Apple and EMI ditching DRM is good, but it's not good enough
By Ryan Block 
posted Apr 2nd 2007 3:24PM
posted Apr 2nd 2007 3:24PM
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. EMI is taking a huge, huge step in its business, and we fully commend them. Honestly, we do, kudos to you, EMI. Apple is taking the role of providing the first venue for EMI's great DRM-free music experiment; but what we find disconcerting is that 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 Jobs 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. Despite the silver lining, which is that full albums should cost the same but will now default to DRM-free files, the two businesses still 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 what we deserve, and we demand it. 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 just be a better consumer experience, 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.
It's a transition. That's just how Apple does it. They didn't release all the Intel Macs at once, they did it slowly. Wait, and we'll be DRM free one day.
Hardware and software are two totally different things.
This article is a bunch of bs. First you complain that Apple needs to get rid of DRM. Now it's the price.
I got a solution for ya: go buy the $18.99 10 track CD at a record store. You're an old fashioned & backwards thinking, Apple bashing and probably Zune carrying "reporter" that probably wrote an "apple will go out of business" article 10+ years ago. iPod is the market leader, so DEAL WITH IT!.
All this time you were crying about Apple unfairly locking its content to the ipod. Apple gets rid of DRM and doubles the sampling rate and you guys still complain. Go listen to your zunes and sansas.
jonbruck @ "Apple gets rid of DRM and doubles the sampling rate and you guys still complain."
I believe the issues are that:
1. Apple hasn't dropped any DRM, it's EMI that did the dropping. Apple in fact gets zero credit for this.
2. Apple didn't "get rid of it's DRM", it's still there on all the other labels. To make your statement factual Apple would have to tell all the labels they are now selling content without DRM, regardless of what they say.
3. The real thrust of the article is that we shouldn't have to pay extra for something that we should have had all along.
jonbruck: "All this time you were crying about Apple unfairly locking its content to the ipod. Apple gets rid of DRM and doubles the sampling rate and you guys still complain. Go listen to your zunes and sansas."
EXACTLY... who cares... there are way better players than iPod available anyways! (like the Zune and the Sansa) I am definitely not saying losing DRM is a bad thing ... I just agree that this benefits players like the Zune and Sansa more.
Soon people who were sucked into iPod ownership can branch out and try better (ie, innovative) products and not have to rebuild their library! They can still use iTunes!
This is a GREAT day for the consumer!
Apple didn't double the sampling rate, they doubled the bitrate.
I'd say this is a pretty big baby step. I understand we're not there 100%, but the tone of the article is a little too negative I think.
I plan on buying some EMI released DRM-free iTunes songs in May to support the move. I'll be putting my money where my mouth is.
Good for you. Or, you can just use QTfairuse. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting piracy, but Qtfairuse is great for listening to music from itunes with a player that's not an ipod.
Yes we will be DRM free one day, but not because of the deal Apple and EMI made, this deal was made for one reason sells, the Music industry is hurting so Apple and EMI came up with a gimmick to make people think that they was getting something new and oh by the way it will be $.30 more because of better quality. They could have always given better u better quality @ the $.99 price without adding cost to them to do it. and if they really was behind DRM free music they would stop selling the lower bit rate, there is no logical reason to keep doing so, except that they will @some point stop selling the higher bit rate because of sells, is not going to be what they want and that will be their reason to stop, if the pirates out there can offer u higher bit rates for free then they can give you truly unlocked music better quality for $.99. It’s a gimmick don’t fall for it they will get a spike in sells because a lot people who already bought the music is going back to get the higher right. (I recommend if u already bought the song @99 go find a higher quality of the song around the net______ and download it it’s not illegal because u already own rights to it). BOTTOM LINE its is a gimmick don’t fall for it (we want higher bit rates in mp3 format @ the current price or cheaper until that happens it not DRM free.Peroid)
Ryan,
Voting is a right. Habeas Corpus is a right. Etc. Purchasing a commercial product on your terms rather than those dictated by the person who is selling it is nice, it's not a right. Get some perspective.
Also, all new Sony players play AAC, and more and more players are supporting that format which is actually more open than mp3, since you don't need to pay royalties to support it. Plus, you could easily drag your purchased DRM-free songs out of iTunes and into whatever software you use to load files onto your Zune... if you have one... somebody must. That's the point of DRM-free. Just because you bought it with iTunes doesn't mean you have to use iTunes to load it onto your device.
Anyway, you made some okay points, but some of your facts are way off, which makes your argument weak. Mind you, I'm sure you'll get a lot of support from the 14-year-old "iPod=sux0rs" people who always post on Engadget, but come on, you could do better.
I added Sony (forgot about that), but otherwise my facts aren't off. Media management in Zune is definitely a hassle, and not even using MTP, it's not like you are anywhere near a drag and drop experience, which is what DRM-free should be.
We believe cripple-free media is a right. Maybe not a constitutional-fight-to-the-death kind of right, but we believe it's a right nonethelesss. It's important to remember that Apple has a very real agenda here, and it's not always just about doing what consumers want. It is, though, *always* about doing what Steve wants, and I don't think he's committing -- I think he's tipping his toes in the water, and this piece is just calling it like it is.
Hmm. I think you're misusing the word "right." I don't think any dictionary definition would back you up. It is your right not to buy anything that you don't want. I have never bought a song from iTunes before even though I'm an iPod owner and a Mac user since 1988. I exercised my right to be an informed consumer and I still buy music that I like on CD because that format gives me the most flexibility and the music I listen to is good enough that I don't think the price is outrageous. I might actually buy something from iTunes now, though I rarely pay enough attention to who's on what label (especially with the "majors") to know if anybody I like (that I don't already have on CD) is on EMI.
I think some Sansa players and Nokia phones and all of them Palm devices now also play AAC. Wikipedia has a list in their AAC article.
I agree, though, SJ and Apple have an agenda. I think that agenda is to make money and stay in business and it's a tightrope walk. Apple's tenuous market share could be lost with a misstep and, even while some complain about Apple's total control over user experience, it is also their greatest selling point. I think Jobs does want to sell DRM-free media, but he want to keep making money as well and he doesn't want Apple to lose its position in the market. I think the decisions one would need to make in order to fulfill these goals would be very difficult and they aren't always the decisions that would result in the immediate granting of every gadget-head's wishes.
That said, keep up the good work. I love your site and your podcast.
I'm curious what points the article got wrong? I didn't see any glaring issues so it would help others if you could clarify the points you found.
Whether it is or isn't a right is probably a pretty good argument for the courts. The narrow definition of 'right' that Jaroslav is talking about fails to take into the fact that there are hundreds of rights acts outside of the constitution. Businesses, consumers, medical patients, prisoners all have other rights.
Some day this will all have worked itself out, through the courts, fiscal interest, or an evolved open community. The issue needs to be pushed though, and it seems to me that engadget may be in a position to be heard. Blogging isn't really a small thing. And this isn't a small blog. Is it inconceivable that someone that could take the message may well read it here? Marketers crawl these things, I'd bet there are congressional interns, maybe even congressmen, certainly a chairman of the board or two.
Blogs are allowed to voice opinion. There's an editorial section in your newspaper. This article isn't written as fact, it's speculative and one perspective of fact. It's written in an appropriate voice.
Sony also supports AAC.
SACD isn't exactly DRM-free! When's the last time you ripped an SACD?
Other gadgets that support AAC include the Sony PSP and Nokia cell phones.
As a previous posted mentioned, lack of DRM means easy transcoding to other formats where required, and let's not forget much easier playback on PCs and media streaming devices.
I say bravo to EMI and Apple.
Wow I think this is the 1st time I will ever buy music from Itunes. Hopefully the other labels follow suite.
I really do have to agree with you. I beleive this is more of a stunt to shut everyone up and see what happens.
Also, I think that these files are at a high bitrate to make them easier to track. Unless someone does a conversion before placing it up on a Bit torrent network, these "larger" files will stand out like a sore thumb. This will make it very easy for Apple and EMI to scan the file sharing networks and quickly gage the percentage of piracy due to drm-free music.
If this turnes out to be the case, this could end up being one of the most hurtful blows felt by the DRM-Free community.
So my suggestion to everyone out there in internet land? DO NOT PIRATE THIS MUSIC. This is your test. If people screw this up, we will never see a DRM-free world...
I think the files are watermarked, which would make tracking them easier still.
ENGADGET:
You guys really don't know a good thing when you see it. DRM-free music is not a right. That's just your liberal wet-dream. This is a first step in a very complicated situation. Anytime a big, money hungary company (which is surrounded by other money hungary comapnies) makes a pro-consumer move like this, stop your bitching and be happy it even happened.
And stop beating on Steve for changing his stance on the DRM issue. It's getting old. I don't see any other CEO's going out on a limb and posting open letters to an entire industry asking them to step out on a limb and do something that will benefit the consumer, and eventually, themsleves. No matter what the motivation, it takes balls to do what he did, and what he is doing.
Yes, you could argue he's doing it to ensure the longevity of his business. Maybe so, but what he's doing is something that is good for the consumer, and to be sure, something that is totally opposite of the norm and could very easily backfire.
Get off your high horse ENGADGET. I don't see you effecting any change worth writing about.
Bill Gates was the first major CEO to come out against DRM in public:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/14/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-xxi-gates-tells-consumers-to-ditch-dr/
He may have said it, but did he do anything about it?
I don't see the Windows Media or Zune DRM going anywhere!
Thank you! Finally someone who realizes that although its a step in the right direction, its not that big of an annoucement. Until Apple opens up their file format, its still DRM. DRM-Free is when you can purchase the song and do whatever you want, copy it to any MP3 player, and have full control over your file
All the big players support ACC
its not an apple only format.
AAC isn't an Apple format, its an open format developed by many companies quite a few years ago now, Apple weren't one of the group who created it. Many phone companies and Sony were, thusly almost all phones support AAC, its just the choice of Creative, Sandisk etc. that they don't support it.
Apple must have chosen it for a reason back when they announced it was becoming standard, its not their fault that other PMP makes didn't follow suit, its a bit harsh holding them accountable for other companies choices, particularly when AAC isn't an Apple format, and is by no means controlled by Apple at all.
"Thank you! Finally someone who realizes that although its a step in the right direction, its not that big of an annoucement. Until Apple opens up their file format, its still DRM. DRM-Free is when you can purchase the song and do whatever you want, copy it to any MP3 player, and have full control over your file"
Dan, you're a fricken' idiot. AAC is the audio format of MPEG-4. It's MPEG-4 Audio, an open standard implemented by an open standards body.
Seriously, man, educate yourself before ranting.
And no, "proprietary formats" doesn't equal "DRM." Windows Word is a proprietary format, but I can cut and paste content into other formats.
Everything you said was wrong.
It's not Apple's file format, it's Dolby Labs, dope. All you have to do is pay Dolby licensing fees to use it. If Apple opened the format, they'd be dead.
And given the Microsoft loss of the mp3 suit, even the old tried and true might have problems. At least Dolby invented AAC and holds all rights.
You're absolutely right, Ryan. Steve is going for a test-phase, and he's making sure that he doesn't get beaten down for it, from a business point of view. You've managed to pin down every move that Jobs has made, and removed his sugarcoating from it to show people the business aspect of it.
For that, I don't blame Steve Jobs at all. While it would be wonderful to live in a DRM-free environment and be able to use our content on every player of our choice, it's not really a step that Steve Jobs can take. Until the record labels get on board, he's as tied down as the rest of us.
Though he's still released the DRM-free tracks in a proprietary format, at least he's taken the initiative. I don't blame him for taking precautions for his business, because that's his right and he's smart for doing it.
The thing to see, mainly, is this: Though the key point that record labels make is that if the music is protection-free, it'll be pirated like hot-cakes, it's not really a valid point; there are very few tracks that are available exclusively through iTunes, and the others are already being pirated online anyway. They wouldn't be offering anything new, nor in a higher quality. That's just an excuse they give to keep people quiet.
