[marcol]

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?

[surur]

Late AFD?

Surur

[marcol]

If it is it's a very good one and has Reuters, WSJ and the Guardian all reporting it.

[marcol]

A link on (what appears to be!) the EMI web site:

http://www.emigroup.com/Default.htm

takes you to:

http://w3.cantos.com/07/pjxrobbi-703....php?task=view

2 April Press Conference
A live audio webcast of the presentation will be available at 1pm London time on Monday 2 April 2007.
Agenda:

Eric Nicoli, CEO EMI Group
Steve Jobs, CEO Apple
Q&A

If this is an AFD joke, it's certainly involved a lot of effort!

[surur]

Well, its 1 pm and nothing is happening.

Surur

[marcol]

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/02/...ence-coverage/

[surur]

Wow! music in mp3, even videos DRM free!! Great news.

Surur

[marcol]

Costs?

[marcol]

"From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade"

Fair enough

[surur]

Damn!! Apple still using AAC.

Surur

[archie]

Wow! music in mp3, even videos DRM free!! Great news.

Surur

Not through the iTunes Store - its 256 kbps ACC; which is way better than your MP3s :-P. Plus the videos are free.


PS: I think its funny that your waiting on pins and needles to hear Steve Jobs.

[marcol]

Damn!! Apple still using AAC.

You'll have to buy a Zune, or an iPod

Press release:

http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

[marcol]

Not through the iTunes Store - its 256 kbps ACC; which is way better than your MP3s :-P.

I can't tell the difference between any of them at 192 kbps or above.

[marcol]

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.

[archie]

I can't tell the difference between any of them at 192 kbps or above.

Your not listening through an iPod then... or a Bryston BP26 fully discrete Class A operational preamplifier with a Bryston DAC, modified Carver CS1 Amplifier, NAD CD Transport, and an Adcom AC Enhancer in front of a pair of Boston Acoustics T1200s.

[surur]

I'm here to listen to EMI, not Jobs.

Surur

[marcol]

- 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.

[archie]

"From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade"

Fair enough

But if you buy a complete album, the price is still $9.99.

[marcol]

Your not listening through an iPod then...

Yes I am!

or a Bryston BP26 fully discrete Class A operational preamplifier with a Bryston DAC, modified Carver CS1 Amplifier, NAD CD Transport, and an Adcom AC Enhancer in front of a pair of Boston Acoustics T1200s.

You're right there! My home hifi is an old pair of Missions and a Denon amp.

[marcol]

Apple press release:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/error.html#mn_p

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.

Slight correction (info from the Apple press release) - 5 million tracks, not 4:

The iTunes Store features the world’s largest catalog with over five million songs, 350 television shows and over 400 movies.

[MarkY]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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