Jobs to Labels- Lose the DRM & We'll Talk Price

eldavojohn writes "Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been talking smack about DRM and has recently issued a verbal offer to major music lables stating that if they are willing to lose the DRM, he'd be willing to raise his 99 cent price for those iTunes songs. These tracks (such as the recent EMI deal) would also have better sound quality & cost about 30 cents more."

Comments

Are consumers that dumb?

[seanadams.com]

While on the one hand it is nice to see this pressure to get rid of DRM for "purchased" tracks, it is pretty disappointing to see that the move will also come with an increase in price. They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?

This is just a continuation of the trend towards higher prices for music, in spite of plummeting costs for media and distribution. Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jimstapleton]

actually, from TFS, not just TFA, the higher prices will also come with higher quality audio.

No DRM + higher quality audio = possibly worth a 30% increase in price

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[neoform]

two things:

A) He needs to entice them to move forward with technology since the various RIAA labels are clearly run by dinosaurs.

B) Want to point out when in the past century you could buy a single song (without DRM) for $1.29 (keeping inflation in mind)?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[pegr]

While on the one hand it is nice to see this pressure to get rid of DRM for "purchased" tracks, it is pretty disappointing to see that the move will also come with an increase in price. They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?
 
Because they are worth more (arguably...)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?

They're giving you something you do want at a (higher) price they think it's worth. The lower price you never paid for something you didn't want is irrelevant.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Stamen]

Love or hate Apple, at least they are using their current power to apply pressure in the right direction; no DRM. I don't mind the increase in price as much, because eventually they will increase it anyways based on inflation; so the bone Jobs is throwing them isn't very valuable, but he'll sell it like it is.

I hate monopolies, personally, but in this case it takes Apple's virtual monopoly in this space to fight the other monopolies (I know they are really a group of companies controlling everything, but you understand what I'm saying) in the media space. So I'll stand next to Apple on this one; for the time being.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Divebus]

Some of this crap isn't even worth $0.99. I get the higher quality encoding and dumping the DRM, but why pay a higher price? It's been proven time and again that a high price simply drives people to piracy.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Kjella]

Jobs is pushing them to give away something they're not really competing on (DRM) to something they really are competing on (price). I'm sure he's seen that with DRMless songs, the iTunes store will take more sales from regular CDs. That's his game, now looking to see if the big labels will bite.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!"

Yeah, because the data is what costs the most. Sure.

I've worked in the industry off and on for most of my life in various capacities (of which, playing in a bar or recording your next door neighbors demo was not one of these roles). I know my rates have gone up, and I know my colleagues rates have gone up. And I know there are several more of us working on any specific project than every before.

Equipment prices have dropped precipitously, data requirements have dropped. Its the people that cost the money in this area...and by and far, most listeners want that overly slick pop sound that only comes from experience and having the right people. Personally, I could give or take it and just as happy listening to a three piece perform on a badly recorded bootleg. That isn't what most people are after, nor is it what the radio stations want to play (though it is argued that what the radio stations want to play is not what people want to hear...still, if they didn't, they wouldn't be listening would they).

Beyond all of this, prices are staying the same for ALBUMS. Buy a DRM free album at higher rates, it is still going to cost the same as it ever did. There has been a downward trend of buying albums towards single songs, and this is a HUGE factor in the reasons the recording industry isn't taking home what it use to. I know as a kid I bought 45s for like $1 each and personally that was my favorite means of pop drivel. This was a major reason these went away -- they could sell the same content as the whole. As an adult, I prefer music that benefits from a complete listening and rarely buy singles.

If you want to buy the albums, its $9.99. Singles $1.30 (with the option of upgrading to the full album for the difference in price at a later point...errr...within 6 months).

But back to the point, you are sooooo wrong for various reasons that it isn't even funny. I love when geeks try to distill work down to the ones and zeros as if this makes it all right...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

I could buy whole albums in the 99 cent bin at the local music store.


Not that they were worth listening to, but still...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Capt'n Hector]

Well, adjusting for inflation since the iTMS was introduced in 2003, 99 cents becomes about $1.11 in 2008 dollars. So the price for a better product (higher bitrate, larger filesize, higher bandwidth/hosting costs, no DRM) comes in at less than 20 cents. Apple needs some leverage, since there's no economic reason for the RIAA to switch over to non-DRM music witout an incentive. Welcome to economics.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[garcia]

No DRM + higher quality audio = possibly worth a 30% increase in price

And yet CDs, which are DRM free, have the highest quality audio and will cost about the same, offer a physical medium, and packaging as opposed to what will be available online.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[whisper_jeff]

They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?

Do people read the articles? The 30 cent pricce increase is because of the higher quality encoding (thus larger file size requiring more storage space and bandwidth - the expenses the 30 cents is intended to offset). You aren't getting the same product without DRM. You are getting a better quality product without DRM. Better quality = higher price.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Lockejaw]

Some of this crap isn't even worth $0.99. I get the higher quality encoding and dumping the DRM, but why pay a higher price?

Because, unlike when you buy a CD, you can just pick the good tracks and not pay for the crap.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jimstapleton]

as the other reply said - not all CDs are DRM free.

But also, I don't remember reading/hearing that the higher quality will not be CD quality. It is, in fact, possible, they could have higher quality.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jabuzz]

The storage costs are immaterial. Apple could put the whole iTunes catalogue in Apple Lossless format and not notice the cost increase, in terms of storing it on hard drives. Bandwidth is the only cost for higher bitrates of any consequence.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[SighKoPath]

But also, I don't remember reading/hearing that the higher quality will not be CD quality. It is, in fact, possible, they could have higher quality.

Sure, if they're using lossless compression, in whatever Apple's proprietary lossless codec is. I highly doubt this is the case, though.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Kandenshi]

CDs force you to buy all 10/15/20 tracks though. I don't mind paying (CD price) / ( # of tracks) for an individual song assuming the other factors are constant or close to it. I like being able to pick these 6 songs and ignore the rest.

The physical medium is pretty worthless to me. Maybe even negative value since they create more waste and pollution than an additional file download does.

There are occasions where the packaging is nice, but not very often for me. Most of it's just sitting in the garbage or in a drawer where I'd tossed all my CD cases. How much more would you be willing to pay on every CD for the inserts and such? 50 cents? $1.50?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jimstapleton]

even with lossey compression, it is possible to do better than a CD..

A CD starts with a certain bit rate and frequency sample rate (I think I'm using the right terms, but probably not in the case of the latter). As such, if you start with something much higher quality, and compress it lossey, same quality, then you in effect, and in certain regards, have better quality (and simultaneously worse quality as well!)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Red Flayer]

they gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?

Well, lots of sellers like to justify an increase in price, whether by touting better features or cost increases. What I like, if we ignore the quality issue of the pricing, is that the labels' allowing non-DRM'd songs to be sold for a higher price is admitting that DRM causes the product to be crippled.

This is just a continuation of the trend towards higher prices for music, in spite of plummeting costs for media and distribution. Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!

That's because pricing has nothing to do with production costs. Record companies don't exist to make $X profit per album -- they exist to maximize $X.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[brunascle]

but the DRM CD's technically arent audio CDs, and the recent ones dont have the Comact Disc Digital Audio logo.

to my knowledge, there are no real audio CDs with DRM.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[pla]

in this case it takes Apple's virtual monopoly in this space to fight the other monopolies (I know they are really a group of companies controlling everything, but you understand what I'm saying) in the media space.

You want the word "monopsony" rather than "monopoly", in the sense you used it (a single buyer, or in this case broker, exerting pressure on sellers).

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[revlayle]

Better than uncompressed 44.1Khz 16-bit audio? (being what CD audio is stored at, which is roughly 10MB per minute of audio)

"Hey! this 3 minute song is 100MB!!"
"It's super better than CD quality - it's 99Khz 24bit audio!!! ONLY A $1.29!!"
"I miss the days of the 44.1Khz 16-bit audio.... then this file would only be 30MB :("

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[oboeaaron]

This is just a continuation of the trend towards higher prices for music, in spite of plummeting costs for media and distribution. Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!

Wax cylinders were comparitively much more expensive than the modern equivalents. Two-minute Edison cylinders sold for $1 around 1900-1910, which was a good portion of a typical employee's weekly salary. Cylinders cannot be pressed like discs, so each one had to be inscribed by a pantograph from a master cylinder which wore out after only 20-100 copies had been made. Very labor intensive, and expensive.

I can't speak to more recent pricing schemes, but prices have certainly gone down since the cylinder days.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Lumpy]

There is NO drm on the music on the Audio CD that can legally be called a Audio CD.

there are half-assed attempts to make a PC not read them, which are in fact NOT DRM.

So the OP is actually right, you are the one that is mistaken.

And I agree with him, I'll pay less for far higher quality on CD without paying anything to the RIAA.

I buy all Cd's used :-) and it upsets the RIAA more than the pirates.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Bluesman]

Economic fallacy #1: Prices are driven by cost of production.

There is greater demand for higher quality tracks with no restrictions. Hence, higher prices. Why? Because people will pay for it. Specifically, 13 year old girls will pay for it.

You might think that the price increase isn't worth it, based on previous experience. That's your perogative. But the 13 year old girls that haven't ever purchased a CD, can't tell the difference between the sound quality between an MP3 and a CD, and who are largest target for pop music, see it differently.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jimstapleton]

you are aware that compression can be lossless, right?

Oh, ok, well, now you are. Glad to help.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[maxume]

Cd Audio is sampled at 44100 Hz, at 16 bits per sample. While sampling at a higher rate and bit depth than that will improve on the quality, the average pair of 25 year old ears will not be able to hear the difference. Wikipedia says that a piano tops out at about 4100 HZ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies

Lower frequency music is going to have harmonics or whatever that go above that, but it means that even crappy old CD audio is sampling typical musical tones quite a lot more than 10 times per oscillation. The people who designed the standard, what, 30 years ago, did a very good job.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[AndersOSU]

Does no one listen to CDs in their car anymore?

The one and only reason I still buy CDs is to fill my 6-disc changer with new music. Yes I can, and have, burned CDs to listen to, but most of the time I prefer a coherent work, otherwise I'd be listening to my iPod, FM, or subscribing to satellite.

In fact, if I had a little more tin-foil lying around I might suggest that the main reason cars still don't come standard with 1/8'' line-in is to sell more CDs.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[whisper_jeff]

You're right. Silly me. The storage space for 5 million songs is immaterial. Yup.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[revlayle]

Oh.. dur, totally forgot about that.... probably the last time I had used it the results weren't that impressive (years ago), but I am guess there is definite improvements in that area these days.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Dogtanian]

I could buy whole albums in the 99 cent bin at the local music store. Mmm... yeah. Cheesy compilations of disco songs that have been "re-recorded to maintain quality [to save money more like, save me the weasel-ish excuse] by as many of the original group as possible", and a few obscure (reached #47 in 1986) non-hits!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[TheMeuge]

Is it just me or is it the business strategists at the major labels that are that dumb?

What other industry responds to dropping demand and alienated customers by raising prices? Maybe it's just me, but I do not understand the kind of thinking that goes into making these decisions...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Synchis]

I can see the strategy in this move though... if Jobs can score a contract with all labels to offer up DRM-free music for a slightly higher price, then once he has them in a contract for this, he can push for lower prices once he's rid of DRM. If he's seriously shooting for the consumer here, thats what he will do. In a case like this, he could actually play the labels off one another, like he is with the existing EMI deal.

Once the Labels have given in, it would be *very* difficult to get apple to agree to go back to all DRM-ridden music.

I can *just* start to hear the feint sounds of the foundation crumbling out from underneath the DRM fortress....

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[n8k99]

(I know they are really a group of companies controlling everything, but you understand what I'm saying)

that's called an oligopoly.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

I buy all Cd's used :-) and it upsets the RIAA more than the pirates

It also means the artist gets no money from your purchase.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[seanadams.com]

They're giving you something you do want at a (higher) price they think it's worth. The lower price you never paid for something you didn't want is irrelevant.