Steve is taking the first steps, and he's making sure he doesn't fall totally for it; I hold nothing against him for that. It's smart business, and it's good for the people. If he refuses to take the next steps, it's a different story. But so far, he's the only man I see who has done something or allowed someone (EMI) to release DRM-free music.
And don't you fanboys and anti-Apple people forget that.
I love your article, Ryan. It should prove to people once and for all that Engadget is not Apple-biased, as they so often and droningly say.
I don't love Ryan's article, although I do agree with some of its points.
However, the tone is just wrong. Instead of encouraging the companies on their (fairly) bold step in the right direction, and encouraging consumers to show their support for a good opening move, it's full of dismissive and paranoid what's-the-real-agenda accusations. Well, Ryan has an agenda too!
Which, as I see it, is to dismiss the transitional nature of the move as being cynically motivated and not enough right now. It's either *all* DRM on *all* music, *all* videos, *all* Disney movie DVDs, and *all* fluffy bunny Disney toys is removed *now*, or Jobs is a big fat flaming liar.
It is also factually incorrect on a number of points. For instance, the article states Jobs only recently saw the DRM-is-bad light and that he preferred the lock-in that DRM gave the iPod. Actually, if you view the 2002 keynote where the iTunes Music Store was launched (it's probably on YouTube), Jobs said quite specifically that Apple asked the record companies to let them have the music DRM free. The companies said no. That statement is there, in black & white (color really), in a 2002 video recording. Of course, that's before Engadget existed, so how could Ryan be expected to research into prehistory!
The article also states not many players can handle AAC, and emphasizes its proprietary nature. Actually, AAC is the MPEG-4 advanced audio codec, the successor to MPEG-1's Layer 3 audio codec aka MP3. Both MPEG, both proprietary, and no, Apple didn't develop either of them. AAC is certainly not .wma.
It's also rather easy and fast to encode into MP3 from a DRM-freed AAC, if the device dates from before the many on-chip decoders which have support for it was built. A gadget expert who "would never buy an iPod" (quoting from the few Engadget podcasts I've heard) should know that.
Agendas and dismissive tones aside though, I do agree with Ryan's vision of a DRM free world. I feel I should be able to buy a DVD and have the right (and software makers be allowed to make easy to use software to do it) to copy it onto any video playing devices that I have.
And that goes for the anticompetitive DVD region encoding too, which I see as even more insidious. I would like to be able to buy a DVD at an airport in LA and play it on a London-bought laptop, and replace it with a Sydney bought DVD on the flight back. If you've actually tried that, however, you're in for a shock.
Another call to arms for you, Ryan!
"It's a right" where do you live man? That's something left to the UK or EU Engadget web site. Don't fall off the cliff. Last I checked Apple Computer is a US company, under US law, and last I checked the US operated in a (mostly) free market. Unlike our brothers on the other side of the pond. If you want to be socialist, go live there. If you aren't happy with the way things Apple does it, go buy it somewhere else. Keep buying your CDs and don't complain about "rights."
I don't like DRM myself, but I feel stronger about freedom in America than getting music from Apple without DRM. I'll by it somewhere else, from someone else, if they can do it better. But as of right now, Apple's doing the best job, and I'll pay them for it.
If you don't agree, go somewhere else and buy your music.
I find the way Americans react to the word 'right' being used rather amusing. Is it not possible to talk about somebody having the right to do something without it having been written down in a bill? Perhaps I'm just on the wrong side of the pond to understand these things....
Surely the issue about DRM rests with the fact that if you go and buy the CD, you can rip it and use it any way you please. But because you download it you get all sorts of restrictions. If pirates really want to pirate, they can go to a local record store, buy a load of CDs and pirate away, this is how I have always got music off the internet, since before DRM existed as an issue. So from this, I think you can say that we have a 'right' to be able to receive the same usability for our music whether it's on CD or downloaded.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Ryan says in this article, and am glad to see engadget putting anlaysis onto this site. Keep up the good work guys.
And what of the "rights" of the content owners. The "rights" of the people who create the content? What about them. Interesting how everyone only cares for and write and stresses their "rights" as users of content, but no mention of the rights of those who own and make it.
Ignorance is bliss!
Ben and others:
It's amazing to me how socialists view "rights". In America, we have afforded people freedom. It is up to them to get things done. The government simply affords the freedome to do things. In many countries, people do not have the freedom to go to school, get medical attention, etc. This is much different than the 'right' to it where in socialist countries, it would be paid for. Sadly the US is following this 'popular' trend. We're mixing up freedom and rights. We have a 'right' to life, so our goverment provides protection. When it comes to music, the creator and owner have rights, it's theirs, they can do with it as they please. If people don't want it, they won't buy it and don't have to. And they will go out of business. However, in a socialist government, not only are companies forces to make and sell their products in certain ways, but evenually the customer will be forced to only buy from them. It may not be that way now, but that is the socialist ideal.
If you as an individual want to do something, do it, don't depend on a government to force society as a whole to follow you in something you want to do.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS physical protection of one's life and health of self and property and to provide freedom as long as it does not harm others. This is the true purpose of government.
I'm getting tired. If you don't get it, you never will...
Taylor I think they're rights are being trampled by the same people. The only way is through the cartel, whether you're buying or selling. They're getting screwed by the actions of that cartel. Without them music piracy doesn't exist.
Ack it cut off my quote for the above message
"And stop beating on Steve for changing his stance on the DRM issue. It's getting old. I don't see any other CEO's going out on a limb and posting open letters to an entire industry asking them to step out on a limb and do something that will benefit the consumer, and eventually, themsleves. No matter what the motivation, it takes balls to do what he did, and what he is doing."
