Except that most people don't know the difference, and other MP3 players will support AAC's as you can get them from iTunes
.
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
Except that most people don't know the difference, and other MP3 players will support AAC's as you can get them from iTunes
.
I suspect this is true-- it will be interesting to see how well these other players do now that they can work with iTMS. I guess we'll see how much of the iPod magic really emanates from the music store.Except that most people don't know the difference, and other MP3 players will support AAC's as you can get them from iTunes
This also might be part of the reason for the higher price on non-DRMed music. iPod is helping subsidize iTMS, while other players are not. iPod users can still use the 99c music, while users of other players have to kick in a bit more...
No, EMI are responding to the European Commission, not Steve Jobs. Jobs has rather cleverly publicised his views knowing that the EC was going to force this. Now he can take credit for it.
BMG will be next to jump in, as they're Europe based too. Once again, it'll be down to EU pressure but Apple will get credit.
Damn good at marketing without spending a penny in Cupertino, aren't they?
But if they want the same fidelity with MP3 they'll be looking at 320kbps, which takes up more space on the device as well as increasing the retailer's bandwidth costs. Also, if iTMS is not making much of a profit with its economies of scale, I can't see how smaller retailers can do so with higher kilobit tracks unless they too put their prices up. The main thing is if the other record companies follow suit we're finally going to get real choice.
Another side effect of this is that WMA is going to get abandoned by a lot of online music stores in favour of AAC or MP3. Why would a retailer use a format that cannot be played by 75% of their potential customer base?
Geniuses. Seriously...
Top to bottom, they run an extremely tight, creative ship and are unparalleled in milking and spinning the story they want to tell, and getting others to fall in line. They make Microsoft look like a bunch of ham-fisted amateurs and crooks in the PR stakes.
Putting aside the actual product itself, from the keynote onwards, the iPhone launch will be a PR masterclass. Believe...
Hypocritical how? They could drop the 99 cent EMI songs altogether, but then I'd wager you'd be complaining about having to pay more for bands on the EMI label because they took away the option to pay 99 cents for them like all the other songs.
It's pretty clear-cut. The old catalog and arrangements are still available for anyone who wants them (i.e. doesn't care about DRM or bitrate, and so sees no need to pay $1.29). Giving customers a choice isn't hypocritical.
There could be risk here for Apple, if other music stores can offer DRM free music for less. There's a lot of leeway to undercut Apple at 1.29 yoyos. However, since the iPod doesn't support WMA formats, even if other music stores strip out DRM they still won't play on it; unless they switch to MP3.
Still, while I'll certainly be upgrading my few hundred iTMS tracks; it just doesn't make sense to me to keep buying. eMusic DRM free: 34c iTMS DRM free: 129c
Still, while I'll certainly be upgrading my few hundred iTMS tracks; it just doesn't make sense to me to keep buying. eMusic DRM free: 34c iTMS DRM free: 129c
Wow... you guys are really dumb. Like people said... SJ has always made his opinion known about DRM. DRM existed and exists for the record companies NOT Apple. What would apple care if you downloaded a song and shared it on bearshare? Its the record companys that want to prevent that.
Case and point? The moment a record company comes to apple and says hey... we don't think we want drm songs on itunes, SJ said sure lets work on that.
Apple isn't screwing anyone over, but he does have to work in the politics of the music industry. Grow up people.
i haven't used emusic before but 34c a song? That got my attention. So I went to their site to check it out... You can't browse their entire site without signing up. WTF? How do I know if the site is any good? Yeah 34c a song is nice, but do they have the songs I listen to? Is the interface easy/initutive to use? I looked at urge, and although there isn't anything "hard to use" about it, I just found it kinda clumped together, didn't really know what went where. ITMS is different, everyting is nicely laied out and I can see what every thing does just by glancing at it.
If Emusic wants me to see what it has to offer, you have to let me browse before I buy.
I remember paying $0.99 - $1.29 for a crappy quality 45rpm single back in the 70s & 80s, beofre vinyl was phased out and "singles" ceased to exist. That single track purchasing has re-emerged in digital quality (even 128kpbs on most any player is an improvement over the old 45s) at the same price 25 years later is really quite remarkable. The portability and convenience that comes with downloadable music far surpasses anything that was available then, so I consider that even extra value for the price. Also consider that album purchases will gain the increased quality, lack of DRM, but will retain the same $9.99 price point. That's huge.