I disagree. The lower price that people were not paying (whether because of piracy or just not consuming music) is the crux of this entire issue.

If you increase the price on something, people complain. But if you just throw them a bone, even something that costs you nothing, they will pay more. In this case they reduced quality and added DRM, then reversed those features to justify a higher price. If they had just gone to $1.30 per track in the first place, nobody would have bitten, because they would have seen it as a massive ripoff since we all know that their costs are practically zero compared to CD. But by manipulating people's perceptions of the value of their product in this way, they can get away with it.

The lower price that one never paid may be irrelevant if you're trying to analyze the absolute value of something in a vacuum, but not in the real world where people will always apply some frame of reference based on what they've purchased in the past.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Grapes4Buddha]

Actually, I just went through the process of buying a car and most 2007 models that I looked at had a line-in jack for mp3 input. Unfortunately, I wound up getting a left-over 2006 model for cheap so I didn't get that little benefit. On the plus side I did get a mp3-capable cd player so I can just burn cds with a bunch of mp3s on them and there's enough music there that I don't mind leaving it in the player and just burning a new cd-r once in a while.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[fishbowl]

>It also means the artist gets no money from your purchase.

Then the artist has a big problem with the people he chose to represent him, and the actions they took on his behalf.

(I on the other hand, do not even buy used CDs very often. I buy them directly from the artist, or not at all. This has the added benefit for me, that my collection is unique, and that most of my CDs are autographed.)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[seanadams.com]

the higher prices will also come with higher quality audio.

You mean the same quality we had before, with CDs? Do you think those extra bits cost them anything?

I think you've made my point!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[my $anity 0]

And Oligopolies function like monopolies over the portion of the supply/demand chart that they want to operate at.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Chosen Reject]

I'm not saying this is the case, but it's quite possible to respond to lower demand by raising prices. Say you had a situation where you are selling muffins. There are 1000 people willing to buy your muffins for $1 and 200 people willing to buy your muffins for $3. It makes more sense for you to sell it at $1. That way you earn $1000 rather than $600. But let's say you change your recipe and demand for your muffins drops. Now you have only 400 people willing to buy your muffins for $1 and 150 people willing to buy for $3. Now it makes more sense to raise your prices to $3. Now you are earning $450 rather than $400.

Granted, it would really make more sense to go back to your old recipe, but this example does explain why sometimes you can raise prices even though demand is declining.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a single DRM for CDs that actually works? I mean, I accidentally bought two cds that were DRM infested: "Contraband" by Velvet Revolver and "Broken Valley" by Life of Agony. I actually didn't notice they were DRM infested until after I read about it online weeks later. By that time I already successfully ripped them to mp3's on my Linux computer and had burned copies for the car. Grip (I now use kAudioCreator) had no problems at all with either one.

I had a few problems with DVD drm, though. About a year ago I borrowed Hostel from a friend and tried to watch it on my dvd player. It wouldn't play. After looking online I found out there were problems due to it's "ARccOS" drm. DVD Fab Decryptor had no problems at all with ripping it which allowed me to watch it. Still, with this situation the drm prevented me from watching the damn movie without having to break the drm first. So, lets see. The only thing the DRM prevented me from doing was watching the movie. It had no effect on copying.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

for the original purchase, yes, but when you buy anything used the store gets all of the money, so in effect you are getting the CD without any of the money for your purchase going to the artist.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[kestasjk]

Get an iPod FM radio transmitter; you plug it into your 12V ex-cigarette lighter, and tune your radio to the right frequency.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Serengeti]

I'd rather see it the other way around, and I think even the labels would prefer it reversed. Why remove the DRM if you're providing even HIGHER quality versions of your music?? Wouldn't it make sense to protect the higher quality stuff, while caring less about the low quality alternatives??

I'm not an audiophile, so I'd rather download a song of a quality comparable to current iTunes offerings without DRM than pay more for larger files that have DRM.

Make the DRM'ed songs equivalent of current quality, and make the higher quality protected.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[iwoof]

While on the one hand it is nice to see this pressure to get rid of DRM for "purchased" tracks, it is pretty disappointing to see that the move will also come with an increase in price.

If they remove just the DRM yet keep the existing encoding in place, then it would become easy to break the decryption scheme on all the existing DRM'd tracks. One would have both the "cipher" and "plain text" for a song, and so the encryption scheme would be weakened.

Thus they need to change the encoding, and so they made it higher quality. In addition, Apple is offering to upgrade all existing purchases to the higher quality format for only the difference in price. If they didn't switch to higher quality encoding, there would be no ability to charge for "removing" the DRM--something many of us feel THEY should pay for.

So by using a higher quality encoding, Apple creates both perceived difference in value, as well as protects their existing cyphers

--Woof!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[my $anity 0]

Apple is also acting as a middleman. They give the consumers something they want (no DRM, higher quality) in exchange for a higher price. They give the sellers something they want (higher price) in exchange for something they are reluctant to give (no DRM, higher quality) In the end, this give the Slashdot Hive Mind what it wants (less DRM in the world). In the end, Apple sells more tracks as audiophiles and people who care about rights snap them up. Everyone is happier, which is the way economics should be.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[iminplaya]

...but the price never goes down!

Unfortunately the market is sustaining those those prices. We should all know the routine by now. Do your best to ignore them, and they'll come crying for your business. We set the price, they don't.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[glas_gow]

Cd Audio is sampled at 44100 Hz, at 16 bits per sample. While sampling at a higher rate and bit depth than that will improve on the quality, the average pair of 25 year old ears will not be able to hear the difference.

Most recording studios these days use, at the very least, 24bit audio at between 96-196+ khz. While I agree with you that most people won't hear a difference, audiophiles will hear a difference. My mother can't tell the difference between a hissy cassette tape and a CD, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

The interesting point here is that online music sales could potentially supply consumers with higher quality audio than currently is available with CD. Changing the way CD's play audio would take years. Whereas many people already have good quality sound cards capable of delivering higher quality audio.

The obstacle is obviously file sharing. People sharing sub-CD quality audio is one thing, having them sharing studio-master audio is a completely different thing.

Jobs is playing the PR game, trying to unalign Apple from DRM. That said, any move away from DRM, PR motivated or not, is to be lauded.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Rei]

You can still improve, though, without using any more space. Sample at a faster rate and using more bits, then use standard audio compression methods to drop the least audible frequency components. Same file size, better quality. Basically, you're choosing that you want *all* frequencies up to 22,500 hz, *nothing* more than that, and all frequencies stored with equal bit resolution. By going with audio compression, you can avoid being so artificially limited; your algorithm can pick out the most important components to store.

The 44,100 hz/16 bit sampling rate isn't bad. It's just not optimal.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[iago-vL]

Yes, actually. More bits = more junk in the tubes. Now, if Apple contracted out a dumptruck that you could just load your songs on, that would be different.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[danpsmith]

This is just a continuation of the trend towards higher prices for music, in spite of plummeting costs for media and distribution. Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!

Prices will go down, when they have to to attract customers. The music industry is about to get real interesting. Album sales are down 11% from last year. There is a shaking up that's about to occur. These relics won't have any say in how it occurs and the consumers will end up benefiting more overall from the downfall of the industry (I predict) than they would from its continuation.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[ngrier]

It gets worse! According to the summary he'll raise prices "if they are willing to loose the DRM!" You thought the DRM was bad today - wait until things get even more encumbered with the DRM flying at us from all angles and we have to pay more.

Oh. Wait. He meant lose.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

As someone else pointed out; CDs usually come with 7/10 tracks that aren't worth listening to. So if you like the full CD, buy it. But if you like that one song on the radio, it's not worth buying the full cd.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[iminplaya]

...or do you live under a rock?

Yeah, a great big hollow one, with windows(the glass ones) and all. My rock has indoor plumbing, satellite TV, broadband, and it's very hurricane resistant. It's a very comfortable rock. It even keeps tigers away. Wanna buy it?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Rei]

You've got it backwards, though -- read the summary. Jobs doesn't want to lose DRM; he wants to loose (unleash) it. In other words, if you think the stuff that they offer is protected now, wait until you see what they do for the higher quality stuff. :)

Either that, or someone doesn't know how to spell simple words. Doesn't seem likely, so I'm going to go with the "Jobs wants DRM" theory.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[shark72]

"And yet CDs, which are DRM free, have the highest quality audio and will cost about the same, offer a physical medium, and packaging as opposed to what will be available online."

I guess the lesson that we can learn from the success of the iTunes store is that people will pay extra for convenience, even if it means that they'll get a little less.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[cultrhetor]

I do. My changer is an MP3 changer, tho...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[yuna49]

We use the type of device that fits into the tape player. I searched around on the net before buying this, and most reviewers said these devices had better performance than the FM transmitters. The tape device seems to work well, but I have no FM transmitter for comparison. Ogg audio (from our Cowon A2) sounds especially nice over the car speakers.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[rundgren]

what pisses me off about the whole thing is that artist get to kepp LESS of the retail price of their music! An artist earns substantially less from an iTunes album than a CD.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jonbryce]

It isn't a fallacy. In a perfectly competitive market, the price will move towards the marginal cost of production. This marginal cost of production includes "normal profits" that investors require as a return on their money to compensate them for the risk they are taking.

Anyway, it isn't 13 year old girls who will be paying for it. They will get their music from the latest adware ridden p2p program. It is 40+ year old men who will be paying for them.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

Apple doesn't have a "Monopoly" in any sense of the word. They have a complete vertical market solution, which is not the same as monopoly. You are free to choose other market options that are reasonably close facsimile of what Apple produces, but you'll be giving up the virtually seamless integration by doing so.

Apple's iPod and iTunes both handle two INDUSTRY standards for encoding, and ONE proprietary DRM feature, a DRM feature they (via Jobs) are trying to remove.

I never got the gripe of you Anti-Apple whiners. Go, use Rio, or Zune, or whatever else is out there for playing MP3s and WMA (proprietary format) nobody is holding a gun to your head. Go, Use allofMP3 and any other source for Downloading Music. Hopefully you don't have to be a technical genius to get it all to work right, because if you do, then you're obviously missing the point of iTunes, iPod, iTMS and the whole integration thing. It Just Works (TM).

I gave my wife an iPod last year for her birthday, she didn't even know what it was! The she picked up and used it, and started Ripping her CDs to the iPod right away. It just works for her, and it is "easy" for her. Which is the whole point, isn't it? Point Click Rip Sync.

We got it hooked into the car, the iHome in the kitchen, the Main Whole House Stereo system, because "It Just Works(TM)".

If you want to call that a Monopoly, fine, go ahead. I call it building a better mousetrap, and Apple has done a great job in making a Music Player Experience that is pleasant. Sorry if it doesn't support Ogg or Linux or whatever else you think it ought to. It does support MP3 and ACC, both open formats, and can rip, burn CDs quickly and easily, and support from many third party add-ons, and works both on Mac and Windows.

So, I don't know what the beef is all about. It isn't the monopoly you think it is.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[mOdQuArK!]

Actually, what I'd be interested in a widespread technology that recorded "n" channels of audio, with "3D virtual" positioning information for each channel of audio. The receiving equipment would be responsible for taking that "virtual sound" data & reproducing it in its target environment.

Although I'm not one, it might give audiophiles something to spend money on that makes a real difference in listening quality - the better equipment (speakers, acoustics of listening environment, binaural earphones, etc) will do a better job at reconstructing a "3D virtual environment" based on that positioning data.

You could also do lots of fun things with the individual channels (add/move position/apply effects/delete each channel).

Once we've reached the limits of human hearing, there are still plenty of ways to use extra bandwidth for transmitting audio data.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[cultrhetor]

What about older bands, those whose music was more "of its time?" Music - especially pop - is essentially temporal. Some albums from years ago just don't engender the feeling, the meaning, that they did when current. Quality music, sure, but if it doesn't speak to me, why should I buy it? If, on the other hand, there happened to be two or three tracks that I enjoyed, why shouldn't I be able to purchase just those tracks? Welcome to the updated version of "greatest hits."

