EMI Group will soon sell digital music with better sound quality and no digital rights management restrictions through Apple's iTunes Store.
EMI's entire digital music catalog will be available in premium DRM-free form via iTunes in May, the music label said Monday at a press conference in London. Beatles tunes under EMI's control, however, are not part of the plan.
Higher-quality music files, which will play on any computer and any digital-audio player, will not replace the copy-protected EMI music currently sold through iTunes. Rather, they will complement the standard 99-cent iTunes downloads and will be sold at a premium: $1.29 per song.
Consumers who have already purchased EMI tracks containing Apple's FairPlay copy protection will be able to upgrade them to the premium version for 30 cents, EMI said. Full albums in DRM-free form can be bought at the same price as standard iTunes albums.
"We are committed to embracing change, and to developing products and services that consumers really want to buy," said Eric Nicoli, chief executive of EMI. Nicoli cited internal EMI tests in which higher-quality, DRM-free songs outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10-to-1.
The higher sound quality of EMI's premium tracks is produced by increasing their bit rate, which translates to larger files with reduced compression.
After initially selling the premium DRM-free music through Apple, EMI plans to expand the program to other music outlets. Retailers partnering with EMI, which also plans to remove DRM from its video downloads, will be able to choose from a variety of levels of sound quality. Retailers will also be able to choose whether to sell files in the MP3, WMA or AAC format.
In iTunes, music will be sold in a 256 kilobit-per-second AAC format.
The packed press conference at EMI's London headquarters featured a performance by EMI recording artist The Good, The Bad and The Queen, as well as a guest appearance by Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
Jobs, who stressed the need for higher-quality music with the rise of high-fidelity home speaker systems, called EMI's move "the next big step forward in the digital-music revolution--the movement to completely interoperable DRM-free music." He added that "Apple will reach out to all the major and independent labels to give them the same opportunity."
Jobs expressed confidence in Apple's plan to offer the premium DRM-free tracks alongside standard ones. "What we're adding is a choice--a new choice," Jobs said regarding Apple's decision to make available two levels of sound quality and of DRM restriction. He suggested that half of iTunes' music tracks will be available in both DRM-loaded and DRM-free form by the end of 2007.
"EMI is pioneering something that I think is going to become very popular," Jobs said when asked if other music labels would likely add DRM-free music to their iTunes catalog.
But James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, said he believes that other labels may approach the prospect of DRM-free music sales with trepidation.
"The timing of when they sign on is going to be what's interesting to watch," McQuivey said. "They will eventually, but eventually could mean a year from now. Now that a major label has done it, they're all going to want to wait and see the proof that it worked."
In February, Jobs released an open letter to record companies, encouraging them to abandon DRM restrictions and claiming that Apple had only implemented the controversial system because the four major record labels would not have otherwise signed up with iTunes.
News.com Poll
In the recent past, EMI has put forth some initiatives in digital-music distribution that could be considered somewhat experimental, most notably offering its music catalog to peer-to-peer services like Mashboxx and iMesh. But until this point, DRM-free music had been largely the domain of services like eMusic, with songs limited to those from independent labels.
"This is something that Apple wants, but it's something that EMI needs," McQuivey said.
"Together with the RIAA, (EMI) was one of the loudest voices among the labels sponsoring the aggressive lawsuits against people who were file-sharing music," McQuivey said of the Recording Industry Association of America's persistent legal battles against music pirates using peer-to-peer networks. "It's not to say that you can't aggressively pursue file sharers and develop a digital strategy, but they didn't. They chose to focus on the lawsuits, hoping to keep the CD business alive."
EMI announced the press conference on Sunday, leading to much speculation of whether it was a
prank--"We are acutely aware that the invitations were issued on April Fools' Day," Nicoli observed--and whether the event might have been held to unveil the
availability of songs by The Beatles on iTunes.
Music from the Fab Four has been released by EMI since 1962 and is currently unavailable for legal digital download anywhere on the Internet. When a reporter asked Jobs whether a Beatles deal with EMI was upcoming, Jobs replied, "I want to know that, too." Nicoli stressed that "we're working on it."
I suppose I'm being extremely picky here, but I have quite a few questions:
1. What's the quality diffference? If there's a 30 cents price increase, then it'd better be very significant.
2. Does this mean that more audio devices can connect to iTunes, since the songs can be played on any device?
3. If they increased the price because of the quality difference, then why didn't Apple/EMI just go the Yahoo Music route and offer unrestricted songs at the same quality? That way there wouldn't be a price increase and it would appeal to consumers far more.
