I got you wrong the first time.

It always depends on 2 things, the person and the equipment. I just hate people that claim that it is impossible to hear based on some physics book and because they cannot hear it. Anyway, sorry for the harsh post.

 

[rew]

This is a terrible assumption. People are going to share regardless, but I don't think the .30 "premium" is caused by that.

I think that if the popularity of these tracks is high, we will see the .30 faid away and the DRM version dropped.

Exactly, that's what I was getting at. People are going to share for whatever reason. Driving prices up isn't going to reverse this trend.

And I hope you're right. My fear here is that a precedent is being set here - "Well, we won't cripple your music / movies / whatever with DRM - but you're gonna have to pay extra for it!" That's garbage.

 

[rew]

Fact is, if you liked the old 99 cent tracks, they're STILL THERE. So why complain about another option coming into existance? Buy it if you want it but if you don't want it you can still get the EXACT same product as before.

I fail to see the problem.

Please read my original post. I'm not complaining about having another option. Choice is ALWAYS good. What I DON'T like is setting the precedent that removing DRM is somehow doing us a favor and therefore we should pay extra for it.

 

[Object-X]

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.

Good post btw. I'm not sure I'm buying (pun) a normalization of 256Kbps at 0.99. I agree that all music will eventually be non-DRM and that the major music labels will fall in line and offer this, but once that has happened, along with the resounding success of the non-DRM format, the DRM .99 music tracks will go away. The higher price is a carrot in the negotiations with the music labels who want to charge more for tracks. Rather than having variable pricing, which would be confusing, Apple is suggesting they offer a better product for a higher cost. Given a choice consumers will accept the higher price.

But this will be temporary.

Prices will never go down, they only go up over time. So, Apple is giving us better quality and more freedom and thus better value for the extra money. I agree prices will normalize, but they will do so at the $1.29 price point. Apple can't charge .99 forever. Eventually the music labels will raise the wholesale price of their music forcing Apple to raise their prices, but this way, Apple can offer us a better product for what would otherwise be an inevitable price increase; and in the interim, Apple is giving us a choice which makes the transition more palatable.

 

[Diatribe]

Exactly, that's what I was getting at. People are going to share for whatever reason. Driving prices up isn't going to reverse this trend.

And I hope you're right. My fear here is that a precedent is being set here - "Well, we won't cripple your music / movies / whatever with DRM - but you're gonna have to pay extra for it!" That's garbage.

The thing is though, that you don't pay more for albums. And if I recall correctly, before iTunes, you always paid a premium for singles.

 

[Agathon]

The instant that the full 22-minute original version of Kraftwerk's "Autobahn" is released on iTunes, I'm getting it. That's the only KW album I don't have yet in digital format.

Thanks for the reminder. I hadn't listened to that album in ages.

 

[jicon]

So how does Apple describe the 256 kbit AAC? The 99 cent DRM stuff was referred to as "pristine" several years ago in all of Apple's marketing material.