It would be sort of cool if they'd attach a "B-side" to some single purchases...odds are, like the old "B-sides" on 45s it's a song you'd never have bought anyhow, but if you like it might encourage you to go back and buy the whole album...
It's not very hard to make a thick, juicy PR stake when they're serving up the truth.
When Microsoft just makes it that easy, it's a field day for PR guys.
<~ Thats the face a PR person makes when their job is done for them.Dude, I love the new options the iTunes Music Store + EMI are giving us. But that is not the topic of this news item. For opinions on that, there is another thread.
This news was about how EMI approached Apple, and that it was Apple's decision to offer DRM-free music only for a premium. Of course you can find that negative! I'm just sick of these Apple-enthusiasts "not understanding" how people can find things negative.
Personally I believe Jobs might be using this strategy to increase sales on EMI's side, thus luring other companies in to applying the same strategy. Works for me. But can I understand people voting negative on the fact, that Jobs decided to hold on to DRM? Absolutely.
eMusic has stated numerous times that they would be glad to sell stuff from the major labels if the major labels would let them. Of course there's always pricing to deal with besides DRM. Regardless, I hope that eMusic does get EMI soon. It would be really cool to be able to get major label stuff there along with the indie stuff.
Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.
EMI is kind of making Apple look bad.
I suspect EMI approached Apple after Steve's open letter on the subject , although I don't know this for a fact.
Re price; EMI stated in the live announcement yesterday that they did not set the retail price.
Personally, I do not see anything that makes Apple look bad, far from it. As market leaders it could be argued they have most to lose yet Steve stated, and I for one agree, that on a level playing field of protection free music, iTunes and iPods will win due to being the superior products.
Increased bit rate
The only problem with this is the increased bit rate. I would gladly pay 30 cents more per song to have the copy protection removed, but I don't want every song to be twice the size. The songs I've downloaded sound fine at 128 kbps. Doubling my storage requirements for an imperceptible quality hike is just foolish.
This is just like HDTV, paying $5000 for a better Slingbox alternative or modern-day video games. The purpose of entertainment is enjoyment. Enjoyment comes from quality of content, not excruciating detail. I don't need higher resolution to watch TV. I don't need full-quality pictures from my Slingbox when I am traveling and I want to watch a quick show. I don't need to watch people sweat in video games.
I'll bet that part of the justification for doubling the bit rate of the songs sold on iTunes was to place demand on larger iPods. My 4 GB Nano is only slightly too small to contain all of my music; doubling the storage requirements makes the device inadequately small.
The only problem with this is the increased bit rate. I would gladly pay 30 cents more per song to have the copy protection removed, but I don't want every song to be twice the size. The songs I've downloaded sound fine at 128 kbps. Doubling my storage requirements for an imperceptible quality hike is just foolish.
This is just like HDTV, paying $5000 for a better Slingbox alternative or modern-day video games. The purpose of entertainment is enjoyment. Enjoyment comes from quality of content, not excruciating detail. I don't need higher resolution to watch TV. I don't need full-quality pictures from my Slingbox when I am traveling and I want to watch a quick show. I don't need to watch people sweat in video games.
I'll bet that part of the justification for doubling the bit rate of the songs sold on iTunes was to place demand on larger iPods. My 4 GB Nano is only slightly too small to contain all of my music; doubling the storage requirements makes the device inadequately small.
I think the 1.30 pricepoint was a clear strategic move on Apples part.
Now we have this:
128kbs Sony etc music @ 99
256kbs EMI music @ 130
Lets say a bigger pecentage of people buy non DRM EMI music than DRM EMI music, making EMI/Apple more money per sale. Clearly, the other record labels are losing out here and their insistance on DRM is proved wrong.
Im amazed though at people questioning Steves integrity on the DRM issue. Some choice quotes from 2003:
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." ...
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/ste ve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview/ [rollingstone.com]
and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.
"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own," said Jobs."
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/ [macworld.com]
And then just yesterday:
Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?
A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter.