1) It isn't significant - its only slightly discernable but the big thing you'd really be paying for here is the DRM-free bit, which is totally worth it.
2) DRM free means unprotected-AAC, which means that you can play these premium iTunes tracks on more players (Zune, Walkman, Creative players) however I'm pretty sure Apple wont be implementing a way for them to sync to iTunes :P
1. The original bitrate is 128 kbps the new DRM free music is 256 kbps. So double the quality for 30 cents. (that doesn't matter to me though because I can't hear the difference between CD music and iTunes music)
2. I doubt that you will be able to connect any other mp3 player to iTunes, it just wouldn't make money sense for Apple. However, you should be able to put the music on any mp3 player you want you'll just have to find the file on you computer first (which is not a big deal)
3. This probably had more to do with EMI then Apple but the answer is money. EMI's testing "higher-quality, DRM-free songs outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10 to 1" My guess would be they are betting people are willing to pay more to not have DRM. And it is probably a good bet.
The best form of of control there is, Is music and big fatcat giglo-maniacs know this only too well. One track takes roughly one 30th the effort a movie takes but is that reflected in the price.
Independent artists are filitered "really what the hell was the point in a freedom of speach/freedom of expression act".
It all uses lossy compression so its still not as good and certianly not better than a CD even with the 24bit credential.
The creativity is pretty much limited to monotone without much of a dynamic range(except clasical) And these so called modern artists seem to have never heard of tempo shifts.Do the maths (Hypnotic brainwashing for the masses, may anyone challange this we'll crush them(isn't that true Cnet(um mp3.com)).
the words that come to mind over this piticular issue i most certianly can not repeat on this forum but it is anything but cool more like crawl.
Almost everyone hates DRM, now we have a big label giving us what 'we want'. We need to show our support by buying their tracks. If this is seen as successful the other labels can't be far behind.
The fact that they are only releasing higher quality tracks and charging extra to get them DRM-free leads me to believe that they are merely trying to charge a piracy fee. Why charge more when the higher quality file is just as easy to make unless you also assume that every customer is a pirate?
Those of you who railed at jobs and called him a fraud when he wrote his open letter supporting DRM-free music. Yeah, you people, the one who smugly wagged your fingers and shouted "Put your money where your mouth is."
Here's his response. I hope you don't choke on the feathers as you eat your well-deserved crow!
If you're happy with CDs then I'm happy for you. I, however, am running out of the extra room for CD and DVD storage. Also, I can't tell the difference in the sound quality of a CD and an iTunes track. We might can blame that on my hearing (its not bad but its not the best in the world either) but if I can't hear a difference then it doesn't matter if there is one.
The nice thing about CDs is you can then make your own DRM-free music files in whatever format you like! (I prefer FLAC personally, though most people are prob just as happy with other formats).
I for one am very glad they are doing this. If I buy a track, I want to be able to do whatever I want with it. I want to be able to put it on all my computers, all my iPod's, on my phone, on my PSP, on everything. I can finally do that since they are taking away the DRM. I think more people will actually start buying music, especially if they view it like I do.
I wouldn't go ordering iTunes DRM free music just yet. You better make sure all the devices you want to use can support AAC files. For now I would hold off until mp3 file formats are offered.
But you are 100%, this will be the catalyst to mass digital music sales.
I've got a high end hi-fi, and through careful examination, I've decided that I cannot distinguish 256 bit AAC files from the original cd. Also, and for comparison, I've just ripped my cd from Pilot Speed "Into The West" three times. 128 bit resulted in 58 mb of disk storage used up. 256 bit, 113 mb's Lossless? A whopping FOUR HUNDRED FOUR POINT SIX MB's!!! I've got over FOUR HUNDRED CD's!!! At 256 bit sampling, I can, and do, carry everything I own around on my iPod. Using lossless, I'd need to carry my desktop, CRT and a very, very long extension cord with me, and I'd be pretty unhappy about it, too.
This is great news and is obviously the future of digital downloads (videos and music alike).
The only problem with this implementation is Apple's insistence upon AAC. Apple is trying to lock people into the "Applesphere" (sorta) once again.
If Apple was 100% serious about offering digital downloads DRM free then they would have offered them in the more universal mp3 format (I know AAC can be converted relatively easily but if I am paying a premium I don't want to have to waste my time converting the files).
