Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage

[Project]

What was the question at the end of the presentation?

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

She said something like

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

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

+ twice the audio quality
+ DRM free

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

 

[RubberChicken]

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

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

 

[Marx55]

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

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

Thanks.

 

[dogcowabunga]

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

They will remember.

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

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

 

[johnee]

She said something like

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

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

+ twice the audio quality
+ DRM free

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

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

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

 

[balamw]

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

Thanks.

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

B

 

[onebloodonelife]

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

 

[MacVault]

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

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

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

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

 

[Foxglove9]

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

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

 

[mpetason]

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

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

 

[slughead]

This announcement is freaking AWESOME.

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

 

[Gasu E.]

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

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

 

[zap2]

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

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



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

 

[redAPPLE]

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

hmm. that would suck, hmm?

 

[akac]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ElderBrE]

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

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

Thanks.

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

 

[cantos]

The Podcast replay of the webcast is now online

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

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

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

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

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

 

[motulist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mpetason]

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

 

[Avatar74]

She said something like

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

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

+ twice the audio quality
+ DRM free

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

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

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

But mostly there's supply, demand and branding.

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

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

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

AAC is not same as mp3...

 

[dmelgar]

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[princealfie]

Hurrah for Apple! Okay where are the Beatles now?

 

[winstano]

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

Entire press conference MP3