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[dloose]

The human ear is capable of detecting sound in the 20 - 20,000Hz range. Nyquist's theorem states that "Exact reconstruction of a continuous-time baseband signal from its samples is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth." Thus we arrive at the 44,100Hz sampling rate found in CDs (22,500 * 2 -- they bumped the upper range a bit, but those ungrateful audiophiles still aren't happy).

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[0bject]

So what? The artist made money on the CD once, they do not and should not get to take a cut each time a CD changes hands.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[assassinator42]

You pay for convenience and speed. Want your music RIGHT NOW? You have to pay extra. Don't want to drive to the store? You have to pay extra.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[kinglink]

No they gave us what we wanted (a lower price) at the cost of something (our freedom to use the mp3).

Personally I'd pay 30 cents more to buy a track for real, but I'm not interested in buying DRM music, so I don't.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[veganboyjosh]

does anyone else have the issue of the tape deck's auto-reverse "feature" constantly trying to switch sides of the "tape"? any solutions?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[falconwolf]

While on the one hand it is nice to see this pressure to get rid of DRM for "purchased" tracks, it is pretty disappointing to see that the move will also come with an increase in price. They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?

The higher price isn't just because drm is not on the sound files, they also have better sound quality. The sampled bit rate is higher so the files are bigger.

Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads

I'm a fan of vinyl EP/LPs and used to have a few hundred records. Lately I've been thinking about getting a new turntable, but first I wanted to make sure I'd be able to buy new EP/LPs. Now I know of two stores within walking distance that sales them, and at one of them somebody directed me to another local shop that has good turntables. Now I'd like to find a reel-to-reel, rtr, tape deck as well as a ready supply of tapes for it and the guy had said the place that sales turntables can direct me to where I get a deck. With my old collection, when I got a new record the first tyme I played it I would record on rtr tape then put it away for safe keeping and listen to the tape. Unfortunately I lost all of them and my equipment while I had them in storage when I moved.

Falcon

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[owlnation]

While on the one hand it is nice to see this pressure to get rid of DRM for "purchased" tracks, it is pretty disappointing to see that the move will also come with an increase in price. They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?

Hmmm, it's worse than that. I think Steve and the vermin that run the music industry still have no fundamental idea of the economics of this - well, I'm sure Steve actually does but is just playing the game for the time being.

See, here's the thing... you make it easier to pirate, and you give a stronger incentive to do so by raising the price. No, that isn't going to work. Possibly the fundamental principle of removing the DRM is a good thing - after all it's a cost center for the Labels and simply inconveniences the untechnical, or turns the technical into criminals. It's pointless.

What they actually need to do is remove the DRM and lower the price - that would increase sales and reduce piracy.

In the meantime, the advice as always - buy music direct from the artist, or second hand. Do NOT give the Labels any more money.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[xRelisH]

And yet CDs, which are DRM free, have the highest quality audio and will cost about the same, offer a physical medium, and packaging as opposed to what will be available online.

Right, but how often do you listen to every single song on a CD? Often, I only like at most 2-3 songs on a CD, and I don't see it being worth $9.99 for three songs, and older CD's are priced higher. In the event you do like the entire album, iTunes also has the new deal now where you can buy the entire album for a discount if you've already purchased songs on it.

Buying electronically is also buy-on-demand, there's no need to go to the video store (if it's open), and shuffle through the aisles looking for the CD.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

The whole underlying idea here is: If you like an artist, you will support them by buying their CD. when you buy a used one, the only one befitting is the store. If you don't think the artist deserves the money, fine, download it or copy it from someone else. but the problem is not that they are not getting a cut each time the CD changes hands, but that the CD is being sold again alongside the copies that the artist profits from, and the store is just as happy to sell the cheaper 80% profit as they are to sell the more expensive 75% profit CD that actually goes toward supporting the artist. If you don't care that the artists you like are not getting paid, then by all means go ahead and buy the secondhand CDs. The big problem with this is when it is an underground band that you are supporting, you would buy their CD at the higher price that benefits them, but you buy the cheap one because it is cheaper, they just lost the money that should have gone to them, so the record stores are stealing from the artist.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jandrese]

Those FM transmitters suck though, and they don't work in areas where there are a lot of radio stations. They also tend to transmit only in mono and flatten the sound. You're way better off with a line-in jack if you can swing it.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[aywwts4]

We just want one more bump, Honest. Though in my opinion, its not about range, its about bit depth and proper mastering (not running so much compression and the levels above the format standards) and Surround Sound Hell, you don't even need to be affected by it, SACDs are basically a dual layer disk, where the first layer is a standard, compatible audio CD. For too long DVD Movies have had better audio than the current audio format.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[R3d M3rcury]

Some of this crap isn't even worth $0.99. Tell me about it... :-)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Nope, I have this nifty head unit which plugs into the docking port on my ipod. The head unit has a multi-line display which I can control the ipod from (it also charges the ipod, so the ipod really just ends up being a portable HD for my stereo system). So while you have a 6-disc changer, I have currently have a 356-disc changer.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drsquare]

Prices are going up because kids have more disposable income than ever, it's basic economics. Anyway downloads are cheaper than CDs. Would you rather pay 99 cents per song or £3 for a CD?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Eccles]

Does no one listen to CDs in their car anymore?

Given the weather around here, even if I want to listen to a particular CD, I'd rather make a burned copy of it so the original doesn't melt, get scratched, stepped on, or whatever. So whether the original was purchased via iTunes or on CD doesn't really matter, especially for in-car use.

That said, I do buy (used) CDs. I rip them and store them, though, so I have backups should something happen to the electronic copies.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Lockejaw]

If the band is so bad that they can't make an album without a bunch of crap on it, maybe it's not worth buying any of their crap.

Out of an entire CD I like, I typically end up with a few tracks as my favorites, and I generally listen to them much more than the others.

Stop listening to the Britney and Justin garbage and get some decent taste in music.

Perhaps you'd best not make assumptions about the kind of music I listen to.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[znu]

For Apple? Yeah, pretty much. With Apple Lossless encoding, a 4 minute song is maybe 10 MB. 5M of those will fit on five maxed-out Xserve RAID units. That's about $70K worth of storage, or $140K if you buy a second set for backup. Less for Apple, of course, since they get Xserve RAID units at cost. Not a major expense for the iTMS, which is probably doing a few billion in sales every year these days.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Cylix]

All I heard was, blah blah blah... that is so unfair.

Don't sale CDs then if you are worried about the used market.

This is the problem of doing business through this particular medium. Not so oddly enough, I haven't heard of a digital used music shop yet. However, digital distribution of course has it's own woes.

Every now and again, someone will rant and rave and attempt to create additional taxes on used cds. I find this hilarious every time it comes up.

In any event, I'm not angry nor even a bit bothered by any of this. I should note that I find it highly entertaining! I guess I'm part troll after all. So fume, retort or whatever it is you will do to justify your position. I'm just going to laugh!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[random0xff]

I don't mind the increase in price as much, because eventually they will increase it anyways based on inflation What? What kind of reasoning is that? Do you mean to say you wouldn't mind if they raised your rent or gas prices tomorrow because it was gonna go up anyway? In that case, I have some stuff to sell. The prices are adjusted to the 2075 level of inflation, but hey, that's no problem, right?

I worry that sales of the more expensive songs will be lower, and the music industry will say: "See, we told you nobody wants DRM free music". And on what is the higher price based anyway? It's not like it costs 30% extra to create/store the DRM free songs...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[n2art2]

Yeah cause better sound quality wouldn't have anything to do with the additional cost. How silly of me to even think that.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[umStefa]

Steve Jobs may be many things, but an idiot is not one of them. He realizes that there is no way studios will simply abandon DRM, they have spent way too much money and dedicated too much PR on it (by selling it as an anti-piracy measure). However, if the price of a song is raised 30% the studios will be able to justify removing DRM because (from the studios PR point of view) the extra money they will receive from the sale will offset piracy of the song.

Of course the reality is that Steve Jobs and the studios will simply get richer by getting more money for each song, and piracy rates will stay virtually untouched.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[suv4x4]

Most recording studios these days use, at the very least, 24bit audio at between 96-196+ khz. While I agree with you that most people won't hear a difference, audiophiles will hear a difference. My mother can't tell the difference between a hissy cassette tape and a CD, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Recording studios don't do 24bit 196kHz because they "hear a difference". They do it for the same purpose that Photoshop (for ex.) supports 48-bit images: when you're going to edit this material (filter, change dynamics, amplify, process, speed up/down, remix etc etc), you need extra precision, since from all the twisting and processing, deffects on a 44khz/16-bit piece start to show much sooner than with 24-bit 196kHz.

For studios, the flexibility to tweak the material endlessly without perceptible loss is important, since recording in a proper isolated room with all the proper technicians, musicians, singers, equipment, isn't cheap (cheaper than before, but not cheap).

Audophiles are in the majority losers who can be convinced that 900kHz sounds much better than 800kHz, even if you actually played the same thing to them, but with two different labels. Quality at those levels is subjective, and people's senses are unwillingly manipulated by what they're told.

It's basically the same reason why some people admire paintings like this one. they don't all pretend they understand/like it.

Some are convinced they see something incredible, maybe the author is also convinced he thought of something incredible, thing is, I can put my 5 year old kid and it'll draw the same in 2 minutes and they won't be able to tell the difference and admire just the same.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[whisper_jeff]

$70 worth of storage? Ok, I confess, I don't buy raid storage (being a graphic designer and all), but 5M songs at 10 meg-ish each is 50M meg. According to Apple's own xserve RAID page (http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/), their storage is $1.31 per gig. 50M meg is approximately 48800 gig so the storage space costs in the area of $65000. Now, admittedly they get it cheaper than what they sell it for (being the manufacturer and all), but the storage space appears to be far from $140 worth of storage. I could be wrong, given that I don't buy xserve RAID storage and all, but I question your $140 claim for 5M songs worth of storage...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[kestasjk]

Works fine here, and you can always tune to another frequency if the one you're on is used.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[The One and Only]

CDs cost marginally more, require you to purchase an entire album even if you only want one song, and will clutter your apartment with discs and jewel cases for years, taking up precious shelf space that could be used to shelve books, or videogames. Also, CD's get scratched.

Remember those days before the Internet when, if you wanted lots of clever multimedia information about a certain topic you could actually buy a CD-ROM about it? We look upon those days as silly and nostalgic because we have a more efficient means to retrieve data on our computers. Now that we have computers as the hubs of our entertainment centers and our consumer electronics, why haven't we realized that music is just data?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[znu]

Umm... $70K = $70,000. I didn't think that particularly needed to be spelled out on Slashdot.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Microsoft doesn't have a "Monopoly" in any sense of the word. They have a complete vertical market solution, which is not the same as monopoly. You are free to choose other market options that are reasonably close facsimile of what Microsoft produces, but you'll be giving up the virtually seamless integration by doing so.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer, MS Offfice and Windows handle many INDUSTRY standards, and ONE proprietary data format (*.doc).

I never got the gripe of you Anti-Microsoft whiners. Go, use Apple, or Linux, or whatever else is out there for operating your computer, nobody is holding a gun to your head. Go, Use Firefox, Open Office and any other source for editing documents and surfing the web. Hopefully you don't have to be a technical genius to get it all to work right, because if you do, then you're obviously missing the point of Windows, IE, Office and the whole integration thing. It Just Works (TM).

I gave my wife Windows last year for her birthday, she didn't even know what it was! The she picked up and used it, and started Surfing the web and editing documents right away. It just works for her, and it is "easy" for her. Which is the whole point, isn't it?

We got it hooked into the Media Center in the kitchen, the Main Whole House Stereo system, because "It Just Works(TM)".

