Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Announces (some) DRM-free iTunes
Fjan11 writes "Steve Jobs just announced that starting next month on you can buy higher quality 256Kbps AAC encoded DRM-free versions of iTunes songs for $1.29. Upgrades to songs you've already bought will be available at the $0.30 price difference. Currently EMI is the only publisher participating, accounting for about 20% of the songs available." There's also reports from Reuters and ABC News. The deal excludes the Beatles. You can also read the official press release from Apple if you still think this a late joke; this story confirms earlier speculation.
.. everyone who wanted DRM-free music put your money where your mouth is!
Uh, no? Jobs isn't stupid. As the summary says, these files are encoded at a much higher bitrate. So what you're really paying more for is higher quality files. Of course, you could get higher quality files on anti-DRM principles, but the result is still the same: You get twice the "standard" bitrate for about 30% more. You can decide for yourself if that's a deal or not.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It's not a win unless you reward them with your custom. Better buy now.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
...please refrain from further encouraging slashdotters to give themselves 'a hand'
I didn't see it mentioned in a brief look at the articles above, but albums will automatically be 256kbps and DRM free at the normal price. This should help encourage album sales. Ideally, they would offer the lower quality songs without DRM as well, but this is undoubtedly prevented by their current contracts with the other labels. Only by offering a new "product" were they able to remove the DRM. This is the same reason that they are unable to remove the DRM from songs released by indie labels that requested no DRM.
Actually, albums are the same price, DRM or not. Only individual songs have the surcharge. Can't understand the logic, but I prefer albums anyway.
The format is still locked to the Ipod, which is entirely the problem!
Ummm, no it's not. AAC is a fairly standard format (though not as ubiquitous as mp3). Many players out there will play non-DRM'd AAC files with no problem. The Zune comes to mind. Hell, my Samsung phone will play them. This is a good thing all around. And since album prices are staying the same, I can only view this as a good move.
This guy's the limit!
Man, say what you want about Steve Jobs. He's got a famous temper, he doesn't compromise, he likes closed systems, etc. and so on. But one thing he definitely has is balls, and sometimes we can benefit from it.
So, he apparently finally has convinced one label to drop the DRM, and yes, he's charging more for the content, but he goes and ups the bitrate, just so the content from the non-participating labels looks like shit in comparison. That takes some cojones, and I gotta say, I admire him for that. Could it possibly be that DRM will become one of those horrible memories from the past that we can all suppress? Time will tell, but at least today, I say this is relatively good news.
And, you know..."fuck the RIAA" goes without saying.
gameDB
How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?
Without DRM there'd be far less excuse to charge extra for the DRM-free version. The $1.30 version will subsidise the $1 DRM-encumbered version.
It's a bit like the way the supermarkets virtually wiped out tastier (but odd-looking) varieties of fruit and veg for cosmetic reasons. They're then selling them back to us as luxury items now we're used to eating the pretty (but tasteless) varieties.
The real winner here is Apple, and the potential big loser is Microsoft. This may well kill Windows Media as a digital audio format.
Think about it... If all the labels offer their music DRM free by the end of the year, then what incentive is there for any online music store, except for the Zune store, to offer music in Windows Media format, given that the iPod is incompatible with WMA and represents about 80% of the target market.
There simply isn't any reason for an online music store that isn't owned by Microsoft to offer downloads that are incompatible with around about 80% of the devices that people own.
More to the point. Microsoft is only offering the Zune as a means of pushing its own audio format. Yet even Zune customers will be now able to play DRM free tracks from the iTMS. Microsoft has just caught up to the idea that you have to have a closed system to succeed (which was never the case, as Jobs' said in his letter a couple of months back), and now they will have to go home and think again.
Steve Jobs has just succeeded in the first step of completely destroying Microsoft's music strategy, and no-one seems to have noticed. He must be chuckling to himself.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
Believe me, no encouragement is needed.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
Marvin the Martian
Another advantage of the higher bitrates is the ability to slip in watermarking. Thanks to perfect digital replication the instant this appeared on P2P they could trace the file back to the person that purchased the media.
Think about it. Apple has not released the details of the tracks other then "256kb aac" w/o DRM. They don't say that it will be delayed downloading (rather then the buy, download, listen now) could be "Thanks for purchasing. Your music will arrive shortly in you library and purchased media areas." Then about 5 minutes later the track downloads. And seeing how apple doesn't allow for a redownloading (i think) they simply add the watermarking into the database and delete the track.
EMI find a DRM free version of the music on the internet (Coldplay-Clocks.m4a) and downloads it from people. They compare the watermark, it comes back to you, you get sued like no other on the planet as an example.
(the old tired method of this but):
1) Announce DRM Free media
2) Release DRM free media w/ Watermarking
3) Download version from internet
4) Link watermarking to individual
5) SUE THE PANTS OFF OF THEM!!!
6) ??? (Repeat?)
7) Profit somehow.
Its a possibility. Don't just celebrate yet. I've got a feeling this wont be with out some strings
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
After Jobs made his "get rid of DRM" speech a month or two ago, they were coming out of the woodwork blasting him for being a hypocrite. Maybe these know-nothings will now realize that he couldn't make these changes on his own, he needed the labels themselves to come along.
