Apple and EMI: no more DRM

[surur]

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.

So basically for you, and 90% of people (from the EMI tests) the new price at Itunes is $1.30? The lower price might as well not exist, as there's "only one I'd even consider parting with cash for"?

Surur

 

[surur]

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.

Dont you think its a bit early to make your judgment, considering you will have to wait till May at least before the first DRM-free tracks can be purchased, and that yahoo has been doing DRM-free track experiments for a while now. I expect them to announce similar deals quite soon.

Surur

 

[surur]

This Engadget article represents most of my views:

Last night the lot of us Engadget editors went to bed with sweet dreams of a DRM-free world dancing through our little heads. Lo and behold, this morning we woke up and to our pleasant surprise, EMI announced that in conjunction with Apple, it would make its entire digital catalogue available on iTunes completely DRM-free. The watershed moment we've all been waiting for -- the first of the Big Four music businesses makes one of the most pro-consumer moves we've seen in years. Or did they? Was today's announcement a real commitment dedicated to consumers' digital rights? Or was it a play for disenfranchised music lovers' hearts? We have a feeling the answer lies somewhere in the middle -- although we can't help but feel the whole thing is gestural at best, and subterfuge at worst. Here's why.

For years Apple has said that given the choice between DRMed and DRM-free media ecosystems, it would always choose the former. Thankfully things seemed to be looking up when Jobs apparently had a change of heart after last year's crippling European pressures wrought havoc on the public perception of the iMonopoly. But we're still nowhere near there yet -- and we don't just mean that the other big labels, Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner, haven't switched over to DRM-free. What we're seeing here is a rabbit being pulled from a hat; it's wonderful, but what does it mean?

We should be clear to start: we don't believe Jobs is leading by example here -- EMI is. Apple is providing the venue for EMI's great DRM-free music experiment, but Stevie J. is asking the labels do what he says -- not what he does. Now would be a good time to remind everyone that with last year's acquisition of Pixar, Steve Jobs became the single largest shareholder in the Walt Disney Company. With his $4 billion+ stake in the media megacorp and his seat on the board of directors, you'd think the largest single shareholder would be quick to encourage Disney-owned labels, like Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records, to "embrace [DRM-free] sales wholeheartedly." Perhaps Jobs and Iger don't see as eye-to-eye as they previously postured, or perhaps Jobs is waiting to see whether this is actually the right move for the business, consumers be damned.

The finer details of EMI and Jobs's announcement today were also dubious. Together they conflated DRM-free music with the discerning tastes of audiophiles. Steve mentioned that 128-bit AAC just isn't good enough for the sharp-eared, so uncrippled tracks are being bumped to 256Kbps. This gives Apple the ability to sell the music as a separate product and price point, while giving consumers the illusion of greater value. But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's a right, and we demand it. You don't pay a premium for higher quality DRM-free physical media -- DVD Audio and SACD discs costs the same as CDs (in fact, often times they come as hybrids on the same media). Asking customers to pay 30% more for no DRM and a higher bitrate is a distraction, a parlor trick to take our attention away from the philosophical issue: EMI is still selling DRMed music. EMI CEO Eric Nicoli said, "Not everybody cares about interoperability or sound quality." Since when did the two become so intrinsically linked? Sure, not everyone cares to vote either, that doesn't mean it's a premium privilege. Nicoli also stated EMI has taken the view that it must "trust consumers." It's true, today's announcement shows more trust than they ever displayed before -- but it's still conditional trust.

So why not make 99-cent 128-bit AAC tracks DRM free as well? We don't think there's an easy answer, but perhaps this is a move more tentative than people realize; this whole uncrippled music thing might just be an experiment. Assume it's a test to see how many people will buy DRM-free music, and possibly also a test to see how many copy it. If the experiment fails EMI and Apple can blame lack of consumer interest, or quickly inflated rates of piracy -- but they certainly wouldn't ever admit that the 30% price premium and inability to choose smaller file sizes and lower bitrates will have anything to do with lack of uptake. Meanwhile unwitting customers -- the type not to know of the crippling perils of DRM until it's too late -- will just go on buying the cheaper 99-cent tracks. So perhaps you can see why we don't fully believe that Jobs & Co. yet fully believe in a DRM-free ecosystem.

Now take a look at Steve's response to the question of whether TV shows will be sold without DRM. (And keep that $4 billion dollar stake / board of directors seat in mind.) Jobs stated he believed that video is different, and that movies are not an appropriate analogue because they aren't distributed without DRM at the same frequency of sales as music. But why is media not media to the man that's made peddling this media the crux of his business? What is the real difference between music and TV shows and movies when it comes to end-user consumption? We suspect we don't need to answer, but we'd also like to point out that it's probably safe to estimate that nearly 100% of Americans are in range of terrestrial analogue broadcasts from all the "majors" of their particular industry -- and all these broadcasts of flagship, primetime shows are completely DRM-free in analog and often digital TV streams, with which people can record and do with as they please. Jobs's argument about TV, movies, and DRM makes even less sense from a protection point of view: what's easier for users to pirate, a 50MB album, or a 5GB movie?