If you want to call that a Monopoly, fine, go ahead. I call it building a better mousetrap, and Microsoft has done a great job in making an Operating System Experience that is pleasant. Sorry if it doesn't support Ogg or Linux or whatever else you think it ought to. It does support MP3 and ACC, both open formats, and can rip, burn CDs quickly and easily, and support from many third party add-ons, and IE and Office works both on Mac and Windows.

So, I don't know what the beef is all about. It isn't the monopoly you think it is.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[whisper_jeff]

Der. Ignore me. Not enough coffee today...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Hijacked Public]

But this is a short run change that everyone is complaining about not being forced to use in the first place, so the costs involved aren't really figuring in yet.

It may turn out that per track prices are driven back down as more digital audio services come online, sign DRM free agreements with labels, etc. For the moment iTunes kind of has this locked up and can indeed ask a premium regardless of their cost.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[dangitman]

And yet CDs, which are DRM free, have the highest quality audio

No, they don't. There are these things called SACDs. And my master recordings in Pro Tools easily surpass CD quality. It's not like it's difficult to beat a CD's quality. Yet we still have uninformed people like you pretending that it is the best possible audio quality in existence.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[yuna49]

Mine switches to "Tape 2" when I put the device in the slot, but then it stays there. I'm using a device from Monster Cable in my '99 VW Passat. Reading reviews for this device on Amazon suggests that a lot of people have problems with all these devices including the competing items from Sony and Belkin. Some of the reviewers describe problems similar to yours. Some of these devices don't seem to work with certain brands of car stereos; some display weird behavior and mechanical noise; some work just fine. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe I haven't used it enough to start creating the problems others have encountered.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Grishnakh]

WTF? Do you normally go off on wild tangents and make crazy analogies which don't make any sense?

The only thing I said (or meant to say) was that, if all the songs but one on an album are "crap", then that one song probably isn't really worth buying.

This doesn't mean good bands don't make crappy albums; I've seen that many times (Queensryche's later albums are a good example of this). When that happens, I just don't buy the album at all, and stick with the albums that I like. Bands frequently go through personnel changes between albums which make them produce albums that are very different from their earlier ones. Or (like Paradise Lost) they just like to change their sound drastically between albums for artistic reasons or whatever.

Having only one "good" song on an album is something normally only seen with crappy pop music.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Stamen]

Come sit next to your uncle Stamen, I'll explain: Steve Jobs has been fighting with the media distributors since day 1 over raising the price of songs an other media; they wanted it higher, then they wanted it higher for some songs, etc. Plus the price of songs will go up, eventually, due to inflation and other factors. Because Mr J is now saying that Apple will sell the songs at a higher price, if they remove the DRM, says to me that Jobs is finally loosing this battle, and he is going to use that fact to his advantage. Like Jobs or not, he is shrewd, and I think he knows prices are going to go up anyways, so if he concedes a bit early, he can get something he wants. Thankfully for you and I it's something we want too.

Everyone assumes that Apple can do whatever it wants, which is just silly. Apple, because of their market clout has done things no one else has been able to do in regards to licensing of content, but the battle is ongoing. Of course the choice of having no DRM and the same or lower prices would be ideal; but you're assuming such a choice even exists.

Get rid of DRM now, even if it costs more. The price will change later depending on supply and demand, regardless of what it is set to now. However if DRM is removed, it will hard to get it back, as consumers will come to expect DRM-less media.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[the phantom]

You know, it is possible to like five or six songs by a given band, and want to listen to them, and still not like the band without being a poser. Maybe it is my turn to accuse you of being elitest?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Stamen]

Yup, Apple doesn't have a monopoly, that's why I said "virtual monopoly". Nice rant though.

"Anti-apple whiners", cool, I've never been called that before; I kind of like that. Normally I get "Apple fan-boy", so it's a nice change of pace; like putting on a new shirt someone bought for you, looking in the mirror and thinking "it's kind of weird, but weirdly cool" as you nod up and down approvingly.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

If you don't see the difference between a solution to a SINGLE issue (Mobile Music Player) and an Operating System. OS is general purpose, it doesn't "do" anything (and restricting which applications run, and competing with those very same applications)??

Okay, not sure I can explain it to you in a way that you can understand. But heck, let me try, in baby terms you might understand.

Okay there is this Sandbox, made by SoftyMicro and there are a whole bunch of toys one can play with in the sandbox. Except that SoftyMicro has made the sandbox in such a way that it's own toys compete with all the other sandbox toys, and those other toys sometimes don't work right because SoftyMicro keeps changing the configuration of the sandbox. Then there was the case where SoftyMicro didn't actually have this certain kind of toy that Sandscape was making for the sandbox. After a while, it figured out that the Sandscape toy was a "threat" to all the other toys, and even the sandbox itself, and decided to compete with Sandscape's toy, and give the toy away to ANYONE buying the sandbox.

Now the Sandscape company is only an example of this philosophy, and there are many other toys that SoftyMicro makes that it gives away so that others, even though they aren't really part of the sandbox.

Along comes this company Peaches that has built this neat little toy called tToy, that plays in the sandbox, and even works on Peaches own Monkey Bars play area. This toy just is fun to play with, and has all sorts of interesting options and configurations. Additionally, some of those options are only available from Peaches tToyStore, but also has accessories and options available from many other places.

There are also other toys very similar to Peaches tToy, some are less expensive, have some more features, but not nearly the same playing experience that tToy has.

Now there is a group of kids who don't like the sandbox (too sandy), nor the Monkey Bars, and they play on the Swings. They complain about tToys "monopoly" (not related to the board game) because tToy and all the options are hard to get working while playing on the swings.

Can you see the difference now?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[SeaFox]

This is just a continuation of the trend towards higher prices for music, in spite of plummeting costs for media and distribution. Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!

Is there any reason the price is supposed to go down? Just because the cost of distribution is lowered doesn't mean the record companies are obligated to pass the savings on to you.

If you think $1.29 or even 99 is too much to pay for the songs, stop buying them. Don't listen to their music at all, pirate it, whatever you wish. If everyone else feels the same way you do and stops buying music, the labels will be forced to lower prices or find some other way to add value to the product. If everyone else continues to buy music, then apparently the price isn't too high. That's one thing people forget about the free market. Everyone is responsible for their own buying decisions, and entertainment is a luxury. A company that is truly charging too much will go out of business from not enough customers willing to pay. If people keep paying, "the price is too high" is not true.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Kjella]

While I agree with you that most people won't hear a difference, audiophiles will believe they hear a difference.

There, fixed that for you. I've read double-blind studies all the way back to c't in 2000, which said that twelve audiophiles and one sound master at a record company couldn't tell CDs and 256kbps MP3s apart. english / german. Let me quote from the summary:

In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves.
(...)
This article will not end the ongoing debate of whether the use of MP3 compression is a reasonable or unreasonable procedure. Audiophile fans that concern themselves with brand names and are status conscious will never listen to MP3s, no matter how many tests may prove that the sound experience is equivalent in both cases. Skeptics (They are all sissies at ct; I would certainly have heard the difference) should get encoders and CD burners and then submit themselves perhaps even using the same pieces and under similar conditions to their own Pepsi-Test.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[CptNerd]

Want to point out when in the past century you could buy a single song (without DRM) for $1.29 (keeping inflation in mind)?

Yeah, they were called "45's".

I even remember when they were "78's"...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Philotic]

>>...since there's no economic reason for the RIAA to switch over to non-DRM music witout an incentive.

Increased sales?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

Does no one listen to CDs in their car anymore? The one and only reason I still buy CDs is to fill my 6-disc changer with new music.

Not me! I mean, I do sometimes, but mostly I play music from a DVD of mostly mp3s (and a few WMA files.) I got a JVC player with "giga mp3" and it will play 'em right off there. It's pretty crap but it does the job.

In fact, if I had a little more tin-foil lying around I might suggest that the main reason cars still don't come standard with 1/8'' line-in is to sell more CDs.

Eh, lots of cars (what, over 50% now I think?) are offered with an iPod connection. It's even standard on some of 'em.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jZnat]

It's almost as high as it's going to get quality-wise for just listening to. When you're remixing and editting audio, it's always good to have much higher quality than you'd get on CD. Besides, the only way to get higher fidelity audio is to get DRM-infected discs from a format war that neither won. That or record it yourself. ;p

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jZnat]

Is this only for artists signed up with RIAA labels or even the independents that usually split the revenue 50-50?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

Most of my music, you can't tell at all. But with some of it, for example some Praga Khan, there is noticeable distortion at the very highest quality settings available, and with VBR, 320kbps fixed, Stereo, Joint Stereo, you name it. mp3 just doesn't manage to give acceptable results with some type of audio (the example in question is a fuzzed square wave on one of the "Breakfast In Vegas" singles.)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

what the heck is a "virtual monopoly"???

Let see:

Can I play MP3s on anything other than an iPod??? Yes
Can I play ACC on anything other than an iPod??? Yes
Can I Download Music from anywhere other than iTMS???? Yes
Can I use another interface to manage my music collection besides iTMS??? Yes.

So, exactly where is the "Monopoly" (virtual or otherwise)?

Is it because iPod and iTunes ?
Is it because iTunes and iTMS ?
Is it because iPod, iTunes, iTMS ?

You see, this is where Monopoly probably comes in, because iPod, iTunes, iTMS all work seamlessly to provide an OUTSTANDING experience. However, I might remind you that iPod and iTunes were WAY Popular before Apple had iTMS.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[tfinniga]

have the highest quality audio

CDs do have high quality audio. Not that this is especially relevant, but it is very possible to outstrip the quality of CDs with compressed audio. Just increase the sampling rate, increase the bit depth, compress with high bitrate.
Granted, that would be much more than the average consumer would need. But hey, even the current quality on iTunes is better than I can tell.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[petermgreen]

It isn't a fallacy. In a perfectly competitive market, the price will move towards the marginal cost of production. This marginal cost of production includes "normal profits" that investors require as a return on their money to compensate them for the risk they are taking.
that holds if the market is served by a number of competitors producing product that the customers consider equivilant, that the customers are well informed and that the competitors aren't collouding.

in the case of the music industry the products are not equivilent. If you want to by a copy of a particular song legally that copy must have been made or authorised to be made by the copyright holder. There is also almost certainly some level of collousion between the record labels (isn't that why we have the riaa in the first place?)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

I disagree. The lower price that people were not paying (whether because of piracy or just not consuming music) is the crux of this entire issue.

Consumer ignorance and a willingness to vote with one's feet is the crux of this entire issue.

Most people have no idea what DRM is or why it is bad until they get bitten by it, and even then they're probably likely to just assume that they broke something.

But lots of people who are ostensibly anti-DRM bought tracks from iTunes. Some of them made up excuses like "but I can burn it and then rip that so it's not really DRM-infected" but we all know they're just trying to hide their hypocrisy.

Spending money on DRM-protected media leads to more DRM-protected media. You'd think this would be obvious to everyone, but only if you believed that most people aren't idiots, and I don't :P

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[danpsmith]

Okay, not sure I can explain it to you in a way that you can understand. But heck, let me try, in baby terms you might understand. Okay there is this Sandbox, made by SoftyMicro and there are a whole bunch of toys one can play with in the sandbox.

WTF, I mean, just because it's a sandbox analogy doesn't make it any more applicable or easy to understand. Just because babies use something doesn't make an analogy good or easy, or fitting in this case.

I say take your analogy and shove it up your SoftyMicro sandbox!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

I never got the gripe of you Anti-Apple whiners. Go, use Rio, or Zune, or whatever else is out there for playing MP3s and WMA (proprietary format) nobody is holding a gun to your head. Go, Use allofMP3 and any other source for Downloading Music.

It's like this; iTunes is a lock-in situation. You have to use iTunes to talk to the iPod (there are exceptions, but none of them are as good as the real thing at talking to the iPod) and load music into it. And the iPod only supports one type of DRM, which is supported by no other player.