NOW that one of them is promoting anti-DRM versions, expect the indy stuff to follow suit. These same anti-Jobs people will lament the fact Jobs didn't do this with indy bands 1st. It's called negotiations people. Getting a major label to do this is 10 times better than having ONLY the indy bands DRM free. This is a major change in thinking for the big labels. And that made it well worth the wait.
Maybe if the anti-Jobs people would focus more on Microsoft and their disabling of the Zune wifi for a change, even more progress can be made in the DRM free world. But I'm guessing that the anti-Job reaction to his speech wasn't atually about his speech, it was more about being Microsoft lap dogs.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Yes, but I recall EMI saying that other companies would be selling DRM free music from EMI's catalogue, not just Apple.
...at this very moment chairs are being lifted into orbit from Redmond.
It makes no sense to offer those downloads in WMA format. Why lock out 80% of the user base? If I was an online music retailer, I would sell mp3s. Apple doesn't care about AAC the way that Microsoft cares about WMA. WMA is Microsoft's attempt to control digital music the way they control operating systems. AAC is the format Apple used so that they could have the DRM that the labels wanted.
Today's announcement if the other labels go for it means that they have failed!!! failed!!!! FAILED!!!!!!!
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
There are other reasons why Apple would stick with AAC beyond lock-in. First, AAC was designed to provide better sound quality at the same bitrate-- whether it delivers on this seems to depend on a few things, particularly the encoders you're comparing, but AAC is an MPEG standard developed to be better than MP3. Also, MP3 has additional legal (patent) issues which might be important for someone running an online store. According to the Wikipedia article, AAC doesn't require royalty payments for distribution. In other words, using MP3 would force Apple to pay royalties on their music sales, and AAC doesn't.
Beyond that, Apple can't prevent anyone from making AAC encoders/decoders, so there really is no lock-in to complain of.
You've got to be kidding, right? AAC is an open spec. It's more efficient then MP3, uses less power to decode (important for portable devices), and isn't saddled with 14 different, incompatible tagging schemes. It's also the format that Apple customers expect. Not only that, but just about every player that can handle MP3 can also handle LC AAC.
That's fine that you've got some MP3 player from the nineties, but stop trying to find things to complain about and drop 80 bucks on something that can handle the newer format. Technology does become obsolete, you know.
Wow, there's a new business model here!
1. Strap payload to chair.
2. Place chair near Ballmer.
3. Thwart one of Microsoft's business plans.
3. Profit!
See, no missing step!
20 years of watching the man, as well as many other technology CEOs + 6 years of working for him. He is passionate about some things amd music is one of them. He manages his brand (meaning the brand of "Steve Jobs") even more carefully than he manages the Apple brand, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about music and that he would NEVER write a public letter to the industry as a cheap bit of marketing hype. The fact that, within weeks of that letter, Apple has taken today's step of releasing DRM free music in a higher bit rate and in an open standard format provides hard evidence that he wasn't blowing smoke.
You are forgetting something here. Most of the "iTMS suxorz" and "DRM suxorz" crowd that say "sell me high quality, DRM-free music, and I will pay for it" have now had their bluff called and now they're pissed. They never intended to pay for content in the first place. They will still pirate their music.
If Apple would have just come out and said "We are now offering 'audiophiles' higher quality AAC encoding for a small premium" and kept the DRM you'd still have the same crowd saying "What? It should be loss-less for $0.30!", or "I'd buy it if it wasn't for the shitty DRM!". But now they are showing their true colors. They will whine about anything if it means they have to pay for it. Look at some of the comments: "OMFG, it should be in .mp3 format! AAC suxorz! MP3 roxorz!"
Give me a break. Personally, the audio equipment I usually play my content on is not of sufficient quality and not in an acoustically-correct enough environment (my iPod, my car, my living-room) to be likely to tell any difference in the higher-quality format. At this point it will come down to "Am I willing to pay $.30 extra for DRM-free content?". I have to say that, even though my music collection is end-to-end Apple-compatible (iTMS->iTunes->AppleTV-or-iPod) I still prefer to make a statement about DRM-free music and will choose to put my $$ where my mouth is. As a "bonus" I get a higher bit-rate encoding, which, who knows, may sound better. Do I wish I could get all of this for $0.00 or the whole ball-of-wax for only $.49? Yes. But, oh well.
I don't like DRM any more than the next guy, but I've moved out of my parent's basement and have discovered that, in the real world, you actually have to pay for things. Even thought the restrictions should never have been there in the first place, I am willing to pay for that "added benefit" of no restrictions. The "yeah, but my 'XYZ MP3 player' won't play the superior AAC encoded content" argument doesn't affect me because my "MP3 player" can. I feel sorry for you. Call the company up and tell them you want a version that plays AAC content. I think more of them will now. All of Apple's content is already in AAC format, why should they change and sell it in MP3 format which would have to be larger to keep the same quality? Besides, isn't Apple already in a lawsuit about MP3s?
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications