Behind the Apple-EMI Deal

[msandersen]

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]

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.

Its me. Why not using Apple Lossless instead?

 

[nagromme]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[mdriftmeyer]

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]

Extra Price

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]

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

They did...???

 

[maxp1]

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]

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]

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.

 

[maxp1]

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]

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]

do the math

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]

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?

There may or may not be contracts in place (with EMI or other labels) preventing Apple from releasing DRM-less songs at 99c per song. Unless you know the internal specifics it's tough to be negative on what is clearly a step forward.

 

[msandersen]

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]

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?

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

 

[Analog Kid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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' ???