To be clear, Disney's main contribution to iTunes is Movies. It's obvious the author doesn't know anything about Hollywood. Disney isn't the only one involved in there projects, usually 3 or 4 studios are involved on Disney movies, which means each individual movie will have to be cleared with 4 separate companies FOR each project, and usually it's different studios everytime. Movies are a logistical nightmare for DRM because each group has a controlling interest. With music it's clearer but it's still not easy. Not only that today they announced that EMI wouldn't be the only one.
I don't understand how DRM-free music is a right. Music is a product. Buy it or don't buy it, it's not an unalienable right. Just because a CD doesn't have a DRM on it doesn't make it legal to copy it and distribute it to everyone you know. A copyrighted book (another type of media) doesn't have a DRM but if I were to go around photocopying it and giving it away, or selling it, I would be breaking the law. It would be wonderful if all information (books, music, movies, art, plays, classes) was free, but then who would agree to produce the information if they couldn't get get paid? True artists? Perhaps, but starvation would seriously limit their output both in quanity and quality.
If you want something DRM-free, create a market for it, and be ready to pay for it - it's called capitalism. Oh, hell let's get all free everything for everybody - that's called communism, and you still pay, but with your liberties.
I can't believe you're so seriously negative in your attitude to the EMI/Apple deal. Surely this article is a Dvorak-type provocation? Of course EMI/Apple aren't offering anything free "as a right", they're running businesses with costs to pay, and will do what they think best to optimise their profits so they can invest in future innovation, otherwise why be in business? Try being grateful for Apple's creative risk-taking in innovating user experience (imagine a techno-world without Apple, completely dominated by Microsoft, command-line interface anyone?). Try being grateful for EMI's risk-taking in being the first major to go out on a DRM-free limb. Sure we'd all like free music and MacBooks but neither would exist.
Also your argument about AAC is wrong, I haven't been able to find any players (except $39) ones that don't support AAC from the big companies, Also what about movies? You think other players are going to support an h.264 decoding chip?
While I agree with most things that you said, I do not think that Apple should have gone with MP3 over AAC. I hope that with this transition Apple kills off MP3 and moves to a (much) better audio codec (in their case AAC). It should not be that hard for the other music player companies to add AAC support to the devices OR add on the fly AAC to MP3 converting into the import software if they do not wish to support AAC.
I have to side with Jaroslav. Calling interoperability a right kinda makes lite of Free Speech.
some great point and good on ya for calling out Steve's reluctance to make his other businesses, DRM free
DRM-free music is not a right, but it sure is nice to have. I personally say kudos to Apple and EMI for leading the charge here. The music labels are stubborn and Apples done an amazing job bringing them into the 21st century.
Also, iTunes can convert AAC to MP3 quite easily, and at such high bitrates a new compression won't hurt things much. So the whole "but it doesn't work with other devices" doesn't hold much water. If the iTMS used some really weird format that couldn't be converted you'd have something, but it's really, REALLY super-brain-dead easy to convert the AAC files to MP3 format, right in iTunes. Odds are if you care so much about keeping things in MP3 format you already have iTunes set to import to that format, so all you have to do then is highlight the songs you want to convert, and click on "Advanced" and choose "Convert Selection to MP3", and iTunes does the rest. Easy.
This announcement is a good thing, but your cry-baby attitude is what is wrong with society today. You state, "But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's a right." It is not a right. You (and I for that matter) may want it very badly, but we no basic right to DRM-free music! If we don't like DRM, then simply DON'T BUY IT! Plenty of people have in fact done just that and EMI has heard the voice of the market.
Promote the end to DRM - I am with you, but please don't try to give this issue "Give me liberty, or give me death!" magnitude. It is music, which is the product of hard work. As a product, it is sold to consumers as the owner sees fit. If consumers don't like the product (or how it is sold) they don't buy it and the message is sent loud and clear that the owner needs to try something else. That is exactly what has happened with this EMI announcement.
If you live in the USA, you have a right to life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, freedom of speech, etc. You don't have a right to DRM-free music. Don't cheapen your true rights by overstating your position and coming across like a cry baby.
Good point. DRM is no friend of mine, but it is not like the government is forcing us to use it. It's the free market, baby.
Go buy a CD instead.
Thanks! I hoped it would be clear, but I guess I'll reiterate for everyone on the thread: YES this is a good first step. I think the message here, which is that DRM is bad and consumers want to be free of it, is great.
My point is that looking at this from a business perspective, it's not a purely pro-consumer move, and it's not a real commitment. It's a small step in the right direction, coated with a lot of hypocritical rhetoric, and that's what I'm calling out.
syadasti:
So Bill said he doesn't like DRM. Did he really push for change? Did he do anything other than tell some bloggers what they wanted to hear?
I think some people forget that as a requirement, if Apple (or Microsoft) wants to sell Sony's music online (or BMG or any of the other label's) they are required by contract to use a DRM system. Sure, Apple can try and negotiate, but until now, no CEO or company has been able to get the music labels to drop their DRM requirement.
I say good work Steve. And hopefully things go well for EMI and the other labels become convinced that this is the way to go.
The other labels are viewing this as an experiment that they don't have to pay for. Either EMI will succeed or they will fail. If EMI is successful (read: they sell lots of DRM-free tracks) then the other labels will feel pressure to follow suit.
That is the only way DRM-free music will become commonplace. PERIOD. So if you Mr. Joe-consumer want to effect change,go buy some DRM-free tracks from iTunes and show the other labels that this is the ONLY way forward.
This article's take is too bogged down in the details. It's trying to hard to find the conspiracy. The big news is lost on this author. Make no mistake: *today's announcement is a watershed for downloaded music.* This is a big deal. This is one of the Big Four legally releasing their tracks (all of them!) DRM-free into the download market. To argue otherwise is to be distracted from the core issue.
Ryan (and the rest of the team), this article might hold some water, but i think posting it right now is too soon (IMHO). Give them a chance. It's a first step.
Also, I am not sure we should really be surprised that a corporation such as Apple, EMI or any other company out to make money, acts in their best interest. Even though I believe SJ has the consumer in mind more than most CEO's, he is still a corporate CEO and is charged with making the shareholders money.
Some of these comments are nauseating.