Also, Apple should be offering encoding choices, for example, charge 1.30 for 256 VBR but maybe change 1.50 for 320 or lossless.
But all these things will come in the coming years (though you can get them now with AllofMp3.com).
As for now, I applaud EMI for taking this desperately needed initiative.
1. the problem with the loseless format is that is not what the MAJORITY are asking for. As someone stated, most people can't tell the damn difference. FOr a music store, selling loseless files takes up a LOT more space and on the user end, A LOT more time to download. No, we're not ready to go there yet. You're better off buying a cd and converting it into whatever format you want if that kind of quality is important to you.
2. "The only problem with this implementation is Apple's insistence upon AAC. Apple is trying to lock people into the "Applesphere" (sorta) once again."
AAC is an OPEN SOURCE format! Not Apple's format! Let's get it straight. By using AAC Apple avoids the fees associated with mp3s (to the formats creators).
Please, please take 30 seconds to research things before you post in a tech forum, won't you? AAC is a completely 100% open format. "AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies including Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony and Nokia, and was officially declared an international standard by the Moving Pictures Experts Group in April 1997. AAC is NOT APPLE. AAC does NOT LOCK ANYONE INTO ANYTHING. AAC is the core of MPEG-4. AAC CREAMS MP3 in every way imagineable, too. Higher quality, smaller files when ripped at the same bit-rates, you name it. Google it. Go and read up on it before posting next time, and save yourself some embarrassment.
If you haven't noticed, the owners of the license for mp3 just won a judgement against Microsoft with probably more suits to follow. I don't believe AAC has that baggage.
... there is some sort of signiture or something that identifies a drm-free file that you can recognize as being a copy of a purchased tune. Seems like the music company would want to be able to recognize if you were file-sharing these songs.
...but I would have been happier if they used MP3 instead. Yes, I know AAC is not a Apple standard, and it is arguably better, but it simply isn't as commonly supported. Hopefully this will be a success.
You should only comment if you have something to say. Not if you are posting complete nonsense, showing that you are "working" for some other entity to spread comlete bull--it.
S.S you have just showed you don't even know what MP3 and AAC are, nor do you even have an clues as to what iTunes is.
iTunes is soooo easy to use, that you don't have to "convert" your files directly, or manually. You simply set your preferences.
Keep your bul-s-it to yourself, and send the checks back to Microsoft. You're a lousy propaganda stool anyway. Unless you reconsider the meaning of "stool" in your case.
Just do a bit of googling and you will find that not only do ACC songs sound better at the same bit rate but there art ACC compatible players from Panasonic and Creative. Also, the Zune and Xbox 360 support non-DRM'ed ACC files just fine.
Of course, I don't care since I listen to most of my music on my laptop at home and on my iPod when I'm on the road.
Most of you seem to be assuming that the price difference is due to the increase in quality, I have a different idea.
I think that the only way that EMI would sign up to this is if they knew that they would make more money, the only way that Apple could get them to change their ways, was to offer them an incentive, and it worked.
In the future I think we'll see all of iTunes converted to non-DRM music, but also reduced back to 79C, if this whole test works, which I think it will.
I'm glad to see that Apple is taking the first major steps in the industry to make this happen, they have gone further than 'dipping their toes in' as Yahoo! did, and have made a positive move.
Also shows that El Jobso wasn't just posturing in his open letter, its nice to see someone in this (or any) industry, keep their promise to consumers.
Kind of restores some faith in Big Business I guess.
I am disappointed they didn't free the "low quality" music. I would have gleefully accepted the higher quality downloads for a premium price. And I still do. But there is no reason that they couldn't remove the DRM from both tiers of quality. None. I see no reason other than to profit.
From that angle, I don't see them bringing the price back down. I think $1.29 is the new price, and they will likely just phase out the 99 cent downloads by making them less appealing.
Well now... looks like I can start buying from iTMS.
I refused to purchase anything from the iTunes Music store since its inception because I would much rather pay once for music and spread it around to any device I own.
For a long time I would simply rip CD's, which insured that I only paid for the music once, in a high-quality format.
This little act also made a statement, however small, that I refuse to buy any DRM product... and I believe that I'm not alone in this.
30 cents? No sweat. If it sends a message that the other music companies can take their DRM and shove it, then it'll be worth the $.30 per song to say it.
Record comapniee locking up songs, degrading quality, etc. to try to force me to buy a CD has always ticked me off. As such, I would not care if everyone I know "backed up" thier music library for others to share. Now however, I am on EMI's side. If I can buy a DRM free album for the same price as a DRM encoded album, then I need to just pay. As long as people were working against the Copyright police I could look the other way. Now, its just stealing and that is wrong.
"EMI is just the first, according to Jobs. He said Apple expects well over half of the songs on the iTunes Store to be DRM-free by the end of the calendar year."
Talk of bitrates MP3 or ACC? There is a difference
I hear a lot of people talking about bitrates but I have to wonder if they are talking about ACC or MP3 or if they don't know if there is a difference.
Just do a google search comparing ACC and MP3. You will find that, according to independent listening tests, a 128kps ACC was equivalent to an 192kps MP3.
If this is true (AAC 128kbps = MP3 192kbps - or at least the two sound indistinguishable), then is AAC 256kbps > MP3 320kbps that many people here are claiming to be the minimal level of compression to ensure close to 'lossless' audio?
and IF this is the case, why the heck are so many people complaining? Also, why are people complaining that Apple and EMI are trying to make a profit? Last time I checked they were not charities... Now, maybe if the Salvation Army started selling MP3s through an online store...
EMI and Apple working together at last, it's a great sight to see. But whom are they working for? EMI is notoriously known for it's greed and aggressiveness in the fight against piracy. Steve Jobs has publicly lambasted EMI's views on piracy and what is good for the consumer, so much that he declared them (as well as the rest of the industry) greedy. Now they are offering tiered pricing? Talk about a hypocrit.
Greed can do funny things, even to the evangelical Steve Jobs. Long has Apple's CEO protested multiple price points, often stating that it would further confuse the customers and add to an already confusing array of formats and pricing options. Surely the Apple faithful still think Steve can do no wrong as he further gouges customers even though his previous statements contradict his current actions.
Apple is a marketing genius, there is no doubt about that. However, when these supposedly better tracks are released, they will have to educate and possibly convince novice digital music buyers to purchase the "enhanced" song over the cheaper 99 cent choice. How do you explain to an already purplexed user, why they should pay extra to do what they want with their music?
With Jobs' intentions to make half the iTunes library DRM-Free in the near future, this will only further confuse and turn off prospective buyers. Even if Apple avoids hawking these premium tracks to new users, and aims for the tech savvy, that may also be a hard sell. Audiophiles and tech enthusiasts already have large CD libraries, and most would rather wait for lower prices to purchase music digitally.
Legal digital music as a whole, is still in it's infancy. With iTunes leading the pact, I just do not understand why Apple would risk it all for a possible marginal sales increase.
"....only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store..." Great way to risk your digital dynasty for a gamble.
This isn't a losing situation for Apple, they get to look like the heroes, by being the first to offer DRMless music from the store. Customers are thinking that this is a good thing (even if they don't understand this that well) and that is all Apple needs.
Many people will just be, 'huh? DRM,30c more, no way!' which isn't going to hurt anyone, but it also gives those who care, the same opportunity.
Apple can't lose, they've played the game brilliantly well, and are now back on top, and just gained shining armour from public perceptions of greedienss and doubtless the praise of many analysts who complained about DRM music. This move shows Jobso meant what he said in his open letter, earning him even more brownie points!
A great victory for all who decry DRM and its many inconveniences, and let's hope it symbolizes the start of a major change. But as usual the real story shows that it is the recording industry, not artists or consumers, that comes out on top once again. Check out <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://broadclip.blogspot.com/2007/04/emi-cracks-and-removes-drm-sort-of.html" target="_newWindow">http://broadclip.blogspot.com/2007/04/emi-cracks-and-removes-drm-sort-of.html</a> for the real costs and numbers behind the deal.
I've been saying the same thing for many years. Downloaded content costs a fraction of physical media, yet the labels want us to pay the same price. They must consider it a convenience tax. We as consumer should just say no. We should get a cut of the cost savings too. Paying the artists less if the track is downloaded is complete horse sh*t greed on the label's part. It's not justifiable in any sense.
AAC is a modern Open codec that anyone can add to their players for playback. Why can't they coexist. What this move does is keep the playing field level. No WMA BS & all the hardware makers are not beholden to MS for a DRM'd codec.
