Comments on: EMI, Apple partner on DRM-free premium music
Music label confirms that it will sell higher-quality, copy protection-free digital music through iTunes Store.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Kindle is most gifted Amazon item, ever
December 26, 2009 11:19 AM PST
- Microsoft, Intel to cede tablet market to Apple?
December 26, 2009 10:04 AM PST
- Open source became big business in 2009
December 26, 2009 9:10 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
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!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
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.
- The real story is in the fine print ...
- by Broadclip April 2, 2007 1:49 PM PDT
- 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 http://broadclip.blogspot.com/2007/04/emi-cracks-and-removes-drm-sort-of.html for the real costs and numbers behind the deal.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- looks like he missed the regular print
- by markusfarkus April 2, 2007 1:58 PM PDT
- DRM-free albums will be the same price on iTunes - $9.99. So you actually save more money by buying the entire album now.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- Broadclip = blog spam
- by murray627 April 2, 2007 3:19 PM PDT
- Don't use false information to shamelessly promote your own blog.
- Like this
-
- Nothing new
- by skeptik April 3, 2007 8:05 AM PDT
- 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.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (169 Comments)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.