Lastly, we'd like to point out that, coincidentally, very, very few devices actually stand to benefit from Apple selling DRM-free AAC tracks. The iPod plays MP3s, but popular devices devices by all the big companies -- iRiver, Creative, Archos, most SanDisk devices, etc. (we forgetting any?) -- do not support AAC. In fact, the only other devices that we can think of that supports AAC are a handful of Sony players, the Sansa E200R, and the Zune -- and good luck getting that to work with your Mac or iTunes. We understand it may be a little much to ask that iTunes break its vertical integration and be made extensible for additional device support with this new DRM-free approach, but really, what's the point? Almost no devices play AAC, and Apple is deliberately not making these downloads available in MP3.

The bottom line is this: we want to live in a DRM-free world, and while we're not necessarily convinced that Jobs, Apple, Disney, and EMI do too, at least some of the players in this ecosystem are willing to look at it from the consumer's point of view. That's some of the best news we've heard about the record industry in a long, long while, and we honestly do hope that it sparks an uptick in sales for an industry in turmoil. But we don't approve of misleading sales pitches, confusing conditions, and second guessing what should be a consumer right, and making it seem like some kind of privilege. If these companies are going to dump DRM, they need to really dump it, and never look back -- the buying public, Engadget included, certainly won't.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/02/apple-and-emi-ditching-drm-is-good-but-its-not-good-enough/

Surur

 

[marcol]

So basically for you, and 90% of people (from the EMI tests) the new price at Itunes is $1.30? The lower price might as well not exist, as there's "only one I'd even consider parting with cash for"?

For me personally the only price I'd consider paying is $1.29. My point, for the third time, was that the price of 128 kbps DRMed ACC files is exactly the same as it always was. The price of these tracks has not increased and they're still available.

 

[marcol]

Dont you think its a bit early to make your judgment, considering you will have to wait till May at least before the first DRM-free tracks can be purchased, and that yahoo has been doing DRM-free track experiments for a while now.

Since you highlighted it I don't think you can have missed the 'at this point' in my statement.

I expect them to announce similar deals quite soon.

As I said, I hope that this is the case. At this point Apple is the bird in the bird in the hand though. I'm not privy to what other distributers will do, but as I speculated earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go the DRM-free route too.

 

[surur]

And you are missing my point, which is that the other option might as well not exist. From the EMI presentation 90% of people chose the more expensive non-DRM music, and like most, you (and me) are one of them, and would never buy the crippled version given a choice. The reality is that the price is now higher at Itunes.

Surur

 

[marcol]

This Engadget article represents most of my views:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/02/apple-and-emi-ditching-drm-is-good-but-its-not-good-enough/

I agree with a lot of it too, although had I been writing it I think I'd have emphasised the positives rather more.

I would take issue with 'In fact, the only other devices that we can think of that supports AAC are a handful of Sony players, the Sansa E200R, and the Zune' as it is a bit misleading. Treos* and Nokia smartphones also play AACs, as does my daughter's Sony Ericsson W810i (and presumably at least some other SE phones). Nokia sold only slightly fewer smartphones last year than Apple did iPods.

*Only Palm OS with PocketTunes? WM AAC players?

 

[archie]

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

Oh, mannnn...
I can't possibly discuss this with you. There are too many issues like: you most probably and undoubtedly refusing to believe that AAC eliminates redundancies in the coded audio signal to achieve more compact file sizes while maintaining superiority.

And the fact that I need to bring up bit rates not being equivalent is scary as well.

I know what lossless means but it is apparent that it is you that does not have enough knowledge to bring to the table to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[marcol]

And you are missing my point, which is that the other option might as well not exist. From the EMI presentation 90% of people chose the more expensive non-DRM music, and like most, you (and me) are one of them, and would never buy the crippled version given a choice.

Yeah, but we're not existing iTMS customers. Is the 90% 90% of people who used iTMS in the past or just 90% of people? Anyway, even if it's the former, there's still 10% of people who'd prefer the old option, and the cost of the product they'd be buying hasn't changed.

The reality is that the price is now higher at Itunes.

One price is higher and one is the same!

I think we've done this one to death now!

 

[archie]

And you are missing my point, which is that the other option might as well not exist. From the EMI presentation 90% of people chose the more expensive non-DRM music, and like most, you (and me) are one of them, and would never buy the crippled version given a choice. The reality is that the price is now higher at Itunes.