It's just like IE, which defaults to MSN search. Most people have no clue that there are alternatives and that they're being boned.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

When I listen to an album by a talented artist, I find myself either liking or disliking the album as a whole. Stop listening to one hit wonders and you won't have this problem anymore.

Jesus Christ dude, I thought I was arrogant.

Check this out yo: there's bands I really love that put out albums that are half boring as fuck. There's bands that I really love that turned into a bunch of fucking lames and put out an album with only one song I like on it. Can you explain to me why I shouldn't purchase and listen to that song? Without using an argument that would infringe on my rights somehow? As in, my right to like what the hell I want?

Guess what? Your concept of propriety is not any more valid than anyone else's. The belief that one person is more right than another person on completely subjective matter is the kind of belief that starts wars, and it's not good for any of us.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

Having only one "good" song on an album is something normally only seen with crappy pop music.

In any given CD of sonatas, symphonies, et cetera, I will typically like one or two tracks.

Then again, that was popular music when it was released. Just like everything else (unless it's a period piece.)

This is all anecdotal and entirely subjective. For example I'm sure most people would tell you that all Queensryche's albums suck. It wouldn't make it true, it's only an opinion. And so is your belief about one good song on an album, because "good" is in the ear of the listener.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[WiseWeasel]

The difference is that Apple is working to get all the content in industry standard formats, while Microsoft is trying to drive adoption of their proprietary formats and license them to other market players. One leads to a happy world where any new competitor can join the market and compete on equal footing, while the other leads to one single company's assured dominance over the industry. Apple leverages standard formats with vertical solutions, while Microsoft is in the format licensing business, trying to muscle their proprietary format into a dominant position.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[aristotle-dude]

I never got the gripe of you Anti-Apple whiners. Go, use Rio, or Zune, or whatever else is out there for playing MP3s and WMA (proprietary format) nobody is holding a gun to your head. Go, Use allofMP3 and any other source for Downloading Music.

It's like this; iTunes is a lock-in situation. You have to use iTunes to talk to the iPod (there are exceptions, but none of them are as good as the real thing at talking to the iPod) and load music into it. And the iPod only supports one type of DRM, which is supported by no other player.

How is it Apple's problem that tools written by third-parties are not as good? Is it not possible that the third-parties stopped putting so much effort into their solutions as iTunes started to improve and provide some of the features that they were offering?

You are free to use those other tools and use eMusic and other stores that sell MP3s legally. You are also free to rip your own CDs.

So tell me, what other DRM does the Zune support other than the Zune marketplace? What other DRM do Playsforsure devices support? Where are the third-party solutions that talk to MTP devices that do not leverage WMP dlls? What other devices support the Zune DRM? What non-licensed devices support the Playsforsure DRM?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[catbutt]

And you think the price should go down, why? Do you disagree with the general concept of a free market?

I dunno, I'm happy with Jobs' moving this direction, even if he has to use price as a bargaining chip. But I'm sure those out there with a sense of entitlement will always complain.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

How is it Apple's problem that tools written by third-parties are not as good? Is it not possible that the third-parties stopped putting so much effort into their solutions as iTunes started to improve and provide some of the features that they were offering?

No, see, you missed the point entirely.

iTunes is best at using a proprietary interface (Just some file formats AFAIK) to talk to the iPod.

It's not like Apple published specs, it had to be reverse engineered.

This is because apple uses a proprietary database. It's also why I'd prefer rockbox, but I can't seem to get anyone to tell me if dock peripherals (like a stereo dock) are supported under rockbox, which is why I don't have an iPod at all (aside from a nano that needs a new screen, which I Was given free. Kind of broke this month though, which is why it's still broken.)

It's the closed nature of the platform that makes iTunes best at handling iPods. It's not because of some special feature it supposedly has.

So tell me, what other DRM does the Zune support other than the Zune marketplace?

Your argument is that because the Zune which has nothing to do with Jobs or Apple aside from competition does bad things, that the iPod should do it too? I guess it's okay if I go around shooting people, because some other people do that?

Aristotle, indeed. You can take your logical fallacy and cram it.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Dracil]

I'd rather just buy the used CD and send the artist $1. That's multiple times more than they'd get from you buying a new CD.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Thyrus]

"CDs are not ALL drm free...or do you live under a rock?" I think you will find the ones that have DRM are not allowed to use the CD logo as they are not classed as true CDs.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[FiloEleven]

As someone else pointed out; CDs usually come with 7/10 tracks that aren't worth listening to. Good lord! What kind of shitty music are we talking about here? What kind of band has so little self-respect as to put seven filler tracks on an album?

So if you like the full CD, buy it. But if you like that one song on the radio-- Aah, that explains it. ;)

On a more serious note, track-by-track purchases are a good thing for the music market. Bands who fill their discs with junk and rely on their hit single to sell records will no longer be able to get away with it. I think that means we'll see some talented acts picking up the spotlight instead of the industry-created fluff of recent years. I just hope that artists don't abandon the idea of the album as a cohesive whole - when you're in the mood for something a little deeper than top 40, nothing beats putting on a well-executed musical journey from one of your favorite bands.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

"easy to understand"

Of course it isn't easy for you to understand. I already said that here, "not sure I can explain it to you in a way that you can understand"

Apparently you don't understand the distinction between a single device doing a single thing well (appliance) and a general purpose computing device's OS that has certain anti competitive and lock in/lock out mechanisms and the implied threat that if you create anything actually useful, that the manufacturer of the OS might come in and either compete directly or even give away a competing applications.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[nasch]

Right of first sale is now theft? Wow. How is a CD different from any other product in this regard? Or do you think I'm stealing from the car company (or stealing a tiny bit from every dealership maybe?) when I sell my car used? After all, I'm getting that money that "should have" gone to the manufacturer, right? I understand your desire and recommendation to support artists, but really if the artist doesn't want to compete with their own used recordings, they should make recordings that people want to keep.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[WilliamSChips]

And if you do buy it from the RIAA, the artist gets about a tenth of a cent from your ten-dollar purchase. If you want to support the artist, go watch a live show.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[WilliamSChips]

If you only like 6 songs then you don't like the band.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, what's your point? Also: Even with my favorite bands there are a few songs I don't like. And more and more modern bands seem to have one or two "good" songs and a lot of filler, though there are still exceptions to the rule. (Actually, I think that soon those bands won't be releasing albums, instead releasing songs when they're done with them, only making an album when they want to make an album, due to things like iTunes)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Goaway]

audiophiles will hear a difference

If you tell them they are supposed to hear a difference. And especially if they paid a lot of money for that difference.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[nasch]

The lower price that people were not paying (whether because of piracy or just not consuming music) is the crux of this entire issue. Where do you get this idea that people (generally) were "not paying" that price? Or do you mean there were particular people not paying it?

If you increase the price on something, people complain. If you look at this from an economic perspective, it doesn't matter whether they complain. But raise the price and they will buy less of it.

But if you just throw them a bone, even something that costs you nothing, they will pay more. If by "a bone" you mean something they value, then yes of course they will pay more for something they value more. Normally supplier costs would come into play because a competitor could offer the same product for a lower price, but in this case the record labels have a monopoly on the particular product in question and there are no close substitutes. So in this case the costs to the supplier are pretty much irrelevant, and it's just a question of price vs. how much the buyer values the product.

If they had just gone to $1.30 per track in the first place, nobody would have bitten, because they would have seen it as a massive ripoff since we all know that their costs are practically zero compared to CD. Again, supplier costs don't matter. People might be irritated if they think the seller is making a big profit, but almost nobody will decide not to buy for that reason (and it would be irrational to decide on that basis). If there is no adequate substitute good, the decision comes down to the perceived value of the product compared to its price, whether the seller is making 1% profit or 50%. In this case Apple believes that the perceived value has gone up, so they would be pretty stupid not to charge more. The market will decide whether their price is appropriate or not.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[WilliamSChips]

He said, "keeping inflation in mind". Keeping inflation in mind, those vinyl singles start looking a lot more expensive.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

You missed the point. Perhaps it is iTunes and iPod together which makes them better than the alternatives. Creative Rio could have done the same thing, all the other MP3 players could do the same thing.

iPod without iTunes is just a slightly above average Music Player, that "costs too much".

The other companies could do the same thing, but they don't want to. They want to leverage WMP and WMA and MP3 and plays not-fer-sher etc. They bought into the whole M$ monopoly gig, and it sucks for them. They got screwed, twice, by M$.

That is definition of monopoly. The power changes course and screws people. If Apple changes course with iPod and iTunes it doesn't screw anyone.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[WilliamSChips]

Jimi Hendrix was a one-hit wonder.
Also, even when I like an album there's usually one or two tracks I end up just not liking.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

That is definition of monopoly. The power changes course and screws people. If Apple changes course with iPod and iTunes it doesn't screw anyone.

How fortunate for me that I never claimed that there was a monopoly. However, there very much IS vendor lock-in.

I was explaining why it was bad, not why it was a monopoly.

Thanks for playing, though.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[WilliamSChips]

Most people fall into two categories: 1) the people who don't know what DRM is and 2) the people who know what it is but don't care about it because they know how to break it.
The small number of people who don't buy DRMed music out of principle also seem to be the people who only buy RIAA CDs used out of principle. Not much increased sales there. The concept of dollar diplomacy is flawed on every scale.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Changing the way CD's play audio would take years.

Um, it did. You can get higher bit-rate CDs for seven years now - Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio. Although most discs seem to be of classical music.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[bograt]

I've read double-blind studies all the way back to c't in 2000, which said that twelve audiophiles and one sound master at a record company couldn't tell CDs and 256kbps MP3s apart.

Fine, but that has nothing to do with the grandparent's point. The point was that audiophiles will hear a difference between 16-bit 44.1 kHz audio and 24-bit 96+ kHz audio. Nothing to do with MP3 at any bitrate.

(I have no opinion either way, my ears are shot to pieces, I'm just trying to make a stand for logic.)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Randle_Revar]

It keeps the tigers away? I'll take it! That other stuff is just a bonus.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Andy_R]

Those piano key frequencies are misleading. Any sound apart from a pure sine wave has not only the root frequency (known as the fundamental) but a whole load of other (usually higher) frequencies that give the sound it's character.

The wikipedia table lists only the root frequencies, but even a mid-range piano note includes higher harmonic frequencies that go at least as high as the range of human hearing.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[markjhood2003]

Most recording studios these days use, at the very least, 24bit audio at between 96-196+ khz.

That's because recording studios often subject the raw 24-bit 196khz tracks to extensive digital audio processing and mixing, which tend to lose bits. For example, you can do much more accurate mixing by adding 24-bit numbers and then dithering the sums to 16-bit resolution to make the master to be pressed into CD's.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

I love it. Vendor "lock-in" = what per se? The Music on my wife's iPod I can get out anytime I need/want. I've never used iTMS either.

I just know, my wife isn't nagging me about her iPod, except she wants a bigger one. Go Figure.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[romonster]

Yes. Emusic.com, and it's cheaper than $1.29 per song.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

I love it. Vendor "lock-in" = what per se? The Music on my wife's iPod I can get out anytime I need/want. I've never used iTMS either.

The only client you can expect to work reliably with the iPod is iTunes; that's one. The only devices which will play music purchased from the iTMS (without loss of quality and waste of time through the burn-and-rip method) are from Apple; that's two. And you can't always take music out of your iPod, either. I had music from non-iTMS sources on an iPod Nano and couldn't put it into my media library. I have a feeling that if your system is deauthorized (new install of system+iTunes would count) that you won't be able to get that music out. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but Apple will at least seek to make it difficult for you.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[maxume]

The phrase "harmonics or whatever that go above that" appears in my comment. It probably does make more sense to try to convince people that they probably can't hear above 15000 Hz, but I was curious where musical voices are based, and a piano is pretty representative of that.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[tcc3]

The problem is the tensioner. Many cassete players will not play if theres no resistance on the spindles. Most modern cd adapters have some sort gear system (often with a belt or a rubber band) to add tension between the spindles.

