iTunes Plus Expanded, Becomes Largest DRM-Free Catalog

[Unspeaked]

We owe them for them acting completely in their own corporate, profit-motivated self-interest?

Yes, I think that's the idea.

Or are you somehow implying that A) if Amazon hadn't set their price lower than Apple's, Apple would have dropped DRM-free tracks to 99 cents themselves B) Apple isn't a corporation and C) Apple isn't profit motivated?

If that's the case, you probably have some explaining to do to Apple's shareholders...

Glad to hear this. But I believe Apple was the hold-out on these, not the labels. For example, Nettwerk songs have been DRM free on emusic, amiestreet and other places for some time. Am I expected to believe that Nettwerk has been demanding DRM on Apple but plain old mp3 elsewhere???

You're right on track, and it's not just Nettwerk (though they're one of the more out-spoken DRM critics out there). Most of the indie labels quoted have offered DRM free downloads for some time...

 

[milo]

You guys really shouldn't be giving Apple all the credit. If it wasn't for Amazon selling DRM free music for .89cents Apple would have never lowered the price from 1.29. Its funny because it took Apple less than 1month to lower its price after Amazon annoucned it enetered into the music business and its pricing model. Amazon is cheaper and we owe it to them for really setting the standards.

We don't know the situation. It's possible that EMI insisted on getting more for tracks without DRM initially. If they gave Amazon a cut rate, that would have given leverage to Apple to insist on that pricing as well.

Are they still selling the regular versions of songs available as plus? At the same price, why would anyone want the lower quality, DRM version?

But on my cheap system (Apple TV -optical-> Logitech Z-5450 speakers), I can definitely tell the difference between 256kbps and Lossless. Moreso on some songs than others. Songs with applause (I like live albums, particularly by the Doors) or decently-miked cymbals translate terribly to mp3 (you get this wonderful "phasing" [sorta] distortion). I've heard that AAC is superior to mp3 for a given bitrate, but I honestly haven't tried it.

You should try it. AAC is a much better algorithm than mp3.

The point is, if Apple wants to keep the iTunes store competitive with Amazon, it needs to lower the price of the track itself.

It depends. Apple needs to keep the price close. But 256 AAC is better quality than 256 mp3. I'm willing to pay a bit more for that (especially depending on what it is) for higher quality at the same file size.

The end goal of all of this for Apple is to have independent studios, using Apple production products (MacPro, Soundtrack, Final Cut, Motion etc) to produce audio and video from artists, upload it right to iTunes and into our ipods. Probably 10 years out.

Along those lines, anyone have a recommendation for a resource with information about getting independent music carried on iTunes?

 

[Thataboy]

128kb is good enough for most people, and 256kb is going to be good enough for even more people. I doubt Apple has even started to care about lossless at this point.

Which is why I said someday, maybe. At least a few years. A lot can happen in a few years though (we have gone from iPod 1G to iPod touch in only 6 years!).

I agree that 256k is good enough for most people, but what's the harm in eventually offering iTunes Extreme for a premium price? They obviously have the infrastructure for this after the introduction of iTunes Plus.

 

[milo]

I'd personally love to show my appreciation by sampling/purchasing more of the DRM-free tracks, but would it be just by hit-or-miss?

Is there any way to filter songs on iTS to just see those DRM-free songs?

There is an iTunes plus page, you can access it from a link on the upper right of the main page.

I'm no professional, I have written no papers on the matter, I'm just a regular bloke. And I can hear the differences.
It's like trying to describe a color... impossible.
But, if you really listen, you can hear differences in the high and low frequencies. They sound less crisp (highs) or more muddy (lows) with each level of compression.

There's a proven placebo effect listening to audio. Did you do your listening comparisons between 256 AAC and uncompressed double blind? If not, you may be tricking yourself into thinking you're hearing things that you can't actually perceive.

 

[d_saum]

128kb is good enough for most people, and 256kb is going to be good enough for even more people. I doubt Apple has even started to care about lossless at this point.

I wish I could find the article, but a few years ago I read an article in a PC magazine that had a pretty big test group compiled of both audiophiles and everyday joe schmo's and their results showed that the cutoff point was 196Kbps for sound quality in MP3 files. There was not one person that could tell the difference between 196 and 320.