Now we have this:
128kbs Sony etc music @ 99
256kbs EMI music @ 130
Lets say a bigger pecentage of people buy non DRM EMI music than DRM EMI music, making EMI/Apple more money per sale. Clearly, the other record labels are losing out here and their insistance on DRM is proved wrong.
Im amazed though at people questioning Steves integrity on the DRM issue. Some choice quotes from 2003:
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." ...
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/ste ve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview/ [rollingstone.com]
and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.
"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own," said Jobs."
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/ [macworld.com]
And then just yesterday:
Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?
A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter.
Well, this was indeed just a marketing gimmick used for a long time by the industry but Apple does have its own equivalent. Each week iTunes features a free download. Like B-sides, they're not usually any good but once in a while you might find something. But an entirely new possibility arose with systems like iTunes (it really began with in store kiosks at Musicland, etc. but anyway...): Audition tracks. Having the ability to audition a track almost replaces the B-side mentality because you can make a decision right there and then as to whether or not you want it without having it tagging along and eating up bandwidth on your downloads.
Major labels don't seem willing to move to the eMusic model while they are still working with the iTunes, Yahoo!, and Wal*Mart's trying to get the kinks worked out of the system.
I'm sure the floodgates will open once the legal download market is DRM-free, but I'm not so sure you are going to like it since without an reason not to sell signed artists it's going to crowd out the indie groups on eMusic quickly.
This is why I kinda hoped they would do both 128 or 256 sans DRM or just go straight to Apple Lossless. For albums it would be nice to have iTunes download and create a virtually perfect CD or downconvert to the default codec. Sure it would bloat the on disk library some, but it would be the best of both worlds.
I get the strategy, I just think if the bitrate was completely up to them they should have offered a Lossless option, at least at that premium price.
There's a fix so idiot proof you'll kick yourself for not having thought of it... If you are willing, as you say, to pay 30 cents more per song for the freedom from DRM alone:
1. Buy non-DRM itunes
2. Convert non-DRM itunes to 128 or 192kbps or any other bitrate or format (there's no DRM to prevent this, remember?
)Problem solved.
Tell this to the cadre of nitpickers who have torn apart AppleTV because it doesn't do 1080p. Then try explaining to them that statistically they are a minority. As much as I empathize and also agree that 128kbps AAC is sufficiently indistinguishable from 16-bit Linear PCM despite all layperson rants to the contrary, I think you're ice-skating uphill trying to rationally explain the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns to people who wear their purchasing habits on their sleeve like some people do with their religious beliefs.
Good point about driving demand for larger iPods, but that's kind of a moot point because why go to the expense of trying to artificially create a market for an item that might have a smaller profit margin when keeping the file size down would be more profitable for Apple and convenient for consumers already saturated with iPods? The reason larger iPods are being made is because the demand for them is already there... there's no need to artificially create this demand from scratch, but I wouldn't dispute the idea that the Premium downloads certainly don't hurt accelerating this demand... it's just not the primary driver.
I think the real answer is that Apple sees ditching DRM as a window to a few key elements in a larger strategy...
1. The market is saturated with iPod and new devices like iPhone and AppleTV are emerging to broaden the spectrum of Apple's lifestyle presence. With their market share, Apple's in a great position to open up DRM now as a means of pushing out competing formats like Windows Media to clear the way for even greater brand presence which facilitates the so-called "halo effect"... minimal investment for non-iPod or non-Mac owners to touch Apple products/services that may lead to other purchases.
2. Attracting a growing demographic of fidelity-conscious individuals who incidentally also make up a significant portion of the "tech aware" users who understand what DRM is and don't like it. Many of these users also happen to have deep pockets, or at least good credit, and spend a significant portion of their take home pay on technology-related purchases. Getting this segment interested has a tremendous effect on Apple's brand equity as evidenced by the rapid surge in tech blog posts about Apple following Apple and EMI's announcement.
I don't think $1.30 is competing. $.99 was the sweet spot, I think a lot of people won't go for the $1.30. I think a single like this is still cheaper than it was before iTS but raising prices like this is never a good idea.
Although I understand the tactics involved it sets a dangerous precedent that you can't explain away with bandwidth or storage cost. So next time Apple goes Lossless they'll just raise the price again to $1.50?
It's not about the price itself, it is about raising the price for a "premium", which by the way is the worst way to describe something that you already get in form of a CD.