Its been my experience that when that happens, something has happened to the gears between spindles. The tension is no longer there (or correct) and it messes with the players auto flip feature.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[danpsmith]

Apparently you don't understand the distinction between a single device doing a single thing well (appliance) and a general purpose computing device's OS that has certain anti competitive and lock in/lock out mechanisms and the implied threat that if you create anything actually useful, that the manufacturer of the OS might come in and either compete directly or even give away a competing applications.

Oh I get it, it's just I thought analogies were supposed to make a complicated example *less* confusing.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[fbjon]

I had problems extracting the first track from a DRM'd CD. I just downloaded that particular track, but then I found that I could just tweak EAC a bit to make it read the CD properly anyway.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'd say the REAL obstacle here is playback equipment. I can tell you right now that music sounds a lot better on CD in my dad's $4000 stereo system with $1000 CD-player than it would in a higher-bitrate format on any computer speakers. Even if you plugged a desktop computer with an expensive sound card into that $4k amp and speakers, it would still sound worse than a CD; that CD player cost $1000 for a reason, after all.

For really top-notch audio quality of the type audiophiles care about, the playback equipment is at least as important as the recording medium, and there's simply no reasonably cheap computer audio that can match audiophile CD systems. And on the flip side, for anything below audiophile-level sound quality, CD audio probably is in fact "good enough."

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[PagosaSam]

Make sure the tape sprockets turn easily. If not the player will think it is at the end of the tape and switch directions. What I don't like about these things is the tape player motor runs constantly. But, I guess they are rated to not wear out too soon. :(

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[maxume]

And there is almost no chance that it will last. But that's why I qualified my comment with a probably(do you find tones at those pitches particularly musical?).

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[shark72]

"in the case of the music industry the products are not equivilent. If you want to by a copy of a particular song legally that copy must have been made or authorised to be made by the copyright holder."

I don't follow. If I want a Lotus Elise, I've gotta buy it from Lotus. Sure, GM, BMW, Porsche, etc. all make vehicles which are much like the Elise, but only Lotus can sell me an Elise. Likewise, if Dreyer's strawberry ice cream is my favorite, I've got to buy it from them. Other vendors make strawberry ice cream, and some are quite good, but if I want Dreyer's unique recipe, there's only one source.

Lots of people claim that since you have no choice but to, say, patronize Fat Wreck Chords if you want the latest track by Bad Astronaut, then the recording industry is a monopoly (and thus we are morally obliged to pirate their work; as it means that we are fighting the good fight). They are a monopoly in the sense that Lotus has a monopoly on the Elise or Dreyer's has a monopoly on their strawberry ice cream. They do have a monopoly, in a manner of speaking, but not in a sense that exempts them from market competition. If Fat Wreck Chords or Lotus or Dreyer's price their product too high, consumers will simply go elsewhere.

"There is also almost certainly some level of collousion between the record labels (isn't that why we have the riaa in the first place?)"

I've no doubt that record companies have colluded on pricing, but the existence of the RIAA doesn't relate here. Lots of industries -- including the ice cream and auto industry -- have trade associations.

At any rate, the price of music over the years has served as an excellent example of pricing adapting to market forces (case in point, CD prices have dropped about 20% in the past five years, and about 50% in the past 20 years. CDs (as well as autos by segment, and ice cream by segment) cost about the same from all manufacturers not because of price collusion, but because the market is highly competitive.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Bluesman]

>In a perfectly competitive market, the price will move towards the marginal cost of production.

First of all, this is only true if there is a competitive market for a commodity -- any item that can easily be replaced by another.

Music is not a commodity. I don't buy CD's by the pound, I buy the latest Van Morrison album. If I want the latest Van Morrison, but I get Britney Spears instead, I'm going to be pissed off. Each individual company has a monopoly on all music it sells, through copyright.

What the music companies are offering is not only specific, copyrighted music, but all the advertising and media that goes along with it.

There are unknown bands that are giving away their music for free, eating the production and distribution cost. If what people paid was actually dominated by production costs, these bands would go broke in short order because demand for their free music would skyrocket on the basis of it being free. But production cost doesn't set prices, demand does.

If the production cost of CD's went up 2 cents, would CD prices be $19.02 instead of $18.99? No, because demand wouldn't have changed one bit.

What nobody likes to admit is that the music industry, through advertising, production, and distribution, *creates value* for the product they are selling. 13 year old girls want what's on MTV. That's what's valuable to them. And that's the only reason prices haven't dropped...all this media frenzy stuff costs a ton of money, same as it always did.

I could start a company selling tar statues, and charge below what it cost me to make them, and I'd probably go out of business in short order. Why? There's no demand for tar statues, no matter how efficiently I can make them.

Not understanding this is why so many people are confused as to why the prices of some things don't drop, while others do. It's all about what people will willingly pay.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

the real key is don't support RIAA owned artists at all, listen to underground bands and buy their CDs, they actually get a worthwile percentage out of album sales.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[dr.badass]

They gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price?

Judging by iTunes' sales, people wanted (or anyway didn't mind) DRMed music. People that didn't want (or did mind) it didn't buy it. Clearly, enough people think DRMed music is worth the current price to justify that price. Wouldn't you agree that DRM-free music is more valuable? Then why shouldn't the price be higher?

Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!

That should be a clue that the bulk of the cost of music comes from the content. It is music after all, not white noise.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

ACC (non-DRM) is available for play on ... Microsoft's Zune, Sony's PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 3 and some Walkman MP3 players, and lots of Nokia and Sony Ericsson mobile phones. I even hear there is a TCPMP for many phones, which will play ACC just fine (reportedly).

Now iTMS has only recently started selling NON-DRMed ACC, but to blame Apple iPod, iTunes and iTMS for this is just stupid. Blame the record companies, which require it, not Apple, who is (through Jobs) trying to undo it.

"I have a feeling that if your system is deauthorized (new install of system+iTunes would count) that you won't be able to get that music out."

Your "feeling" makes it a fact, and more than enough evidence to come to the whopping conclusion you did. Awesome. Can you get a feeling that I can have 1 Billion $ US?

Besides this, you need to be aware of Tansee iPod Transfer (program, windows), that will pull all your files off your ipod for you. There are at least three other applications that do the same doing a quick look on Google. However Apple gives the following link for doing exactly what you "feel" can't be done ...

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300 173

Again the problem isn't iTMS, iPod, iTunes or Apple, it has to do with DRM. Your issue isn't with Apple, it is with the DRM Mafiaa.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

"And if you're not using one of the two operating systems they support, then "works on both Mac and Windows" sounds an awful lot like "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country *and* western"."

So Apple should support EVERY OS out there, like Amiga, and BeOS? How about Win 3.1? You just mean YOUR OS???

That's why you AC isn't it.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Moofie]

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Me? I think plugging my iPod into the 1/8" line in on my head unit is easier than dealing with a binder full o' CDs, some of which might not work in my car deck.

Your mileage may vary.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[arminw]

.......It also means the artist gets no money from your purchase........

Now wait a minute! Did the artist not get paid when that copy his/her work was first sold? Artists who want to be paid each time someone listens to their work should NEVER make a recordings, but confine their artistry to live performance. Once a recording is made, the purchaser of that recording may listen as often as desired, without paying extra for each listen.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[zeropointburn]

Consider acquiring an AudioScience card. You'll find a new one costs as much or more than your father's CD player ($1k-$2k range). Heard of HD radio? The ASI 6000 series cards are commonly used in the broadcast industry to produce audio streams for HD broadcast, not to mention AM/FM, for the same reason the studios use high bitrate masters (highest quality before final compression). The whole point of a CD is that it is digital; any reader will read out the same data (barring damage not recoverable via CRC, etc). It's the audio processing hardware that makes the difference, and it is most certainly possible to get that kind of professional-grade hardware for a PC.
  If an ASI is a bit out of your range, or you're just masochistic (wrt driver hell), consider an Echo Leyla or a Delta 1010. If that's still too far out there, try one of the 32bit/192kHz soundblaster cards that does 7.1 surround.
  On the other hand, if you need lots and lots of audio channels at arbitrary quality, and you happen to have a beefy gigabit network, check out Axia. They're doing some straight out amazing things with audio over IP and centralized (read: rackmount) audio processing gear. That has nothing to do with home PC audio playback, I admit, but it does have implications for independant studios and audio gear for live shows.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

of course they get paid when they sell it. the point is not that they should be paid every time you listen to them, the point is that the artist is not selling the physical media, they are selling what is contained on it, when I buy a CD I am buying for what is contained in it, not the packaging, the problem with buying a used CD is that you are not just selling a physical disk, you are selling the contents. If I buy a CD, the artist gets a portion of the money i paid to the record store, as does the record store, as do the long list of people involved in the production of the CD and the media contained therein. When I buy that CD the artists sales increase and they gain a better chance of getting a greater profit in the future as record companies usually base royalty amounts on number of sales. If I sell that CD to the record Store and someone else buys it, the record store receives the money they gave to me for the CD and some extra, they take all of the extra. The artist gets neither credit nor payment for resale of their work, and the worst part is this: the consumer is usually happily unaware of the fact that they are doing nothing to help the artist. Bands signed to smaller labels especially get hurt by this, and benefit more from regular sales than the top 40 garbage that the RIAA represent, they get a larger percentage of money per sale, and they NEED the money, If you want to buy used britney spears or whatever albums, go right ahead, but used CD sales are really ripping off the artist and helping no one but the record store.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[rohan972]

If you don't care that the artists you like are not getting paid, then by all means go ahead and buy the secondhand CDs. The big problem with this is when it is an underground band that you are supporting, you would buy their CD at the higher price that benefits them, but you buy the cheap one because it is cheaper, they just lost the money that should have gone to them, so the record stores are stealing from the artist.

I hope I'm missing a joke here ... you don't seriously think that selling second hand goods is stealing from the original producer do you?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

no, what I am saying is that the secondhand CD being sold by the record store that profits them exclusively is being sold at the expense of record sales that would contribute to the artist. I really should have said stealing sales and made that a hell of a lot clearer. And I don't think CDs can be treated like most other goods, If you buy a car, you own that car, when you buy a CD you own the physical disc, but you don't own the music on it. It is yours to do with as you will but when you sell it you are selling what belongs to the artist, they own the songs, and are providing you with full use of the contents, but not the right to take their recording of the song and sell it. It would be like burning a copy of a CD and selling it, you are selling what doesn't belong to you, and profiting from sales that should have gone to the artist.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[themanwithnoname.com]

EXACTLY! why are people here so slow in realizing that. it's as if the notion of bands that aren't famous or signed to huge labels just doesn't exist here.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[sheepweevil]

But ordering a CD online takes a day to wait for overnight shipping!!! I need my music NOW!

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[rohan972]

when you buy a CD you own the physical disc, but you don't own the music on it. It is yours to do with as you will but when you sell it you are selling what belongs to the artist, they own the songs, and are providing you with full use of the contents, but not the right to take their recording of the song and sell it. It would be like burning a copy of a CD and selling it, you are selling what doesn't belong to you, and profiting from sales that should have gone to the artist.

I've never heard such an extreme take on it outside of *AA reps. If you own the disk, you can sell the disk. It has the distinct difference from burning a copy and selling it that if I sell a legally purchased copy, I then no longer have it. The original producer has sold one copy, been paid for one copy, and no additional copies exist, so the copyright is not violated.

Second hand sales are not stealing anything, sales, ideas, opportunities, profits or anything else. This is how it works: once you sell something, you no longer get to control it. See, simple isn't it?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[trentblase]

I'm not arguing that some people can hear the difference, studios probably use the higher bitrates so that they have extra headroom when manipulating the recording (volume, speed, etc.) without introducing noticeable artifacts. For a format that you don't expect to edit, you don't need the extra resolution.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jb.hl.com]

Jimi Hendrix was a one-hit wonder.

