Apple and EMI: no more DRM

MarkY

Active member
Oct 27, 2004
34
0
0
Visit site
- 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.
I think the implication is that Job's expects others to commit. Remember, he is a master of "spin". Other labels will not join unless they have a good business reason to do so. I am not sure why EMI has done this (although I'm glad they did) but they must expect some sort of gain. If anything, Job's may have made that comment in an attempt to pressure the other labels.
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

MarkY

Active member
Oct 27, 2004
34
0
0
Visit site
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).
I was thinking the same thing after my post and I imagine your guess is corrected related to the margins on CDs versus downloads.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
I think the implication is that Job's expects others to commit. Remember, he is a master of "spin". Other labels will not join unless they have a good business reason to do so. I am not sure why EMI has done this (although I'm glad they did) but they must expect some sort of gain. If anything, Job's may have made that comment in an attempt to pressure the other labels.
This seems obvious to me. Perhaps not to everyone else...

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.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
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.

The trick is simple, and many reporters alluded to this. Who in their right mind would pay for a DRM'd track when they could buy a DRM-free one? What has happened is that Itunes basically increased prices.

Surur
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
WELL, OVER 1 BILLION SONGS WITH DRM have been sold so far. So that seems to be at least 1 "who", whom may or may not be in their right mind.

The point is, you have yet another choice now through the iTunes Store. Before you could only purchase music without DRM through digital retailers like eMusic or Puretracks or Zunior, OR purchase through outlets to get CDs or records or tapes or DVDs to then RIP and place on an iPod.

They have not increased the price of anything! They are offering another service of better quality at a marginally higher price and that is it — contrary to YOUR SPIN!
 

MarkY

Active member
Oct 27, 2004
34
0
0
Visit site
Any content that might be pirated is of a small enough quantity as to be offset by the price increase.

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.
I didn't mean to imply that any spin was directed to us (customers). IMO this is a good deal for customers and, as you mention, they are not changing the current pricing structure, just adding another option. I think we win either way.

The "spin" (maybe I used the wrong term) is directed towards the record companies. Assuming you are correct and they believe any pirated content is offset by the price increase, then we are all in good shape. However, I imagine that some record executives still view this as giving the keys to the inmates and will resist participating. Jobs isn't trying to sell us, he's trying to sell the other record companies.
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
The trick is simple, and many reporters alluded to this. Who in their right mind would pay for a DRM'd track when they could buy a DRM-free one? What has happened is that Itunes basically increased prices.
You'll be able to buy what you've been able to buy for the last three years at exactly the same price. Alongside that they've introduced a new product that is:

1) better (higher bit rate no DRM);

2) $0.30 more per track ($1.29 vs $0.99) if you don't buy complete albums;

3) the same price per track if buy complete albums - album price for both 128 kbps DRMed and 256 kbps non-DRMed: $9.99.

This is good news!
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Sorry, drm free music is not a premium product. Its what every sensible person will buy as standard. Talking about $1.30 as a price which few will pay is not consistent with reality. Basically most people will pay more, and some will pay less for a crippled product. For most people that is not a real choice.

Surur
 

vinman

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2004
138
0
0
Visit site
Sorry, drm free music is not a premium product. Its what every sensible person will buy as standard. Talking about $1.30 as a price which few will pay is not consistent with reality. Basically most people will pay more, and some will pay less for a crippled product. For most people that is not a real choice.

Surur


You're right - DRM free music (in and of itself) is not a premium product. Having the music available at double the bit rate IS a premium product. Though still a long ways from an actual cd quality bit rate, I'd gladly pay .30 more per track (keep in mind the price of an entire album remains unchanged) for better quality sound.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
You're right - DRM free music (in and of itself) is not a premium product. Having the music available at double the bit rate IS a premium product. Though still a long ways from an actual cd quality bit rate, I'd gladly pay .30 more per track (keep in mind the price of an entire album remains unchanged) for better quality sound.

So basically they bundled a premium product with a must-have feature, and are forcing you to pay more to get it. As Archie said above, the prices at Itunes have now been raised. If I go to Sarah McLachlan's website I can buy a full album in mp3 for $9.99, and uncompressed audio in FLAC for $10.99. Now that is a real service to the audiophile, not Apple's half-measure.
http://www.werkshop.com/store/artist.action?artist_id=1&cat_id=1&subcat_id=999

Surur
 

vinman

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2004
138
0
0
Visit site
So basically they bundled a premium product with a must-have feature, and are forcing you to pay more to get it. As Archie said above, the prices at Itunes have now been raised. If I go to Sarah McLachlan's website I can buy a full album in mp3 for $9.99, and uncompressed audio in FLAC for $10.99. Now that is a real service to the audiophile, not Apple's half-measure.
http://www.werkshop.com/store/artist.action?artist_id=1&cat_id=1&subcat_id=999

