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.
It's not that I haven't thought of this... but there are two issues with this solution:
1. I'm already paying extra to get the song without copy protection. Why should I have to go through the extra work to get the song in a format I desire? Apple should do the work for me. All they need to do is offer three options: $0.99 for DRM-enabled, 128 kbps, and $1.29 for DRM-free songs at either 128 kbps or 256 kbps.
2. Formats like AAC and MP3 are based heavily on human perception, and attempt to find an "optimal" compression solution based on the kind of information they can throw out at a certain bit rate. Re-encoding a 256-kbps stream at 128 kbps attempts to optimize this process based on a modified input waveform: the 256-kbps waveform, which is missing some data. This data may be imperceptible to a human, but how do we know it won't wreak havoc on the algorithm, introducing perceptible artifacts? I don't downsample my files, so I don't know if this is a real problem; I just think there is the potential for a problem.
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.
This is partially true, but I know at least one person for whom larger file sizes translates to a new demand for larger iPods: myself. On my first-generation 4 GB Nano, I can almost fit my entire library; fewer than 500 MB worth of songs will not fit. Hence, I don't need a new iPod. However, if my library suddenly doubled in size, only half my music would fit on the iPod. That may be enough to push me toward buying an 8 GB Nano.
But there is another issue: I don't buy many songs from iTunes. For the most part, when I want music from my favorite bands, I run to the store and buy a CD. This gives me a pristine copy to store at home, as well as all the digital copies I could want. Plus, I get to read through the booklet. Hence, although a doubling in library size would drive me to a new iPod, Apple's decision won't increase my library by much.
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 think these are very good points. Especially #1, since I am evidence of the halo effect. I've long been a FreeBSD user, and when my dad was looking for a good laptop with a UNIX-like environment, I pushed him toward an iBook. However, I never considered one for myself until a chain of events transpired: first, there were some power-management and audio quirks with FreeBSD on my bottom-of-the-line Dell notebook; second, I acquired an iPod and didn't like the coarseness of synching the unit with my FreeBSD machine; third, I observed that, after a year, the battery life on my Dell decayed from three hours to just over two. These things pushed me into an iBook. Later, when the first educational iMacs came out, I snatched the last one at my local Apple store. $2,000 in Apple equipment, which I only considered because of my iPod.