Was he now? I seem to recall him having any number of popular songs, and having a lasting legacy upon rock music (and many other kinds of music to boot). Sure, he had only one charting song, but his influence remains with us today. Same goes for bands like Radiohead, Pink Floyd...

Taking a real example, Toni Basil, on the other hand, released precisely one popular song and buggered off into obscurity afterwards, and had very little influence (beyond a pisspoor cover of Mickey by a British pop tart who also buggered off into obscurity (or at least, to Nickelodeon UK)). Or the Baha Men. Those are true one hit wonders.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

for tangible physical media that is true, for the disc itself there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling it. But you are selling more than just the disc, you own the disc, but the artist owns the song, you are selling their work to someone else, without them getting their fair share. legally you are entitled to sell the disc, but my argument is that by buying used CDs you are buying a CD without supporting the artist, personally, I would rather spend the extra $2.00 and get the copy that they get paid for, since I obviously like them enough to buy it in the first place, and I know they get little enough as it is for the CD sales. Almost everything I listen to is underground and most of these guys have to have a real job to make a living, every time I buy from them, I am contributing to their continued ability to produce the music I like. And I'm not making the RIAA argument that they own the disc and everything on it, and you cant make copies or put it on your mp3 player, I just think that selling used CDs is a bad idea, it profits no one but the record store.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jb.hl.com]

You can buy the whole album (at least in the UK) for £4.74, which for an album of 97 sound effects isn't that bad.

Anyway, who could live with only one or two fart noises? ;) I'm thinking of getting this now; it'll simulate commercial radio when I'm listening to my iPod... in between every couple of songs, some asshole will start making inappropriate and grating noises.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[durin]

The lower price you never paid for something you didn't want is irrelevant

Since when was price irrelevant to customers?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[rohan972]

for tangible physical media that is true, for the disc itself there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling it. But you are selling more than just the disc, you own the disc, but the artist owns the song, you are selling their work to someone else, without them getting their fair share.

No, you are selling exactly what was sold to you, unmodified. They get their fair share on the first sale. I find it bizarre that you don't seem to understand this. The personal or financial situation of the original producer does not abrogate purchasers rights to sell legally owned goods. There is no legal or moral imperitave here.

And I'm not making the RIAA argument that they own the disc and everything on it, and you cant make copies or put it on your mp3 player, I just think that selling used CDs is a bad idea, it profits no one but the record store.

Well, you did make the arguement that they own everything on the disc and have said in two posts that it is stealing, qualifying it in one post as "stealing sales" but stealing nonetheless. You haven't given any reason why it should be considered stealing to sell second hand goods, or why it is bad for second hand dealers to be the only one's to profit from their work (the artist profited on the first sale, they did no further work towards the second hand sale) other than your personal preference of paying producers of music twice for something they produced once (a CD).

If you can't understand the doctrine of first sale, I couldn't be bothered to explain it to you. I won't be reading any more replies, you can go last if you like.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

As I have already said, You are right, there is no legal issue with selling or buying legally purchased CDs, it is not my intention to make that argument, it is however my intent to make the argument that it is causing less sales that result in profit for the artist. If you read my original post you would see my point is simply that used CDs do nothing for the artist, not that they should receive money every time their CD changes hands, or that every time you listen to it they should be paid. Note that I am not implying that sale or purchase of legally purchased CDs is illegal, what I am saying is that the record store is taking a sale that would otherwise have gone towards supporting the artist. I am well aware that the artist received their payment for the first sale of the CD, however they are not receiving payment for someone purchasing their album when the album is resold. at this point, I really don't care if you are reading this or not, and I won't be bothered to respond to your twisting of what I say on the matter if you do, I am writing this now simply to clear up what I was trying to say, before everyone confused supporting an artist with wanting to pay twice for a single product, or RIAA sympathy, or whatever else. All I wanted to say here was: ARTISTS DO NOT GET PAID WHEN USED CDS ARE SOLD , So if you want to support the artist, don't buy the used CD, if you don't care if they get paid, great buy the used CD. If anyone else wants to try and get something out of that, go ahead, this argument has ceased to be productive, and has started pissing me off with the ridiculous childish insults and condescending asinine comments being thrown around.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

I buy almost all my CDs direct from the artists too, And I also try and see badns I like whenever possible, I am just pointing out that the artist doesn't get paid for used CDs, it has nothing to do with representation. record stores can sell used CDs cheaper because they are not paying the artist or label for the CD.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Unicorn Giggles]

I never said they should demand payment for resale, I just said that they don't get paid for resale, so If you want to support them, don't buy used, If you don't care, go ahead and buy used.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Workaphobia]

My friend asked me when he saw this headline, is the dropping of DRM worth the price increase. I responded that the right question is simply whether the songs are worth the new price; whatever the old price was is irrelevant because DRM'd songs are worthless.

So I would say, first consider whether or not you would pay that amount per song - and I say "song" now, not "download", since we can now begin to talk about paying for content rather than paying for the right to enjoy it under their terms. Comparing this prices against historic trends should come after that.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Saint Fnordius]

That is the problem with the business model, in that you're not supporting the artist but the producer. The artists and the studio crew are often paid for their services beforehand, and the producer then tries to recoup his investment. It's a gambling bet, more or less, and one that the labels have tweaked to their advantage. Only the heavyweight artists manage to get a cut, really, and even then the labels game the contracts, doing their best to con the artist.

This also ignores such sticky issues as artists who cannot be reached, or those who have broken up, whose label no longer exists and have their rights stuck in limbo. If you think you're supporting the artist by buying their album years after its release, you're only fooling yourself.

Look, if you want to support an artist, go to their concerts, buy their merchandise directly from them, or do the internet equivalent of dropping a coin in their hat. Buying the album only helps the label, not the artist.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[CleverBoy]

CDs cost about the same as digital counterparts? Sorry, but that's not true simply because you need to make your point. Pull up iTunes, and look at a collection of albums. Then find the same albums on Amazon. Retail pricing. The iTunes albums will consistantly be MUCH cheaper. These same albums will STILL be priced the same on iTunes *without* DRM (as per the deal with EMI). I ask that you just make honest arguments. That's all.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[LKM]

Hopefully, having DRM-free songs in all stores will help get the prices down again, eventually. Now, iPod owners' only choice is the iTunes Store, but that will change.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[LKM]

You couldn't judge for yourself anyway. You'd ned at least another person to play the songs for you, and even then, it wouldn't be double-blind.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[LKM]

If there's no audible difference between 256 kbps mp3 and CD, there's probably no audible difference between cd and better-than-cd either. At a certain point, it's all just "more than good enough."

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[MonkeySpank]

There is NO drm on the music on the Audio CD that can legally be called a Audio CD. There are half-assed attempts to make a PC not read them, which are in fact NOT DRM. So the OP is actually right, you are the one that is mistaken. Au contraire. The half-assed attempts to make a PC not read a CD are the copyright owners' attempts at Digital Rights Management. Nobody said digital music files themselves have to be polluted with copy protection in order to implement DRM.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

People who didn't pay that lower price for the product they didn't want aren't customers, at least not for that product. They might be (or become) customers who buys the other product, but the two things need not be related.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

ACC (non-DRM) is available for play on ... Microsoft's Zune, Sony's PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 3 and some Walkman MP3 players, and lots of Nokia and Sony Ericsson mobile phones. I even hear there is a TCPMP for many phones, which will play ACC just fine (reportedly). Now iTMS has only recently started selling NON-DRMed ACC

You just raised my objection for me, thanks. It's been impossible to get non-DRM tracks until last month and the majority of tracks which are supposed to be available in non-DRM form are currently not available, although they are supposed to be sometime this month.

Even after that, Apple is still the only company with compatible DRM, and many people will still purchase DRM-enabled songs.

There are at least three other applications that do the same doing a quick look on Google. However Apple gives the following link for doing exactly what you "feel" can't be done

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never said it was impossible. I said Apple made it difficult. I should never need a third-party tool to avoid vendor lock-in!

Also, the article that you describe does NOT repeat NOT do what I describe. That is Apple giving you instructions on how to move your music library from one computer to another by using your iPod as a removable hard disk. You cannot use the menu option to transfer purchased music from iPod to PC (and why doesn't it let me copy my other-source music to my PC? It doesn't know shit about copyright on it) without an internet connection because it has to verify your license. If the iTMS were to disappear tomorrow (highly unlikely of course) then you would be unable to transfer DRM-encoded music from iPod to iTunes.

Given that most users likely think that iTunes is the only app supported by the various iPods, don't you think that's a bit unfair?

Again the problem isn't iTMS, iPod, iTunes or Apple, it has to do with DRM. Your issue isn't with Apple, it is with the DRM Mafiaa.

Apple signed up to distribute DRM and DRM-encrypted media. They are part of the problem. Period, end of story.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

"Even after that, Apple is still the only company with compatible DRM, and many people will still purchase DRM-enabled songs."

DRM isn't caused by Apple. Apple didn't choose it. Apple is fighting DRM. And still you blame Apple for DRM on what they distribute. Interesting.

"Even after that, Apple is still the only company with compatible DRM, and many people will still purchase DRM-enabled songs.

"I never said it was impossible. I said Apple made it difficult."

So, you're whining about nothing. Okay, so we are down to you are against iPod, iTunes for what?? Because it is "hard"???

"I should never need a third-party tool to avoid vendor lock-in!"

Its not vendor lock in if you can get your stuff off your iPod, using tools made by Apple (see the link I provided). Now you're complaining about something that is not even a real problem, as if it were. Interesting.

"Apple signed up to distribute DRM and DRM-encrypted media. They are part of the problem. Period, end of story."

I expect you to never use DVDs, Windows, Apple or any other "DRMed" product. EVER. I don't think you should even go to the movies and support the MPAA consortium or watch TVs, buy VCRs .... because they all include Macrovision. You simply should not consume ANY product that contains DRM or any "anti copying" technology simply because if you do, you are "part of the problem".

And lets not forget Linux, you should avoid all propriarary drivers using only fully open and free source based ones, no more nVidia, ATI or other drivers for you. No using NDISWrapper for your wireless networking drivers either, since that supports a third party application.

So, please, turn in all propriatary applications, cell phones, PDA, misc hardware, OSes, DVDs, VCRs, DVD Players, your new Hi Def TV ......... immediately. Anything less is hypocritical.

And unlike you, who would just blindly accept being a hypocrite, at least Apple (through Jobs) is trying to fix the problem instead of whining about it. Apple should be given a huge dose of credit for doing the right thing, with regards to DRM.

I do have issues with Apple about other things, but this is not one of them.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[drinkypoo]

DRM isn't caused by Apple. Apple didn't choose it. Apple is fighting DRM. And still you blame Apple for DRM on what they distribute. Interesting.

Uh, you're dumb. Apple most certainly did choose to use DRM. Granted, their choices were DRM or nothing, but that is fucking irrelevant. THEY CHOSE TO DISTRIBUTE DRM. No one fucking forced them. No one put a gun to Jobs' head and said "put out a music player with DRM or I'll fucking kill you" and then proceeded to throw a chair at him, okay?

Your willingness to forgive Apple its culpability is pathetic. But I guess that explains why Apple is still around in spite of the fact that they are all too willing to fuck their customers nine ways from Sunday. Any other company that had acted as incompetently or as rudely as Apple has in the past would be gone now (barring government subsidies such as those received by the airlines.)

So, you're whining about nothing. Okay, so we are down to you are against iPod, iTunes for what?? Because it is "hard"???

People who pay someone to make things harder for them are fucking stupid.

People who make it harder for people to exercise their legally-protected rights are assholes.

Sometimes people who are fucking stupid can't identify assholes.

I expect you to never use DVDs, Windows, Apple or any other "DRMed" product. EVER. I don't think you should even go to the movies and support the MPAA consortium or watch TVs, buy VCRs .... because they all include Macrovision. You simply should not consume ANY product that contains DRM or any "anti copying" technology simply because if you do, you are "part of the problem".

