Apple and EMI ditching DRM is good, but it's not good enough
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.
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 4)
James @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:25PM
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.
Lee @ Apr 2nd 2007 11:50PM
Very well said. I agree 100%.
Johnny @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:26PM
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.
Christopher @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:28PM
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.
Craig @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:28PM
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.
... @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:30PM
Nooooo!
There goes everyone's justification for stealing music...
MB @ Apr 2nd 2007 7:45PM
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.
Anndra @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:35PM
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?
Jake @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:37PM
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).
Aron Trimble @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:38PM
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.
Nick @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:44PM
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.
nelsb @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:45PM
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.
gxti @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:46PM
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.
theCardinal @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:47PM
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
Johnny @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:47PM
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.
Jounin @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:12PM
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.
jon.leopold @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:00PM
"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."
Doctor Memory @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:53PM
"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.
Bog @ Apr 2nd 2007 4:56PM
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.
Bazza @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:06PM
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.
Shawn O @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:18PM
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.
shiny @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:03PM
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
Rod @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:05PM
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.
Donald MacKenzie @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:24PM
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.
tblaze @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:27PM
Nice article. But why exactly is "free, usable, uncrippled media" a right? It sounds much more like Engadget wants it to be.
Tom Browning @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:31PM
Taylor Martyn:
You actually believe the UK is socialist?
Ignorant fuck.
Nick @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:34PM
"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?"
badnews @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:42PM
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.
Tom Browning @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:42PM
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.
Bill McCloskey @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:08PM
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... :)
Paul @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:08PM
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.
saintchuck @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:09PM
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.
MrWhite @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:10PM
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.
Mitch @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:35PM
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.
Mr. @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:35PM
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.
Bob @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:39PM
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.
Matt @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:49PM
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.
Will @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:58PM
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?
Matt @ Apr 2nd 2007 7:08PM
Well then how about digital cable? That doesn't have DRM on it.
Will @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:55PM
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
Will @ Apr 3rd 2007 12:10AM
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.
Roland Rohde @ Apr 2nd 2007 7:12PM
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?
Bob @ Apr 2nd 2007 7:40PM
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.
Will @ Apr 3rd 2007 12:30AM
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
adam @ Apr 2nd 2007 7:47PM
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.
Tulse @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:01PM
"we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's a right, and we demand it."
Let me fix this for you:
"we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media, that we don't have to get up off our fat asses from behind our computer and actually go out into the Big Blue-Ceilinged Room to a store to buy shiny discs with free, usable, uncrippled media at a 50% premium over iTunes, is a feature -- it's a right, and we demand it. We also want a pony."
And it is completely inexcusable when a gadget blog claims that "almost no devices play AAC". What kind of credibility is Engadget supposed to have when it says things like this? Are there no editors or fact-checkers?
Carl @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:23PM
I have to agree with the haters that this article is great contender for worst-episode-ever honors. The title gets it right, but then the text swerves off into flaming Steve Jobs, partly based on ignorance (you can cross-convert AAC to MP3 with one click in iTunes).
My biggest complaints about iTunes tracks are 1) bit rate and 2) DRM. That's why I buy CDs. I'd guess I have about 40 iTunes tracks. If I could, I'd upgrade them all. That would cost me $12.
When will, say, Sony or Microsoft address my biggest complaints about one of their retarded products? Will they let me upgrade for $12?
The EMI deal is not going to change the world. But it is a good thing. Let's not complain about good things, please.
Steve @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:25PM
ryan,
just as it's the consumer's right to consume creative media however they please within the spectrum of options available (and no, it is not a "right" to demand that media be delivered in a certain fashion), it's also within net citizens' rights to stop reading an increasingly-less credible gadget blog whose authors make disingenuous, hyper-opinionated tirades without time or facts to back themselves up.
l2k @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:38PM
Though I am skeptical, for many of the reasons Ryan brings up, this is still a first step. Sure, I am worried that this is the labels skamming to prove it won't work. However, EMI didn't HAVE to do this? Or did they? Did the votes of apathy towards new releases and rampant piracy send a message? Time will tell.
Also, I think the AAC argument is rather minor, since you can alter (re-code) these files. Would I LIKE to see an MP3 offering in the future? Damn skippy I would. And frankly, I'd like to see this same thing at other sites, so that the iTunes monopoly will one day be broken.
Charging a premium for a higher bitrate? A con and a travesty. What the premium charge really is is a piracy tax, which frankly, I think is fair. It was done before, with blank media. Now, it's too HIGH of a tax, but the concept is fair, I think. You should be able to choose the bitrate, with no added cost. Encoding at several "common" bitrates costs nearly NOTHING extra for the label or the e-tailer. The piracy tax should be built into the DRM free nature of the files, not the bitrate they're sampled at. Let's just be honest about these things.
Most important here, and I still have hope, as this is a first step, - the basic unit cost is still TOO DAMN HIGH!. A DRM free single should cost $.25-.50, depending on demand. At those prices, I'll buy. You have eliminated the bulk of the entire physical infrastructure and cost of distrubting media, and the most you can do is knock 30% off the already over-inflated price? Nope, sorry jack, doesn't fly with me.
Finally, the megacorps have created copyright laws that are so restrictive and unending, that there will never again be a common public domain culture that we all share as the heritage of our civilization. Making that stuff free, in its due time, is what opens up the stories therin to new interpretation and development. If, centuries ago, we had the same laws in place that we do now, the great works of history would have been denied to us all. Copyrights are fair, really, so that an artist can earn a living off of being an artist - during their lifetime. In my view, it's not so that some megacorp can highjack a common artistic heritage for all time. And, if they're going to try that, they at least owe us something on the very cheap.
(BTW: I am HUGE on property rights. What the labels are doing has nothing to do with the property rights of those who, in the vast majority of cases, should really hold them - the artist. The labels aren't about protecting property rights. They're about getting Johnny executive his fifth home in Maui.)
Still, all in all, at LEAST this is a start.
l2k @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:51PM
Oh, and I'd still like to see iTunes offer a subscription service, because if they could do it at a Napster/Rhapsody price, I'd be the FIRST guy in line to sign up.