eMusic.com
Audiolunchbox.com
Aimestreet.com
Three online music services with no DRM that work with the iPod.
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.
Steve Jobs 'Thoughts on Music'
- Thread starter spicyapple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
eMusic.com
Audiolunchbox.com
Aimestreet.com
Three online music services with no DRM that work with the iPod.
simply put it this way, I don't believe thats the case.
You wonder if these guys also being pressed by label companies.
There's something about it NOT having ANY copy protection that guilts me into buying it. With Windows, I feel like a criminal every time I have to re-enter my COA, where as with OS X I feel like I'm being trusted, and I wouldn't want to break that trust. Hence I buy OS X upgrades, and get pissed off at MS for making me feel like a criminal (but don't ever buy their OS's because my computer can't run a newer OS usually, and I upgrade with the new PC)
Oh, and back on topic... yeah, that was an amazing read. thanks SJ!
Frankly no, since they don't carry music on RIAA labels. Seeing as how they're the only ones that give a hoot about DRM, I highly doubt the labels represented on these websites are applying pressure.
Could be real soon now based on various reports.
e.g. http://www.betanews.com/article/IHT_Major_Label_to_Embrace_MP3_Soon/1169573210
My guess is that at least some of the contracts with the labels are up for renewal and Steve doesn't want to get blind sided by the labels going off and selling MP3s without Apple.
B
LOL!! I'll second that...but I like the element of surprise...who'd have thought Steve was going to drop a 'good news' story. just like that out of the blue...
I'll give you a few reasons from personal experience:
* Low comparative bitrate - if I'm paying for something that locks me in to only Apple hardware/software, I want the highest bitrate available.
* Apple DRM music will not burn with either Toast or Jam anymore (it used to until Apple got on their case).
* "Mix" CDs in iTunes are one thing, but proper waveform observation and editing, crossfading, and even beat matching are next to impossible with DRM music (since editing programs and DJ programs won't open DRM music). Obviously any compressed music is not pure audio experience, but AAC files are much more portable than vinyl or CDs.
* Oh yeah, and my iPod just broke a couple weeks ago, and the only place I can listen to any iTMS downloaded music is on my iMac.
At least until JHymn stopped working I could download a file, strip and rip it to another program as needed.
Steve used a bit of creative statistiking in there.
He says
"Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, thats 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold."
and deduces that
"Todays most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats."
HOWEVER
"Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods."
So, technically, there could be 2 billion DRMed songs on every iPod if it weren't for the capacity issue.
He says
"Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, thats 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold."
and deduces that
"Todays most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats."
HOWEVER
"Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods."
So, technically, there could be 2 billion DRMed songs on every iPod if it weren't for the capacity issue.
I agree with Steve, if the labels are selling music with no DRM (CD's) and it is easy to rip the music and make it available for free in the Internet, Why should Apple and others be forced to protect something that the labels themselves sell with no protection?
Since when is 10 minutes of effort (rip from CD) going to stop pirates?
Makes absolute sense not to sell DRM music.
As to movies, .... Pigs already fly and hell has frozen over a few times, but video will continue being sold in protected form in media and via iTunes. Movies is too much money to create and to line the pockets of Hollywood to go out in unprotected form. At least not for several more years.
Since when is 10 minutes of effort (rip from CD) going to stop pirates?
Makes absolute sense not to sell DRM music.
As to movies, .... Pigs already fly and hell has frozen over a few times, but video will continue being sold in protected form in media and via iTunes. Movies is too much money to create and to line the pockets of Hollywood to go out in unprotected form. At least not for several more years.
Poor Itunes Sales?
My take on Steve's article is that the itunes store is doing poorly. He admitted that only 3% of the music on an ipod is from his store. He's looking for someone to blame and he points the finger at the record companies. I don't know if Apple invented fairplay on their own or if they were forced to by record companies, but I do know that it is hurting sales on the itunes store. I don't think Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or any phone company will be major players in online music sales in the future. How hard is it to set up an online store? The hard part of music sales is getting peoples attention in an increasingly over entertained world.
My take on Steve's article is that the itunes store is doing poorly. He admitted that only 3% of the music on an ipod is from his store. He's looking for someone to blame and he points the finger at the record companies. I don't know if Apple invented fairplay on their own or if they were forced to by record companies, but I do know that it is hurting sales on the itunes store. I don't think Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or any phone company will be major players in online music sales in the future. How hard is it to set up an online store? The hard part of music sales is getting peoples attention in an increasingly over entertained world.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
I have to say I'm impressed. I've gained a new respect for Steve Jobs after reading that. I always thought he was in favor of DRM, but it looks obvious that he's just going along with it since this is what the industry demanded. That is a huge voice, and some good well-written arguments, in favor of getting rid of DRM.
WRONG!. the iTunes Store is going great but it is probably slightly above a break even for Apple. It is just that there is SO much music out there in personal collections that most (myself included) use iTunes and iPod to manage and take our music with us.
I for one would do just fine with NO digital downloading EVER. I love buying CDs. Playing that quality at home or in my car , having the art work, no limitations and then loading some into iTunes so I can take 20,000 songs with me anytime.