"Overall, the AAC format allows developers more flexibility to design codecs than MP3 does. This increased flexibility often leads to more concurrent encoding strategies and, as a result, to more efficient compression. However in terms of whether AAC is better than MP3, the advantages of AAC are not entirely conclusive, and the MP3 specification, while outdated, has proven surprisingly robust. AAC and HE-AAC are better than MP3 at low bit-rates (typically < 128 kbps). At medium to higher bit-rates (typically > 128 kbps in stereo), the two formats are more comparable in most fields."
The fact that any CD's are still being sold shows that people are willing to pay substantial sums of money for convenience and quality control. Many customers will gladly pay a nominal fee for the quality assurances and convenience of an official source, and still be getting a bargain over the price of retail CD's. Diehards will still find ways to collect music for free, but by removing the inconveniences of proprietary formats and license management, EMI has effectively removed much of the temptation for most paying customers to seek out illegal sources.
This could discriminate some more and defy our freedom of expression. Think back for a minute P2P networks alwys seem to go on thorth and a good percentage of music downloaded and such on it is populist music. So the media makes you interested a new populist fad, you download it then they say hey all that you own is mine. The words to discribe that kind of pratice is not allowed in this forum. What if you accessed a centraless P2P buffered website not much diffrent to the old MP3.com where you could find real artist that we're really interesting who after listening to thier lowish bit version you could purchuse their track from their website. With all this done at somthing the size of the old mp3.com maybe even bigger. Sort of like limewire cross mp3.com.That way fatcat beeps can't miniplulate what you listen to like that and you do have to bow to them not "one bit",people like mr Jobs no matter how honerable you think their backgroud is "when did he ever produce anything interesting to listen to".
Then if EMI or whoever thinks someone is avading some probably dubious copyright issue they have to deal with the artist instead of crushing the best thing this planet ever had(MP3.com). as you may tell i'm a tad bitter.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
questions:
1. What's the quality diffference? If there's a 30 cents price
increase, then it'd better be very significant.
2. Does this mean that more audio devices can connect to
iTunes, since the songs can be played on any device?
3. If they increased the price because of the quality difference,
then why didn't Apple/EMI just go the Yahoo Music route and
offer unrestricted songs at the same quality? That way there
wouldn't be a price increase and it would appeal to consumers
far more.
2) DRM free means unprotected-AAC, which means that you can play these premium iTunes tracks on more players (Zune, Walkman, Creative players) however I'm pretty sure Apple wont be implementing a way for them to sync to iTunes :P
256 kbps. So double the quality for 30 cents. (that doesn't
matter to me though because I can't hear the difference between
CD music and iTunes music)
2. I doubt that you will be able to connect any other mp3 player
to iTunes, it just wouldn't make money sense for Apple.
However, you should be able to put the music on any mp3
player you want you'll just have to find the file on you computer
first (which is not a big deal)
3. This probably had more to do with EMI then Apple but the
answer is money. EMI's testing "higher-quality, DRM-free songs
outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10 to 1"
My guess would be they are betting people are willing to pay
more to not have DRM. And it is probably a good bet.
One track takes roughly one 30th the effort a movie takes but is that reflected in the price.
Independent artists are filitered "really what the hell was the point in a freedom of speach/freedom of expression act".
It all uses lossy compression so its still not as good and certianly not better than a CD even with the 24bit credential.
The creativity is pretty much limited to monotone without much of a dynamic range(except clasical) And these so called modern artists seem to have never heard of tempo shifts.Do the maths (Hypnotic brainwashing for the masses, may anyone challange this we'll crush them(isn't that true Cnet(um mp3.com)).
the words that come to mind over this piticular issue i most certianly can not repeat on this forum but it is anything but cool more like crawl.
Almost everyone hates DRM, now we have a big label giving us what 'we want'. We need to show our support by buying their tracks. If this is seen as successful the other labels can't be far behind.
On to music Utopia! ;)
wrote his open letter supporting DRM-free music. Yeah, you
people, the one who smugly wagged your fingers and shouted "Put
your money where your mouth is."
Here's his response. I hope you don't choke on the feathers as you
eat your well-deserved crow!
running out of the extra room for CD and DVD storage. Also, I can't
tell the difference in the sound quality of a CD and an iTunes track.
We might can blame that on my hearing (its not bad but its not the
best in the world either) but if I can't hear a difference then it
doesn't matter if there is one.
But you are 100%, this will be the catalyst to mass digital music sales.
disappointed they won't be offering lossless audio.
Honestly I think this is all marketing, higher quality really means lossless, hopefully they'll get to that eventually.
decided that I cannot distinguish 256 bit AAC files from the
original cd.
Also, and for comparison, I've just ripped my cd from Pilot Speed
"Into The West" three times.
128 bit resulted in 58 mb of disk storage used up.
256 bit, 113 mb's
Lossless? A whopping FOUR HUNDRED FOUR POINT SIX MB's!!!
I've got over FOUR HUNDRED CD's!!!
At 256 bit sampling, I can, and do, carry everything I own
around on my iPod. Using lossless, I'd need to carry my desktop,
CRT and a very, very long extension cord with me, and I'd be
pretty unhappy about it, too.
The only problem with this implementation is Apple's insistence upon AAC. Apple is trying to lock people into the "Applesphere" (sorta) once again.
If Apple was 100% serious about offering digital downloads DRM free then they would have offered them in the more universal mp3 format (I know AAC can be converted relatively easily but if I am paying a premium I don't want to have to waste my time converting the files).
Also, Apple should be offering encoding choices, for example, charge 1.30 for 256 VBR but maybe change 1.50 for 320 or lossless.
But all these things will come in the coming years (though you can get them now with AllofMp3.com).
As for now, I applaud EMI for taking this desperately needed initiative.
1. the problem with the loseless format is that is not what the MAJORITY are asking for. As someone stated, most people can't tell the damn difference. FOr a music store, selling loseless files takes up a LOT more space and on the user end, A LOT more time to download. No, we're not ready to go there yet. You're better off buying a cd and converting it into whatever format you want if that kind of quality is important to you.
2. "The only problem with this implementation is Apple's insistence upon AAC. Apple is trying to lock people into the "Applesphere" (sorta) once again."
AAC is an OPEN SOURCE format! Not Apple's format! Let's get it straight. By using AAC Apple avoids the fees associated with mp3s (to the formats creators).
AAC is an OPEN Format, and is the replacement for MP3!
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding</a>
MP3 isn't what you want, it's horrible! AAC is the modern format, please learn this.
post in a tech forum, won't you? AAC is a completely 100% open
format. "AAC was developed with the cooperation and
contributions of companies including Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG),
AT&T, Sony and Nokia, and was officially declared an
international standard by the Moving Pictures Experts Group in
April 1997.
AAC is NOT APPLE.
AAC does NOT LOCK ANYONE INTO ANYTHING.
AAC is the core of MPEG-4.
AAC CREAMS MP3 in every way imagineable, too. Higher quality,
smaller files when ripped at the same bit-rates, you name it.
Google it. Go and read up on it before posting next time, and
save yourself some embarrassment.
Thanks Steve!
you are posting complete nonsense, showing that you are
"working" for some other entity to spread comlete bull--it.
S.S you have just showed you don't even know what MP3 and
AAC are, nor do you even have an clues as to what iTunes is.
iTunes is soooo easy to use, that you don't have to "convert"
your files directly, or manually. You simply set your preferences.
Keep your bul-s-it to yourself, and send the checks back to
Microsoft. You're a lousy propaganda stool anyway. Unless you
reconsider the meaning of "stool" in your case.
Of course, I don't care since I listen to most of my music on my laptop at home and on my iPod when I'm on the road.
I think that the only way that EMI would sign up to this is if they knew that they would make more money, the only way that Apple could get them to change their ways, was to offer them an incentive, and it worked.
In the future I think we'll see all of iTunes converted to non-DRM music, but also reduced back to 79C, if this whole test works, which I think it will.
I'm glad to see that Apple is taking the first major steps in the industry to make this happen, they have gone further than 'dipping their toes in' as Yahoo! did, and have made a positive move.
Also shows that El Jobso wasn't just posturing in his open letter, its nice to see someone in this (or any) industry, keep their promise to consumers.
Kind of restores some faith in Big Business I guess.
From that angle, I don't see them bringing the price back down. I think $1.29 is the new price, and they will likely just phase out the 99 cent downloads by making them less appealing.
For a long time I would simply rip CD's, which insured that I only paid for the music once, in a high-quality format.
This little act also made a statement, however small, that I refuse to buy any DRM product... and I believe that I'm not alone in this.
30 cents? No sweat. If it sends a message that the other music companies can take their DRM and shove it, then it'll be worth the $.30 per song to say it.
/P
over half of the songs on the iTunes Store to be DRM-free by the
end of the calendar year."
Just do a google search comparing ACC and MP3. You will find that, according to independent listening tests, a 128kps ACC was equivalent to an 192kps MP3.
result is that we can have good audio quality at smaller file sizes.
and IF this is the case, why the heck are so many people complaining? Also, why are people complaining that Apple and EMI are trying to make a profit? Last time I checked they were not charities... Now, maybe if the Salvation Army started selling MP3s through an online store...
But whom are they working for? EMI is notoriously known for it's
greed and aggressiveness in the fight against piracy. Steve Jobs
has publicly lambasted EMI's views on piracy and what is good
for the consumer, so much that he declared them (as well as the
rest of the industry) greedy. Now they are offering tiered pricing?
Talk about a hypocrit.
Greed can do funny things, even to the evangelical Steve Jobs.
Long has Apple's CEO protested multiple price points, often
stating that it would further confuse the customers and add to
an already confusing array of formats and pricing options.
Surely the Apple faithful still think Steve can do no wrong as he
further gouges customers even though his previous statements
contradict his current actions.
Apple is a marketing genius, there is no doubt about that.
However, when these supposedly better tracks are released, they
will have to educate and possibly convince novice digital music
buyers to purchase the "enhanced" song over the cheaper 99
cent choice. How do you explain to an already purplexed user,
why they should pay extra to do what they want with their
music?
With Jobs' intentions to make half the iTunes library DRM-Free in
the near future, this will only further confuse and turn off
prospective buyers. Even if Apple avoids hawking these premium
tracks to new users, and aims for the tech savvy, that may also
be a hard sell. Audiophiles and tech enthusiasts already have
large CD libraries, and most would rather wait for lower prices to
purchase music digitally.
Legal digital music as a whole, is still in it's infancy. With iTunes
leading the pact, I just do not understand why Apple would risk
it all for a possible marginal sales increase.
"....only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the
average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store..."
Great way to risk your digital dynasty for a gamble.
Customers are thinking that this is a good thing (even if they don't understand this that well) and that is all Apple needs.
Many people will just be, 'huh? DRM,30c more, no way!' which isn't going to hurt anyone, but it also gives those who care, the same opportunity.
Apple can't lose, they've played the game brilliantly well, and are now back on top, and just gained shining armour from public perceptions of greedienss and doubtless the praise of many analysts who complained about DRM music. This move shows Jobso meant what he said in his open letter, earning him even more brownie points!
I might try some of those reproducible tracks myself.
I might try some of those reproducible tracks myself.
But the labels will definitely be making more money on the singles now.
Paying the artists less if the track is downloaded is complete horse sh*t greed on the label's part. It's not justifiable in any sense.
for playback. Why can't they coexist. What this move does is keep
the playing field level. No WMA BS & all the hardware makers are
not beholden to MS for a DRM'd codec.
"Overall, the AAC format allows developers more flexibility to design codecs than MP3 does. This increased flexibility often leads to more concurrent encoding strategies and, as a result, to more efficient compression. However in terms of whether AAC is better than MP3, the advantages of AAC are not entirely conclusive, and the MP3 specification, while outdated, has proven surprisingly robust. AAC and HE-AAC are better than MP3 at low bit-rates (typically < 128 kbps). At medium to higher bit-rates (typically > 128 kbps in stereo), the two formats are more comparable in most fields."
Oops!
-Mister Winky
bitrate
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html</a>
Think back for a minute P2P networks alwys seem to go on thorth and a good percentage of music downloaded and such on it is populist music. So the media makes you interested a new populist fad, you download it then they say hey all that you own is mine. The words to discribe that kind of pratice is not allowed in this forum.
What if you accessed a centraless P2P buffered website not much diffrent to the old MP3.com where you could find real artist that we're really interesting who after listening to thier lowish bit version you could purchuse their track from their website. With all this done at somthing the
size of the old mp3.com maybe even bigger. Sort of like limewire cross mp3.com.That way fatcat beeps can't miniplulate what you listen to like that and you do have to bow to them not "one bit",people like mr Jobs no matter how honerable you think their backgroud is "when did he ever produce anything interesting to listen to".
Then if EMI or whoever thinks someone is avading some probably dubious copyright issue they have to deal with the artist instead of crushing the best thing this planet ever had(MP3.com).
as you may tell i'm a tad bitter.