Some of you really ought to take basic economics classes.
These companies aren't doing things for anybody.
They're doing this move because they believe it will benefit them.
And why should it be any other way?
This is a free economy after all and everyone should operate according to their own motives within the bounds set by the government.
Ryan is right, but we should remember one thing.
The biggest seller of digital audio playing gear in the world, Nokia, supports AAC on its music(and non-music)phones for some time. Another big seller of DAPping stuff, Sony Ericsson, also supports AAC. And also some Motorola phones (at least those using RealPlayer).
Out of a sudden, Apple and EMI can sell music that can be heard without problems on a bigger universe than just the tiny part of the market dominated by the iPod...
I think you are completely offbase here Ryan. Jobs has been against DRM in music since BEFORE the iTunes store. Dont you remember the interviews about him being in negotiation with the companies? FairPlay was not Apples idea. It was necessary to get the content to sell.
And to the people talking about Bill Gates - all he ever said was that the current implementation of DRM is wrong. He never said it should be removed. Also, listen to the webcast - when asked whether Steves letter influenced EMI, he said Steve had felt this way for "a long time before that letter was written".
Im astounded that even now people make Apple out to be the enemy in this. EVERYBODY is a winner. This is a step forward. Lets recognise it as that and hopefully encourage all of the other big labels to follow suit instead of whinging about the minor details of whether DRM free music is a right.
From what I understand by most articles I've read today on the subject, entire albums will be the same price for DRM-free. I personally don't buy many single tracks because if I like an artist, I usually like the album if they are true artists. Anyway, when I do rarely buy single tracks, I would be willing to pay ¢30 more for DRM-free 256k files. I do see the author's point, but I think it's a little overblown and paranoid. This is a step in the right direction, and eventually the ¢99 tracks will be replaced with DRM-free 256k I'm sure.
1) It's a test. No shit. One label tests it and hopefully the rest follow. You were expecting the entire music industry to magically drop DRM in one fell swoop? WTF?
2) You're blaming Apple for EMI's choices. At best, we have no clue who said the 99-cent tracks can't be drm-free. I'm guessing EMI.
3) Your AAC comments are seriously out of whack. a) iPod, PSP, Zune, Sansa, PS3... all support AAC. That' has to be a vast majority of the market. b) Since there is no DRM you can just transcode the AAC to MP3 from within iTunes if AAC doesn't work with your player. Not a big deal. AAC sounds better than MP3 at the same bitrate... it's not like AAC is being used for some nefarious reason.
4) Video: once again, movie studios have the argument of DVD copy protection. Music labels have no such argument about CDs. This is a BIG distinction. Sure, DRM needs to be killed on video as well, but Jobs himself doesn't have that kind of pull in the video world like he does the music world. Why do you blame him for everything?
5) If you want to send a message, buy EMI's non-DRM tracks and DON'T buy their DRM tracks. Simple as that. Then they will learn that DRM gets them nothing and abandon it. We have principles but they have bottom lines. We need to speak their language to get a point across.
I understand where you're coming from with this editorial (don't get lazy, keep pushing for a DRM-free world) but quite honestly your message is translating poorly and making you sound like a whiny bitch. If we're going to shit on companies every time they make an improvement they're going to stop making improvements.
As others have pointed out, you have distracted yourself with minor negatives and are missing the incredibly large positive. "But I'll have to trascode AAC to mp3 to play on my Archos!" Seriously? Out of all of this that's one of the gripes you come up with?
You'll notice that when a dog behaves properly dog trainers don't yell at the dog and say "That's not fucking good enough!!!!". Use some sense.
Very well said. I agree 100%.
I also have to add one more thing... I wonder if the tracks will convert to mp3 in iTunes since they are DRM-free just like other DRM-free tracks will. Then they would be easily compatible with any player.
I've always wondered why so many device manufacturers would or wanted to have compatibility with the iTunes Music Store, but never considered having AAC support already in place on most major devices. AAC isn't an issue in the cellphone market as most music playing phones include AAC support. Creative, RCA and I think Samsung only supported Microsoft's MTP protocal. My point being that it seems like some companies never really had any intention of working with anyone outside of the Microsoft universe of Windows Media Audio/Video. I think I can understand why Apple never supported Microsoft's MTP. They're (for the most part) an industry standard company and MSC is an industry standard protocal. So since most of those companies supported MTP, then they were a Windows Media only focus group. Though there are exceptions like Sandisk & Archos, which I think, supports both protocals, but not formats.
Thankfully, I put my money in Sony. And since Sony recently decided to support AAC natively on the PSP/PS3 and current line of Network Walkmans (MSC based devices), I'm set... Well as long as no one uses OGG.
There's always conversion of AAC to WMA or ATRAC3, though. And that one other evil format.
Nooooo!
There goes everyone's justification for stealing music...
My only concern is that the "experiment" is going to be used maliciously, as a way to scan files on networks, get some data on piracy, and then fudge the numbers a bit to make it look like piracy suddenly jumped infinity percent as soon as iTunes started selling non-DRM tracks. Then the Big Four would have some legal precedent over hardware manufacturers, which in turn, could be forced to cripple hardware so it will play nice with DRMed material.
Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
Do you really think that moaning and whining at every practical step towards a DRM-free universe is going to help? They are putting their money where their mouths are. What are you doing?
Bruce-
I think his point about SACD vs. standard audio CDs was that they cost about the same price and that the consumer isn't expected to pay more for the DRM'd, higher res version (SACD) as he/she pays for the lower res, DRM free version (CD).
Ryan,
While there isn't anything particularly incorrect about what you've said, this is simply the way it has to happen. Apple is a company as is EMI. Their prime goal is profit. They may have other goals too, most likely they do, but none of these are greater than profit.
Moving away from DRM is a risky business for these companies. Many of us believe that DRM-less music can be more profitable than DRMed music but it is difficult to prove such a thing. Because of the uncertainly, it was always highly unlikely that any transition from DRM to DRM free would be quick. I can understand this method of testing the water.