I'll have to poke around for that article. It was a great read because up until that point I was ripping MP3's at 320, but afterwards I ripped at 196 and to this day I cannot tell the difference.

 

[jimsowden]

This is great, I really hope this is just another incrimental step toward getting rid of DRM on the store altogeather. I think that Apple sold the lower price and expansion of the DRM free music by showing that it sells more, and that people aren't abusing it by sending it to other possible customers. Bring it to Movies, TV Shows, and all the Music and Music Videos and they'll be sure to get more money from me!

 

[SheriffParker]

You guys really shouldn't be giving Apple all the credit. If it wasn't for Amazon selling DRM free music for .89cents Apple would have never lowered the price from 1.29.

.89 cents? Less than a penny? Amazon's model will be hard to compete with...

 

[studiomusic]

It almost sounds like Apple went from "Everyone gets DRM unless you negotiate otherwise" to "No DRM unless you specifically request it"

That sounds about right. We'll see if CDBaby artists finally get to be DRM free.

 

[dopey220]

Cool. If they can get more major labels on board, it'll be easier for Apple to compete with Amazon's new store.

 

[hayesk]

Anyway, I agree with the above poster... I've given up lossy music too. More and more people are, so I think eventually (probably at least a few years) iTMS will have to respond to the demand for lossless files. Someday. Maybe.

I doubt it - most people don't have the equipment to tell the difference. Remember most people are happy with the fashionable white iPod earbuds.

 

[milo]

Cool. If they can get more major labels on board, it'll be easier for Apple to compete with Amazon's new store.

Don't they already have the same major labels as Amazon? So far, it looks like Apple already has more DRM free tracks than Amazon.

 

[hdasmith]

However, to rip the CD's in Lossless format is a waste of time if you already have the CD. You are not getting any higher quality sound and you are increasing your storage requirements dramatically. A single run-of-the-mill song in Apple Lossless can be 30 Megs or so, the same song in high quality AAC might be less than 5 Megs.

I haven't used Apple Lossless, so I don't have any experience of the file sizes, but I though the hole point of Apple Lossless was that it was about half the size of CD formats.

For those that think they can hear a difference between 256kbps and lossless formats, are you listening to a lot of classical music or percussion instruments by any chance? That's about the only time the human ear is sensitive enough to notice the difference. And I can hear a dog whistle for what it's worth.

 

[hayesk]

I'm not calling you crazy, just that I would love to see if there is a research paper out there that determines what the human ear can really differeniate between.

Sure they can - but there are also other factors at play - environment where you listen, equipment, type of music, quality of original recording, etc.

Remember, there are CD players that range from $20 all the way up to $10000 - I've listened to players up to $2000 - and the difference is discernable.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

Great, let the "Who's got the biggest…?" contest begin. I get a feeling that this is a desperate move on Apple's part to compete with other media-stores. The sad part is that all Universal et al have to do now is cancel their contract with iTunes and it is left with millions of indy-songs… great!

 

[tallyho]

Bravo, Apple! Now that there's no price premium, I have to make sure my account is set to get iTunes+ versions when possible.

There's still a premium on the UK store. DRM songs=79p, iTunes plus songs=99p. There's no point complaining, but maybe one day we'll get the same price as you!

 

[Sauron's Master]

Yes, I think that's the idea.

Or are you somehow implying that A) if Amazon hadn't set their price lower than Apple's, Apple would have dropped DRM-free tracks to 99 cents themselves B) Apple isn't a corporation and C) Apple isn't profit motivated?

If that's the case, you probably have some explaining to do to Apple's shareholders...

Or maybe I was implying you shouldn't be getting on your knees for receiving the peripheral effects of an action solely designed to extract the maximum amount of profit from you as the consumer.

Amazon is trying to steal market power from Apple so it can utilize that market power to utilize price discrimination and monopoly tactics in the future to shift consumer surplus to corporate profits.

Unless you think you should be thankful for eating the leftover bones after the steak is finished, I would suggest you evaluate motivation and the big picture when deciding what to be "thankful" for.