Surur

Yep. If all artists made their music available on their personal sites in different formats, we'd all be better off - and they could make more money, to boot. Maybe someday. Meanwhile, I'll still pay a little more for a less compressed audio file - especially if (eventually) I can use it on more than one device.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Its actually the website for her label, Nettwerk music. Anyway, congratulations for EMI and Apple. I dont mind the small increase in price, although I wish it was mp3 (which you can use in near ANYTHING without conversion, e.g. my Wii), and I hope it spreads to the other labels soon, and to the other providers like Rhapsody, which I use. In Rhapsody the subscription music will stay DRM'd I'm sure, but I hope when you buy from them the standard will be to get the music in a free and open non-DRM format.

Surur
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
So basically they bundled a premium product with a must-have feature, and are forcing you to pay more to get it. As Archie said above, the prices at Itunes have now been raised. If I go to Sarah McLachlan's website I can buy a full album in mp3 for $9.99, and uncompressed audio in FLAC for $10.99. Now that is a real service to the audiophile, not Apple's half-measure.
http://www.werkshop.com/store/artist.action?artist_id=1&cat_id=1&subcat_id=999

Surur
I NEVER said Apple raised the prices at the iTunes Store. Please do not misquote me.

Thank you.

PS: In terms of audio fidelity, there is no loss of data if the compressed audio is properly encoded using AAC. :p

PPS: Did you know the iTunes Store sells albums at $9.99 at 256 kbps, just like Sarah McLachlan's website in your example?
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
I NEVER said Apple raised the prices at the iTunes Store. Please do not misquote me.

Really?

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 tha t 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.


PS: In terms of audio fidelity, there is no loss of data if the compressed audio is properly encoded using AAC. :p

You do know what lossy and loss-less encoding means, dont you? Especially if you are going to be forced to transcode from AAC to MP3, the higher quality the source file the better. Nothing beats lossless for this. AAC as used by Apple at present is LOSSY.

PPS: Did you know the iTunes Store sells albums at $9.99 at 256 kbps, just like Sarah McLachlan's website in your example?

Itunes sell albums at $9.99 at 128 kb/sec AT PRESENT. This was always considered to be pretty low. Most other services used 192 kb/sec. They of course do not sell albums at 1411.2 kbit/sec, which is what real lossless encoding means.

Surur
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
Your wording had me saying that there was no choice because "the iTunes prices have now been raised", when in fact my wording when taken in context, refers to a "price increase" in a second option as compared to the first option.

The same option is still there at the same price. Apple did not raise these prices.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
You do know what lossy and loss-less encoding means, dont you? Especially if you are going to be forced to transcode from AAC to MP3, the higher quality the source file the better. Nothing beats lossless for this. AAC as used by Apple at present is LOSSY.



Itunes sell albums at $9.99 at 128 kb/sec AT PRESENT. This was always considered to be pretty low. Most other services used 192 kb/sec. They of course do not sell albums at 1411.2 kbit/sec, which is what real lossless encoding means.

Surur
Are you aware of the techniques used in AAC compression and the strategies behind them?

Apparently not; otherwise, you would not consider it low in comparison to the 192 kbps used in other formats.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Are you aware of the techniques used in AAC compression and the strategies behind them?

Apparently not; otherwise, you would not consider it low in comparison to the 192 kbps used in other formats.

Archie, dont make me laugh (again). Do you actually know what "no loss of data" means?

And you do know WMA at 192 (which is what Yahoo, Napster and Rhapsody uses) has better audio quality than 128 kb AAC, dont you?

Surur
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
Sorry, drm free music is not a premium product. Its what every sensible person will buy as standard. Talking about $1.30 as a price which few will pay is not consistent with reality. Basically most people will pay more, and some will pay less for a crippled product. For most people that is not a real choice.
Call the product crippled if you want (I'd agree), but it's same product as was there yesterday and it's the same price. There has been no price increase for that product, which was my point. They've introduced a new and different product that, under some circumstances but not others, is more expensive than the old product. It's also better. That's all I was trying to say. These are facts!
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
And you do know WMA at 192 (which is what Yahoo, Napster and Rhapsody uses) has better audio quality than 128 kb AAC, dont you?
Hmmm... 128 kbps DRMed AAC, 192 kbps DRMed WMA, or 256 kbps DRM-free AAC. I know which I'd choose. In fact, there's only one I'd even consider parting with cash for. I hope other distribution channels go the same way as Apple, but at this point iTunes looks much, much better than Napster, Rhapsody or Zune Marketplace, to me at least.
 

Trending Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
260,018
Messages
1,765,333
Members
441,221
Latest member
CØR