Apple and EMI: no more DRM
Steve Jobs and EMI Press Conference on Monday - No More DRM
Let's hope this is true (looks like it is) and other labels follow suit.
128 kbps AAC?
- 04-02-2007, 04:53 AM #2
A link on (what appears to be!) the EMI web site:
takes you to:
2 April Press Conference
A live audio webcast of the presentation will be available at 1pm London time on Monday 2 April 2007.
Eric Nicoli, CEO EMI Group
Steve Jobs, CEO Apple
If this is an AFD joke, it's certainly involved a lot of effort!
- 04-02-2007, 07:22 AM #5
- 04-02-2007, 07:30 AM #7
- 04-02-2007, 07:33 AM #10
- 04-02-2007, 07:33 AM #11
From the press release:
"Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied."
I wish Jobs would check the exchange rate while he's in London.
- 04-02-2007, 07:49 AM #15
- 04-02-2007, 07:50 AM #16
- - Q: You mentioned 2.5 million tracks available by year end... obviously that isn't just EMI...
- A: (Steve) Yes... that is our projection for other labels coming on board as well.
So others are commited to this too? Excellent if true. If memory serves, there are currently 4 million tracks in iTunes so I guess they must have at least one more of the big four.
- 04-02-2007, 07:51 AM #18
Apple press release:
The iTunes Store features the world’s largest catalog with over five million songs, 350 television shows and over 400 movies.
- 04-02-2007, 08:39 AM #21
I guess EMI's motivation is too sell more tracks! The product is much better now so it's not hard to see how this might be the case. I'd be surprised if EMI didn't sell a lot more downloadable music as a result of this move but I suspect that most of this will be at the expense of CD sales. Still, they'll be quite happy with that, presuming that the margins on downloads are better than on CDs (a guess on my part).
You're right that it's hard to know what the state of play with other labels is, but, if they're not already, they'll likely sign up if this proves a successful means of selling lots of higher-margin music.
- 04-02-2007, 09:29 AM #23
- 04-02-2007, 10:28 AM #24
Let me explain. But before I do, I have to say I disagree with your statement of Steve Jobs being a master of spin. It is not that at all, it is just that he looks at things differently than others - truly different.
For example, 10 months ago, when the 5 year contract was up between Apple and the record labels, every single big name label wanted to charge $1.29 per song at the iTunes Store. Steve Jobs was able to maintain the 99¢ price point in the contract renegotiations. But now he has an option for the record labels to get their $1.29 pricing that they want.
Steve looked at the problem differently and was able to provide a solution that would give the labels (the greedy bastards that they are) the money they want while also providing the consumers a perceived value, and an obvious benefit, in this price increase. This benefit being DRM free music AND also audio quality that is greatly increased, which is not a sacrifice on the part of the labels. The labels only sacrifice is providing content that is DRM free and this is greatly justified with the price increase and the numbers will show that the quantity of purchased songs from the iTS is small enough as to not be a concern of piracy and such.
Any content that might be pirated is of a small enough quantity as to be offset by the price increase.
So, I would argue that Jobs didn't make the comment to "pressure" labels, he made the comment because the labels WANT to charge $1.29 per song. Hence, other labels will be coming on board. There will be no pressuring. There will be no spinning. The announcement seemed to be quite forth-coming.To get the songs without DRM, you have to pay $1.29 - plus you get extra fidelity; to pay 99¢, you have to have DRM.There doesn't seem to be any "spin" in this. How are we being tricked into just believing this is good when it really isn't? This question is rhetorical of course because there really is no tricking involved; or "spinning" for that matter.
- 04-02-2007, 10:33 AM #25