Having said that, I also belive that what the consumer wants, the consumer eventually gets. I believe it is our duty as consumers not to let up pressure on companies to abandon DRM altogether. I think that this point above all is what your post is an attempt to promote, and in that I completely agree.
Conor
Nobody else seems to have mentioned that when DVD-A and SACD was first introduced it was QUITE a premium to get the higher quality tunes! So it makes sense that this higher quality offering be at a higher price - for a time.
Additionally, how many of the engadget team have ever ripped a SACD?
It makes perfect sense that just like with SACD eventually the price will come down as consumers demand better quality. It makes no sense for Apple to keep making bigger and bigger iPods only to stuff them with teeny, tiny songs.
"Almost no devices play AAC"
Wow, that may actually be the dumbest thing said in an Engadget opinion article ever. Almost no devices... except for iPods, Zunes and Sandisk players, which are between them roughly 90% of all of the DAPs sold on planet earth.
You were stupid enough to buy a Creative Zen? Well, sorry about that. You'll just have to wait for eMusic or Rhapsody to take EMI up on their new wholesale terms and start offering tracks in WMA, MP3 or RealAudio format, which should take about a month. My heart bleeds for all the trouble that nefarious Steve Jobs has caused you.
some very valid points are made in this article, but it is weakened by some of the clear inaccuracies and biases presented. yes, this is a small step. no, this is not the utopian DRM-free world everyone was hoping for. but did anyone really expect DRM to vanish (literally) overnight? more than anything else, this is a test. it is not as though this is a big risk for steve jobs and EMI- the old buying scheme remains in place, but they have very little to gain from this new system, and the decision seems to be largely pro-consumer.
secondly, i'm wondering where engadget comes off saying that DRM-free music is a "right." no one is saying it wouldn't be nice to have DRM-free music, but to say that it is the right of the consumer to change the product they're buying is irrational. it's not as if jobs and co are advertising a false product; the buyer is perfectly aware that there are strings attached. the consumer can decide whether or not to buy the product, but they do not have the right to alter it. though the business must cater to the wants and needs of the general public, they still have the right to determine what exactly they are selling.
lastly, a tiny bit of research shows that AAC is neither an apple invention nor an apple specific format. from the apple website: "AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony and Nokia." it is supported by the zune, some sandisk players, the psp, many sony players, many palm devices, many nokia devices, the ps3, and a huge number of software media players. so saying that this is a jab at alternate media players from apple is incorrect. it is merely apple's preferred format, and honestly, how hard is it to convert music to mp3 if it really is that big of a deal? i'll answer that question: not hard. you click a button in itunes.
this is the first step of many towards a DRM-free world, but a step in the right direction nonetheless.
Does this surprise anyone? Face it - Apple is one of the sneakiest, most disengenuous, and straight up lying companies that there has ever been. This is more of the same.
It's absolutely ridiculous what EMI is doing here - if this fails due to the extra cost (it's a rather likely possibility), EMI will say "See? No-one wants DRM-free music!" and it'll be a step backwards, because now no corporations will want to try a DRM-free model (or will use it as an excuse) even though the real reason it failed was the price. If they want to win hearts and minds, they'll have to go the whole shebang.
To summarize: today's announcement did not make everything magically perfect forever.
This stuff happens gradually. I guess I can understand the skepticism, but I have to agree with a previous commenter -- I just don't see the conspiracy here. Jobs publishes an anti-DRM essay and a number of people question his motives. Now he makes a deal with EMI to sell DRM-free music, and it's criticized as "just a test."
How much money does the guy have to put where his mouth is? Oh, he has to encourage Disney labels specifically (as he has already done so generally) to go DRM-free. So that's the benchmark now. And what if he does? We all know what the reaction would be: "It's just words, not actions. Completely meaningless, obviously."
I take issue in particular with this section:
"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."
What if there really is a lack of consumer interest? Judging by the tone of this post, if the experiment does "fail," Engadget certainly wouldn't ever admit that most consumers don't care about DRM. I certainly hope the experiment succeeds, and I also hope that most consumers prefer DRM-free music, but you can't automatically make that assumption. Engadget provides no evidence either way that a broad base of customers give a shit about DRM -- just insinuations.
I find the AAC compatibility issue to be over the top, as well. There is now nothing preventing other manufacturers from producing players that will play DRM-free music from the iTunes Music Store. It's not like AAC is Apple's proprietary music format. It's MPEG-4 audio.
Points not mentioned in the article:
- Album prices will remain the same and DRM-free music will be the default for full albums from the EMI catalog.
- Jobs stated that he plans to have the iTunes Store offer similar DRM-free deals to independents that have been clamoring for such for a while.
- Jobs stated that the plan is to have at least half of the iTunes catalog DRM-free by the end of the year.
That doesn't sound like Jobs is treating this as "just a test" to me. He's given every indication that this is the start of a sea change. It will take an enormous amount of backtracking to undo what he has essentially now made company policy.
If you look at the progress made between the beginning of 2007 and today, you have to be incredibly myopic to not observe that Apple is heading very much in the right direction here. Again, I just don't see the conspiracy. Editorial -1, Troll.
Ryan, I dont know if you woke up in a bad mood this morning or what. But that post was very un-Engadget-like. I would expect such a post from Paul Thurott or someone, but not from here.. But anyway, I think this is great news, and a step in the right direction. If this works out, soon there will be no difference between an album I purchase online or on CD.
And there are a few things you overlooked:
- by the end of the year 2.5 million songs (half of the iTunes library) will be DRM free (that's EMI content plus other content from other labels)
- video wont be DRM free (at least for now) simply because video is not distributed DRM free. Only CD's are. That would be something to blame on the movie industry, not Apple.
I mean when you think about it, all he's really doing is pushing to have the digital content you purchase from iTunes, no different than what you would buy in physical form. And that decision is not up to Steve, its up to the companies who own the music. And if I was any of the other players in the mp3 player biz, I would be rushing to add AAC support ASAP (its not like AAC is some new invention. Its been around for years, thats their bad if they decided not to support it).
