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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Behind the Apple-EMI Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Chicken or the egg?
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
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
Hmmm
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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..
As far as Blue-Ray..It plays more than wm files..There are other codecs out there..
As soon as the first DRM-Free file shows up in iTunes it will be MP3.We might even see MP3Surround.Not sure what the bitrate is on that right off hand.
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.
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 supportI 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?
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
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.
Cost to send a song?
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps Wikipedia should think about Zune and other non-Windows platforms that can play protected WM content...
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.
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?
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.)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.
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.
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!
So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever.
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.
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.
So in other words you're already biased against Apple, is it any wonder your arguments are so flimsy.
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.
Where did you read they were VBR? I thought they would be CBR like the current tracks are 128kbps CBR.
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?
You're a bit confused.
Both formats use VC1, a SMPTE approved codec that MSFT submitted based on their work in WMV. It's an open spec, like MPEG-4, etc. You can get open source reference encoders/decoders etc.
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.
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.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?
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.
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...
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...
Perhaps Wikipedia should think about Zune and other non-Windows platforms that can play protected WM content...
Perhaps wikipedia is a completely unreliable source that anyone can edit if they feel like it.
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.
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.
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.