Yes, for the record, I am actually a capitalist and would have no hesitation in utilizing the same practices. I'm just not delusional as some people here are.

As for whether Apple would have lowered the price, yes, it's perfectly feasible that they would have lowered the price to .99 on their own without Amazon or some major competitor. The reality is that even monopolies respond to demand curves and Apple doesn't have perfect market power. Given a shift in consumer demand for DRM-free music, Apple wouldn't hesitate to shift prices if it maximized prices. If you also consider that Apple is going utilizing a time-tested dynamic pricing strategy to milk profits from the less price-conscious consumers and then milking the profits from people who will only pay .99 for music.

 

[Drumjim85]

Sure they can - but there are also other factors at play - environment where you listen, equipment, type of music, quality of original recording, etc.

Remember, there are CD players that range from $20 all the way up to $10000 - I've listened to players up to $2000 - and the difference is discernable.

Ya, converting audio from Digital to Analog or Analog to Digital is a HUGE step in how things sound.... usually the thing you're paying more for is a high quality converter ...

 

[twoodcc]

good news! so all of them will be $0.99?

 

[crassusad44]

Am I the only one having problems with the iTunes Plus section of the store (I'm in Norway)? I keep getting the error "Could not complete the iTunes Store request. The store may be busy." when I click the iTunes Plus link. It has been like this since late last night. Also, many albums (Fantômas - Suspended Animation for example) are listed as iTunes plus when I search for them, but are listed as ordinary DRM tracks when I click the link. I want to buy more music NOW!!!

 

[pizzach]

Glad to hear this. But I believe Apple was the hold-out on these, not the labels. For example, Nettwerk songs have been DRM free on emusic, amiestreet and other places for some time. Am I expected to believe that Nettwerk has been demanding DRM on Apple but plain old mp3 elsewhere???

It almost sounds like Apple went from "Everyone gets DRM unless you negotiate otherwise" to "No DRM unless you specifically request it"

Yes, Apple was being greedy. I heard it was supposed to be just a stop-gap measure to temporarily please the shareholders, which was probably more of an excuse than a reason. I do believe believe the Amazon store gave Apple the kick in the butt they needed, helping to realign Apple's focus. In the end, do you honestly believe that the store that negotiates venomously to have ALL of their songs priced at 99 cents would keep the awkward multi-tiered pricing?

When the iTunes store first appeared, Apple supposedly barely broke even on all of the songs sold given bandwidth costs etc. A number of years have passed since then. Bandwidth costs MUST have come down. Eventually, Apple is going to have to do a full scale bit-rate quality upgrade or lower it's prices to stay competitive.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

There's still a premium on the UK store. DRM songs=79p, iTunes plus songs=99p. There's no point complaining, but maybe one day we'll get the same price as you!

If i search for music I know to be iTunes plus it comes up at 99p like you say. However, if you click on the iTunes Plus link on the store home, it says cannot connect, busy. I hope this means they haven't finish sorting it for the UK - it would be pretty bizzarre not to have the same pricing here.

 

[IJ Reilly]

We don't know the situation. It's possible that EMI insisted on getting more for tracks without DRM initially. If they gave Amazon a cut rate, that would have given leverage to Apple to insist on that pricing as well.

We do know that Apple makes only a few cents per song, so Apple could not have cut their prices by $0.30 per track unless they are now paying that much less to the labels. We know that Apple is not going to sell music at a loss. As always, the labels have far more influence on music pricing than the retailers.

 

[Porchland]

Must get more memory... feeling urge to buy more... trying to resist...

Would the increased file size of new tracks be the only reason not to do this? If it's $.99 either way, it seems like the choice is whether I want non-DRM, slightly higher quality tracks that take up twice the space or DRM'd, current quality, current sized tracks.

Frankly, I could care less about DRM and the increased "quality" is largely imaginary/indiscernible, so I will probably stick with the current scheme.

 

[seashellz2]

can you convert 44khz CDs to 48khz? (DVD spec, but higher quality CDs)
with the proper sound editing app?

 

[Drumjim85]

can you convert 44khz CDs to 48khz? (DVD spec, but higher quality CDs)
with the proper sound editing app?

yes you CAN.... but it won't sound any better...