But either way, I look at this as good news. And hopefully things will get even better down the road.
Instead of looking at the $.30 increase as a premium for a higher bitrate, you could also consider it instead as a premium for the lack of DRM and higher bitrate is an enticement to purchase the track. Since EMI naturally assumes that their tracks are going to get pirated, they will have to add an additional cost to the songs to cover for the lost sales. So instead of having DRM and calling each and every one us thieves, EMI is saying that there will be some theft and $.30 is meant to cover that. The higher bitrate may be there to make the price increase easier to swallow. If non-DRM tracks sell well, then we might see the price go down. If it sells poorly, the experiment might end. I will buy some tracks to help the latter from happening.
Like a lot of commentors, I see this as a trial balloon for the rest of the media industry. If EMI and Apple does well, I can see Jobs rushing to be the first to offer DRM-free movies on iTunes. For now, we have to wait and see.
"My point is that looking at this from a business perspective, it's not a purely pro-consumer move, and it's not a real commitment. It's a small step in the right direction, coated with a lot of hypocritical rhetoric, and that's what I'm calling out."
Of course it's not a purely pro-consumer move. These are corporations, not charities. They have to answer to their shareholders (and yes, make their upper management filthy rich). And you know what? That's how it should be. If you run a corporation that's wildly successful, you should get to reap the rewards. It's a small step yes, but we're a lot further than last week, like many others have said DRM won't vanish overnight.
I can't understand how it's hypocritical at all. Jobs has stated half of the iTunes catalog will be DRM-free by year's end. That's a bold statement, and he'll look like an ass if he doesn't deliver. When the world's largest legal music download site states that they'll be 50% DRM-free by year's end, consumers everywhere need to take notice.
By the way, be a man and own up to the ridiculously wrong "very, very few devices actually stand to benefit from Apple selling DRM-free AAC tracks" statement. My lord was that mind-bogglingly stupid. As others have mentioned, when the vast majority of DAPs will benefit (hell, iPods alone make it the vast majority, not to mention Zunes and pretty much every mobile phone...), that's actually the OPPOSITE of "very, very few."
I'd like to see more action, however, this limited pilot/beta is needed to determine how successful DRM free music will be.
I was sceptical about the premium to be paid. However, at sites like allofmp3.com you pay more for tracks with higher bit rate simply because this results in a larger file that consumes more disk space and bandwidth.
Regardless of the motives (and how lame or trivial it may sound), a higher bitrate song is more expensive to distribute.
Its just a matter of Ryan dared say something against SJ plans. Even tho Engadget has been championing the drive to DRM free, including Ryan, all that seems to have been forgotten just cos' he was being abit less luvy duvy about the situation.
There will be many positive articles around the internet, so if you don't like the tone of this one, i suggest you read elsewhere.
I actually prefer Ryan's article, it is one of the few that actually takes a more critical look at what this move means. I agree with a lot of the points that Ryan brought up and was impressed that someone finally got beyond the star-struck phase.
Engadget jumped the shark! haha. Sorry I found the arguments a bit specious at best.
"So why not make 99-cent 128-bit AAC tracks DRM free as well?" From the companies' standpoints, there's a certain amount of risk involved with removing the protection because of the risk of increased piracy. That risk has a $$ value associated with it and that is priced into the $1.29 price point.
The price increase conversation probably went something like this:
EMI: Non-DRMed music will have a higher rate of piracy than DRMed music. We estimate that loss to be $X. So if we sell Y tracks, we need to increase the individual track price by $X/Y.
Apple: Ok, we can sell it to people for that price and since increasing the bit-rate will not increase our costs much, we can double the bit rate to justify the cost increase to consumers.
Oh and total non-sequitor but did you miss the part where they said music videos from EMI will be DRM free as well?
And sorry but are you actually saying you have a RIGHT to the MP3 format? HAHAHA
Non-DRM'd AAC can easily be converted to MP3 in iTunes, then dragged anywhere you want. Also, isn't AAC an open standard? I like open standards... :)
Yeah, I agree. This article puts the whole transition into too negative a viewpoint. While this may not be everything all at once, it certainly is a huge step. Nobody said it had to happen all at once. Plus - it's a nice bonus that the $.30 more songs come with higher bitrates. Nobody was even asking for that.
I would think the higher bitrate is a little value-add to justify the higher price, nothing more. Plus, I would imagine this is being done as a byproduct of the fact that the non-DRM tracks all need to be re-encoded as new tracks that don't carry the Fairplay data. I assume this is the case, otherwise they wouldn't need several months to get these tracks onto the iTunes store.
If they have to essentially re-rip all those tracks, why not do it at a higher bitrate to give a little more perceived value. This is one of the areas where Apple is so strong. Is it a business decision that leads to potentially more profit? Absolutely. Does it sound like a win-win when it gets picked up in the mainstream media. Yeppers.
Nice article. But why exactly is "free, usable, uncrippled media" a right? It sounds much more like Engadget wants it to be.
Taylor Martyn:
You actually believe the UK is socialist?
Ignorant fuck.
"it's not a real commitment"
so, publicly stating that 2.5 million out of hte 5 million songs on iTunes will be DRM-free by the end of the year is not a real commitment? then what exactly do you define as a "commitment?"
Just the other day I was thinking about how much better thought out engadget was than its closest rival (in my eyes) gizmodo. It turns out that while engadget is perhaps a little less childish, it is seriously lacking in terms of sense.
The word "iMonopoly" struck me in the article. Is the iPod the only music player manufactured and sold? No. There are hundreds of music players, portable units, home units, car radios, etc. Is the iTunes Store the only place you can purchase music? No. You can guy music at Wal Mart, Virgin Megastores, other online sites either per track or on a subscription basis. The results: the iPod and iTunes store are just one of a myriad of ways one can get music.
Is the iPod and iTunes Store the best way to get music? Maybe it isn't, or maybe it is, based on the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet have bought into its ecosystem, but that doesn't make it anywhere near a monopoly.