Surur

Then why do they (and will continue to for the foreseeable future) still sell the 99? songs? This fact puts a whole in both of your arguements here.

 

[surur]

Oh, mannnn...
I can't possibly discuss this with you. There are too many issues like: you most probably and undoubtedly refusing to believe that AAC eliminates redundancies in the coded audio signal to achieve more compact file sizes while maintaining superiority.

And the fact that I need to bring up bit rates not being equivalent is scary as well.

I know what lossless means but it is apparent that it is you that does not have enough knowledge to bring to the table to have a reasonable discussion.

Archie, for some-one who is constantly wrong, I would not presume on other people's knowledge. Let me repeat - you are wrong. Again. As usual.

In blind listening tests 192 kb/sec WMA scores higher than 128 kb/sec AAC from itunes. Get over to it.
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp

Surur

 

[surur]

Yeah, but we're not existing iTMS customers. Is the 90% 90% of people who used iTMS in the past or just 90% of people? Anyway, even if it's the former, there's still 10% of people who'd prefer the old option, and the cost of the product they'd be buying hasn't changed.
One price is higher and one is the same!

I think we've done this one to death now!

Ive got some Itunes music - freed with Hymn of course. When I hear a tune I like I usually shop around all the sites trying to find it. If I find it on Itunes it will now cost more (especially now that Hymn does not work anymore).

Surur

 

[surur]

Then why do they (and will continue to for the foreseeable future) still sell the 99? songs? This fact puts a whole in both of your arguements here.

a) Not all of the labels are on board yet.
b) it hides the price increase

Do you really expect they will continue the 99c service once 80% of their music is available DRM free? It will be like "the customers have spoke and DRM has died" or something similar.

Surur

 

[dwman]

All of this seems to subvert the fact this only helps to promote/increase album sales on ITunes. The price increase will only affect singles, but entire albums can still be bought DRM free for $9.99. In the long run, this seems like the better business model for Apple.

 

[marcol]

Do you really expect they will continue the 99c service once 80% of their music is available DRM free? It will be like "the customers have spoke and DRM has died" or something similar.

You may well be right, and if you are I'd at that point agree with your contention that there's been a price increase (for purchases for parts of albums at least). One thing that makes me think they might keep 128 kbps though is iPod advertising. Those estimates of numbers of songs an iPod will hold that Apple uses so prominently would probably have to halved if they stopped selling 128 kbps songs altogether. A possible (and better) scenario is that they'll just drop DRM from 128 kbps AACs too.

 

[marcol]

Ive got some Itunes music

Apologies for being so presumptuous! That's interesting. Do you think you'll upgrade to 256 kbps (if the upgrade is available)?

 

[surur]

Apologies for being so presumptuous! That's interesting. Do you think you'll upgrade to 256 kbps (if the upgrade is available)?

I mainly have itunes because I like my music digital and legal. I also like instant gratification. When I hear a tune I like on the radio or TV I usually do web search, find out who it is by and then look for it on Rhapsody (which I pay $15/month for). If its not there I look at the various British download sites, like MSN Music, tiscali etc. If not there I look at Itunes. (If I still cant find it I look at usenet )

I will not upgrade my music, because I am probably not listening to that music any more, and if I was listening to it still I have probably already stripped the DRM or bought and ripped CD. Any future purchases from Itunes will of course be at the higher bitrate and free.

Surur

 

[marcol]

It will interesting to see if if the subscription services change at all to this latest development. I'd hope to see Rhapsody, Napster etc go with DRM-less music for purchase (to own outright) but, as you say, removing the DRM on the rented stuff seems less likely. On the other hand, the competition did just get a whole lot more attractive so they might do something.

 

[marcol]

All of this seems to subvert the fact this only helps to promote/increase album sales on ITunes. The price increase will only affect singles, but entire albums can still be bought DRM free for $9.99. In the long run, this seems like the better business model for Apple.

Apple seems keen on this. As well as shifting the balance towards complete albums with the 256 kbps pricing they just introduced that 'Complete my album' thing too. They're probably just trying to make more money of course, but as long as it's good for the consumer I've no problems with that.

 

[surur]

Apple seems keen on this. As well as shifting the balance towards complete albums with the 256 kbps pricing they just introduced that 'Complete my album' thing too. They're probably just trying to make more money of course, but as long as it's good for the consumer I've no problems with that.

Their motives are pretty transparent. Album sales are diving, and they want to encourage people toward this higher margin side of the business. The whole music business are trying to do it, hence in UK the recent introduction of the album show, which ignores promoting singles as usual, to concentrate on the album charts. Let me say on record there is nothing wrong with that, and in this case they are actually giving punters a better product at the same price, which is cool.

Surur