Actually it shows extreme confidence in their product. They are the market leader and as such they have a lot to loose by opening up DRM files. Other stores and mp3 hardware makers must love this. As a consumer your investment into whatever store/mp3 player brand you chose to go with, becomes deeper and deeper making it harder to switch even if you wanted to. It is a bold move, and he wouldn't do it if he thought it would hurt ipod sales, which seems to be the main concern.
Apple's interest
The thing that struck me about Jobs' commentary is that dumping DRM is not necessarily in Apple's best interest. DRM may hinder consumers (a populist thing for Jobs to say), but it also aides a closed system (iTunes/iTS/iPod) with big market share.
An Apple customer that cannot now take his tracks and go elsewhere would be able to do so if DRM were removed from his iTunes-bought library. Good for him; bad for Apple.
Aside from the Europe problems, why would Apple risk a good thing (for Apple) by giving away part of what makes it such a good thing? (Maybe it's nothing more than the Europe problem.)
I don't see it helping Apple grow its iTS business. Does Apple think there is a huge market of potential customers sitting out there waiting to come to Apple until DRM is gone? No. Does Apple think the 20 percent of the market it doesn't have is worth risking the 80 percent it does have? No.
This whole thing just doesn't sound like Apple. I would expect Apple to go toe-to-toe with those countries that are whining about DRM, shut down one of the European stores if it came to that, wait for livid users to get their governments to undo it all, and force its own way.
What's the deal?
The thing that struck me about Jobs' commentary is that dumping DRM is not necessarily in Apple's best interest. DRM may hinder consumers (a populist thing for Jobs to say), but it also aides a closed system (iTunes/iTS/iPod) with big market share.
An Apple customer that cannot now take his tracks and go elsewhere would be able to do so if DRM were removed from his iTunes-bought library. Good for him; bad for Apple.
Aside from the Europe problems, why would Apple risk a good thing (for Apple) by giving away part of what makes it such a good thing? (Maybe it's nothing more than the Europe problem.)
I don't see it helping Apple grow its iTS business. Does Apple think there is a huge market of potential customers sitting out there waiting to come to Apple until DRM is gone? No. Does Apple think the 20 percent of the market it doesn't have is worth risking the 80 percent it does have? No.
This whole thing just doesn't sound like Apple. I would expect Apple to go toe-to-toe with those countries that are whining about DRM, shut down one of the European stores if it came to that, wait for livid users to get their governments to undo it all, and force its own way.
What's the deal?
and yet you and many others haven't shown a shred of plausible evidence to support your case (saying "i doubt it" is not an argument). I can't believe I read through pages of non-arguments like this.
History tells us that Apple's iTunes was the first successful download music store. Conjecturally, the terms of the license were both give and take for both Apple and the labels: you give up some and you gain some. As for the DRM, I'm willing to say Apple whoeheartedly accepted it, since the alternative is no licensing deal. Whether they knew how to play the DRM game to "lock people in," they probably didn't realize they would be in a position they are in right now, so having a DRM was probably an unexpected windfall; no one can deny that Apple was able to use its DRM to its advantage. One should not be encumbered by the 20-20 vision a hindsight might give, so to argue that Apple knew all along from day one is patently ridiculous. They may have had various scenarios of which this is one of them, but to state that they knew, no way. I'm not saying that you're saying it, I just happened to choose your post to respond.
The proverbial ball have been served to the labels' court. To say that Jobs' open letter is a response to what's been happening in Europe, it pretty damed obvious. It remains to be seen how the labels will react. One can theorize the possible responses:
1. "Sure, we'll remove DRM, but give us a cut of your iPod sales."
2. "**** off."
My guess is that the labels will choose to respond with #1: No DRM, sure, but pay us a percentage of your iPod sales as "tax," which effectively puts the ball back into Apple's court. It's not unprecendented. What is unprecedented is that it took an MP3 player manufacturer/music store operator, the one who has >70% of the US market share at that, to come out on record that they're not happy with DRM and they'd be happy to sell music minus DRM.
Certianly there is nothing in itunes that locks you in to itunes outside of DRMed songs. What I meant was that when buying a new mp3 player for a couple of hundred bucks, 20 bucks isn't going to hold people back. On the other hand, most of the population is tech timid, and while they are in no way locked into itunes, the time and worry of transfering music libraries, learning a new system, etc is more unappealing than paying an extra 22 bucks. Therefore, I think that for most people, the jukebox software that is used to sync with a player is a bigger impediment to changing player than the few DRM songs they might have.
As reported at MWSF last month Apple is now the fourth largest seller of music in the US after Wal-mart, Best Buy and Target.
Poorly? I think not. Beyond expectations, yes!
B
the deal is that, according to Jobs, statistically speaking, most songs on a typical iPod has 22 (out of a 1,000 average capacity) songs with DRM. So people are free to choose a different player/software practically at any time. So in effect, what Jobs is saying is that Apple sold iPods (nearly) solely on the virtues of the player and software, not based on DRM and the "lock in" it provides. So even if DRM on the iTunes store was removed, he's saying that they'd still be able to sell a ton of iPods.