You know this article is the last straw for me. I'm sorry engadget but a black cloud has been building over this site for about 12 months now. You used to be great - simply bringing 'great gadget news' now you just spread poison - who's shilling you ?. Your out of my favorites tonight. This is a good day - a positive step in a complicated world.
Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?
A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter.
AAC isn't supported by a lot of audio players at the moment only because iTMS was the only place that sold them and Apple wrapped them with DRM that only allowed them to be played on iPods. Now that that DRM is gone, you will see an explosion of players that support AAC. Firmware updates should fix most recent players and any company that doesn't want a crack at iTunes customers in the future needs a new CEO.
You bitch about DRM'd music but now that iTunes will offer DRM-free music, you bitch that it isn't in a format that requires licensing fees at every level. AAC is a better format. It is license free and if you like MP3 so much you can always convert them to MP3 since 256kbps doesn't mean anything to you, you shouldn't mind the quality loss.
From the tone and inaccuracies in your post it seems you only want to slam Apple and EMI for whatever you can find (or make up). Enjoy the announcement for what it is - A very large step in the right direction.
Well yes EMI is certainly leading amongst the music companies and its Apple leading the way amongst the technology companies, not Microsoft or Real. Microsoft through its actions of embedding DRM not only on commercially produced content but even your personally produced content has shown where it stands on DRM.
But Apple has correctly judged that the marketplace is ready for DRM free systems, its knows this because of the opposition in Norway (which by the way is not opposed to DRM, only that the end result should be inter operable, or that the consumer should be made aware that Fairplay is not interooperable). The EU has publicly said it has no issue with iTunes or iPod.
But clearly MS, Real and others are not leading in this space, certainly MS does not like to compete in the open format space, it much prefers closed systems, like Office, Windows and many other software tools it produces. But Engadget has its own agenda and its articles are written in that light, not in an unbiased way at all.
I suggest the best thing is not to visit Engadget for 6 months, certainly I will do that.
What are businesses in the business of doing?
Making a profit. That's it. Ecspecially in Microsofts case, thats all they really care about really, cause thier products suck. But I digress.
I say its step in the right direction. You know, they could've just announced EMI being added to the label and left it at that. But they actually announced a way to kick start DRM free media (whatever format its in).
This isn't a revolution and we're not fighting opression, so just relax. It's just music, if you don't like it, buy a CD at the store and call it a day.
Jeez, why can you take a little victory and admit Apple and EMI are doing some good here and making some money in the process? I mean, they *are* in business after all. I think this is a nice compromise that looks enticing to other labels without them giving away the farm on a gamble. They have to see limited risk with every baby step or it will never happen. Give Apple some f'ing credit for giving them an option to that wasn't all or nothing.
I'm surprised at the very negative tone of the article. Engadget - you have lost credibility in my eyes.
I am very impressed that a major music label & the leading online music seller are doing this.
The $.30 markup seems very reasonable. I don't think there is anything wrong with offering low bit rate / DRM'd & high bit-rate non-DRM'd versions of the same tracks. In fact, it seems kind of smart.
Um...I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but, as many iTunes users know, you can convert non-protected AAC tracks into mp3 format in about 30 seconds. These $1.29 tracks will be non-protected, and therefore can be converted and used on any player or music enabled cell phone.
What most people don't seem to be understanding from this article is that it's not about how this isn't a good move. It's about how everyone is giving Apple credit, when it really seems like they had very little to do with it, other than Steve Jobs writing an open letter a few months ago. If Steve had been really serious about getting rid of DRM, he would have done it for all the independent labels years ago when they first asked for it. Instead, it took the initiative of another company to get Steve to put his money where his mouth is, and offer these DRM free tracks (for a premium though). I give all credit for this act to EMI, Apple just happens to be the company that is selling their product.
And for all you saying video isn't distributed DRM free, it is. It's broadcast over the airwaves without DRM.
Well sure it's broadcast over the airwaves without DRM. That's like saying vinyl records are sold without DRM. How can you possibly have DIGITAL Rights Management on analogue distributions?
Well then how about digital cable? That doesn't have DRM on it.
Is Britain the only place where when you buy a full EMI album you get it at high rate and unDRMed? Cause that's what the BBC reported...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6516189.stm
Digital Cable still has to pass through the analogue hole at some point, and does have content protection in the form on that propriatary set-top box. You can rip it right off it after that because of the analogue hole, but it's still protected.
Now let's see...I think Apple and EMI created a very strange experiment here...
Users are somehow expected to pay more for DRM free tracks. That is an insult. DRM costs money, leaving it out should make the tracks cheaper. Also, the higher bitrate is cool, but it also does not justify a higher price. It might take up some more space on the servers and use some more bandwidth, but that's all and I don't really believe that justifies a 30% price increase...
The whole thing gives off a decidedly unwholesome smell...I'm not sure why, but somehow I don't believe this is about trusting the user or anything...maybe they just want people to keep on buying the cheaper tracks so they can say nobody wants DRM free music after all...or they think everybody will now pay 30% more for the same music...or maybe they just want to get people to buy whole albums instead of single tracks?
This editorial is ridiculous, and I believe endemic of an attitude recently prevalent in Engadget's posts: an unfounded sense of entitlement and overall negativity.
You just got 95% of what you've been complaining to get (in a surprise landmark move in the consumer's favor, no less), and all you can say is that "it's not good enough".
Stop being haters.
I completely agree with this rant and it's what i've been thinking since i read the news this morning.
I believe this is also EMI's solution to Apple not wanting to raise the price of music. This way they have their higher prices and if DRM-free music takes off, Apple will drop the 99 cent variety and offer all songs at 1.29 while still being the good guy, compared to if they just raised their prices overnight.
And if DRM is such a bother, i could buy a 10 song album for 12.90 or i could go to a cd store and buy the same album for less without file restrictions.
Albums still cost 9.99$. They're only offering high bitrate, unDRMed files for the albums but keeping the same price point. If anything the $1.29 is encouragement to get people to buy full albums.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6516189.stm