This is not at all an analogous situation. I would explain to you why this is so, but if you don't already understand, you're too fucking stupid to understand what I'm going to say anyway. You're either [relatively] intelligent and being deliberately obtuse to push your pro-Apple agenda, or you're a fucking idiot and morally bankrupt besides.

And lets not forget Linux, you should avoid all propriarary drivers using only fully open and free source based ones, no more nVidia, ATI or other drivers for you. No using NDISWrapper for your wireless networking drivers either, since that supports a third party application.

As close as nVidia or ATI has gotten to DRM is support for HDCP, and I have no devices which support that.

I also will likely never buy a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD device or media.

But otherwise these companies are not involved in keeping me away from my media. So I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Third party applications have ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION to the current conversation. Are you really this stupid? I would normally foe someone this dumb, but my friends/foes list is full and I need to go through and remove some people.

And unlike you, who would just blindly accept being a hypocrite, at least Apple (through Jobs) is trying to fix the problem instead of whining about it. Apple should be given a huge dose of credit for doing the right thing, with regards to DRM.

They can have one, it's just buried under the fucking mountain of negativity which they deserve for promoting DRM. They haven't even stopped distributing DRM, and you've already forgotten they're doing it, and why it's bad! My goddamned parrot has a longer attention span than you do.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[nasch]

If they didn't switch to higher quality encoding, there would be no ability to charge for "removing" the DRM--something many of us feel THEY should pay for. I don't agree with that. And I'm not sure you do either. :-) I assume you're saying that we think they should pay for the DRM, not us. I agree, and that is exactly what they're demonstrating here. By charging less for the DRM version of a song (ignoring the quality issue for now) they're effectively paying for that DRM by accepting less money for it. Looking at it from the consumer's perspective, there's nobody who actually wants DRM. Either they don't know about it or they don't want it. For those who don't want it, a product with no DRM is more desirable. Why should it not have a higher price? We've been saying all along that we would rather have music without DRM, so now it's time to put our money where our mouths are. If you're not willing to pay more for it, that means you didn't really want it more. And I'm not picking on you particularly, just saying that there should be a correlation between asking for something in the market and being willing to pay for it.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[arminw]

..... are not just selling a physical disk, you are selling the contents.....

Of course, that is true, but that only applies to the FIRST sale. Why should different rules apply to CDs, DVDs than to other items of commerce, such as used cars and furniture? Ford doesn't get a cut when I sell my Mustang to a used car dealer who then sells it to you. Can you give me a good reason why an exception should be made for things that are or were protected by copyright? No copy is being made when a legal copy of a work is sold via an intermediary from one consumer to another, so copyright law does not apply. If it did, then it would have to apply to books, magazines and other printed work also. Used books have been bought and sold since humans learned to write. It just sounds like some incredibly greedy content companies are now buying and already have in some states, bought themselves a special exception from equally greedy and dishonest politicians. If this slippery slope we are on continues, eventually all used merchandise will either be heavily taxed or outlawed completely.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[default luser]

Most recording studios these days use, at the very least, 24bit audio at between 96-196+ khz. While I agree with you that most people won't hear a difference, audiophiles will hear a difference. My mother can't tell the difference between a hissy cassette tape and a CD, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

The interesting point here is that online music sales could potentially supply consumers with higher quality audio than currently is available with CD.

While the MPEG4 AAC is capable of 96 KHz sample rate, the iPod is not capable of playing back this quality level. While you can certainly transcode to 48 KHz, this leaves you with quality on-par with a CD. The iPod's massive momentum can most certainly hold back a standard as flexible as AAC.

Changing the way CD's play audio would take years.

As would changing the way iPods play audio. Who's going to replace their "good enough" iPod with the new 96KHz model for almost no improvement? And what benefit does Apple get hosting larger 96 KHz tracks that nobody downloads? Isn't momentum a wonderful thing?

I actually find it funny that Apple has been pushing 128k AAC all these years as "CD quality," yet only now do they admit that it's not good enough (new 256k downloads). AAC really needs between 160k and 192k to produce a transparent copy, which is about the same as mp3, and as far as I know this has actually kept audiophiles AWAY from the iTunes store. This hasn't hurt Apple's bottom-line so-far, so why should they cater to audiophiles all of a sudden?

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Myopic]

Yes. You are right about everything except two things: Microsoft is actually a monopoly; and Windows does not "Just Work".

Besides that, you are right: anti-MS people should just stfu and use whatever else they want, there are plenty of options. It's all about choice.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[skrogg]

Is that a painting of a woman? Looks like two boobs and a navel to me...

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[jandrese]

The problem with the one's I've tried is that you have to find a piece of empty spectrum three channels wide so you can plop yourself down right in the middle of the empty space. If there are broadcasters on either side of you the transmitter will pick up their signal, amplify and distort it and rebroadcast it to your radio. In major metropolitan areas, there are no radio segments like that. Heck, even with major broadcasters you'll often hear adjacent stations creeking through the background, sometimes even clobbering the station you're trying to listen to if the reflections off of the buildings get too strong.

I still say you're better off using a line-in on your radio.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Archangel Michael]

Does insulting people make you feel better?

"Apple most certainly did choose to use DRM."

So do you when you view DVD (CSS), use VCRs(Macrovision), NDISWrapper and proprietary drivers etc, and since you claim that "they" aren't keeping you from your media. Okay Buy a brand new DVD, and break it (snap it in two) before you do anything, and see if you have access to your "media". You have no legal tools to backup, convert to your mobile media player etc. So, you are restricted to DVD players and DVD discs that have DRM throughout.

And, you've "chosen it" because you "don't have a choice". Makes you quite hypocritical, at least here. Which is why I pointed to all those other DRM and Proprietary items in the previous post, which you conveniently ignore for the sake of bashing Apple for doing essentially what you are doing every time you use Proprietary or DRM encumbered products.

"I also will likely never buy a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD device or media."

I'd be willing to take the bet that in 10 years, you will have viewed at least 1 BR or HD-DVD or OTHER DRM/Proprietary encumbered media.

"But otherwise these companies are not involved in keeping me away from my media."

Sure they are, that is what DRM does. You put a DVD into a DVD player you are doing exactly what iPod and iTunes does. One is media that only works with approved devices (DeCSS notwithstanding), and so is the other. You break the DVD, you're out a DVD, and have to replace it. You break your iPod and don't have a backup (tools provided by Apple), and you're out nothing. Apple provides a means for backup, which is at least better than DVDs!

So, go ahead and call me names, it doesn't bother me and it makes you look bad.

Thanks for trying

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[default luser]

If you buy a car, you own that car, when you buy a CD you own the physical disc

I think your problem with this whole issue is you are fettered by the fact that, unlike cars, CDs (and more specifically, the data contained therin) can last for centuries (if they are manufactured without defects, and are cared for properly).

This means the market for a device like a CD is inherently more self-limiting than a car, and because that's "not fair" in your eyes, you feel that we should artificially force the CD market to be more like that of the car market.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Let's have ourselves a history lesson.

Way back in the day the record companies sold LPs. People built up collections on LP, which they had to replace occasionally due to wear-and-tear. Unfortunately, these replacement sales were pretty low even with a format that degraded as easily as LP, so the record companies wanted something new.

The record companies started backing CrO2 8-track and cassette tapes in the mid 70s as a successor to LPs, and this tactic largely worked. For people who couldn't afford expensive turntables and receivers, tapes sounded just as good, and the tapes were also much smaller. People replaced their libraries wth tapes for convenience.

Cassette tapes had the downside of degrading like LPs, and cassette tapes was expensive to manufacture (moving parts, lots of tape), so the record companies sold people on yet-another format to replace their collections with: the Compact Disc. By making it digital and optical, the format could both offer better dynamic range and longer lifetime than any format before it, guaranteeing it would replace tapes and encourage people to repurchase their music.

The long-term downside, something the music companies never considered, is that CDs are "good enough" all-around. They really do have more dynamic range and sample rate than most people need, and they really do last a lifetime unless you purposefully mistreat them. And with the introduction of easy copying of discs (without generational losses), now there's absolutely no reason for stamped CDs to EVER be replaced.

It doesn't matter that the music contained on the CD is "licensed." The CD comes with no written license itself, and with no written contract to limit the length of that license, it must be assumed that the license is indefinite. In the days of the LP, it was assumed the license ended once the disc became unreadable, but with today's technology lossless copies (or media shifts) are one click away, and the license can be extended forever.

The record companies knew that media replacement would only last so long when every new generation gets better than the last. Don't cry for them, they made their massive amounts of money reselling people their music on new formats, and they're still making quite a bit (on new bands, new customers and yes, replacements) despite the hole they've dug for themselves.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Darth_brooks]

And yet CDs, which are DRM free,

Not all of them are. Sony has tried bundling rootkits with their CD's. Others have been using DRM to keep me from ripping the CD's in the first place. But you're right that most of them play just fine in a plain CD player.

have the highest quality audio and will cost about the same

Score one point for higher quality audio, but cost the same? Head down to the mall andsee how many new release CD's you can buy for less than $19.99. The price of CD's hasn't changed in the face of competition from online sales, and the Sam Goody's and FYE's of the world wonder why their stores are empty.

offer a physical medium, and packaging as opposed to what will be available online.

Half a point for the physical medium. Personally, I don't *want* the media. I've got a couple milk crates full of CD's in their cases that I haven't touched since I converted them to mp3's. The packaging can be nice, but iTunes offers "digital booklets" with albums that contains the same information & artwork when you buy online. All that for $9.99, no shipping, no leaving the house. Instant gratification at it's finest.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

CDs don't have the highest quality audio. Probably as high as these tracks will, for sure, but they're not the end all be all of audio quality. No, I'm not a crazy audiophile, but if you have more than 2 speakers its nice to have them do something other than clone eachother. CDs are just 2 channel, 44khz(I believe), whereas an SACD or DVD-Audio can easily be 5.1 48khz if not more.

If I have to choose between buying a cd or torrenting a 5.1 channel rip of something, the 5.1 wins hands down. Granted, I don't even own a cd player any more as digital music is just easier to manage.

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Erik K. Veland]

The problem is that bands have deadlines like any other profession. The more hyped or popular a band is, the more pressure is on them to record and release an album. Album have contracts for a certain amount of tracks and or minutes. A good recent example is The Klaxons, which had written four killer tracks that got hyped to all heavens. As a result of this they were forced on tour until the album was to be released. With no time to write new material, they had to hastily write new songs WHILE RECORDING the album. That's why their album was sub-par (apart from the aforementioned good songs). One song is about ten minutes of incoherent noise just to make up for the requirements.

The music industry is a bitch. Next time anyone says they want to be in a band, slap them across the face and tell them to wake up.

My fiancé's in an up-and-coming band and they won't even give her a week off so she can get married to me. :(

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Golias]

What you are saying sounds good on paper, but in practical lab tests it has been discredited.

1. Set up a top-notch audio system, closed-circuit to actual live musicians (especially singers) in a pristine recording environment.
2. Put a high-pass filter in the system which can cut out all signals above what Nyquist called good enough.
3. Sit down some "golden ear" type audiophiles, and subject them to a double-blind test of the switch being turned on and off.

Every time it has been attempted that I've seen to date, the audiophiles were easily able to hear the difference of the lost information, not because any perceptible notes were missing, but because the listeners could hear the change in the tambre of the wave-forms.

That said, 90% of the audio problems people complained about with early CD players had more to do with poor D/A conversion and master tapes which were designed to compensate for the shortcomings of analog media, resulting in stuff sounding "too harsh" (or "too digital").

The difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio can be heard, but it is nowhere near as drastic as somebody who has been exclusively listening to phonographs for the last 15 years or so might think it is. So you're not completely wrong, but neither are the folks you are disagreeing with.

A lossless media file off a 24-bit master certainly can sound better than a CD, and a lossy file made from that master can also sound better than a home-rip to lossy formats from the CD.

The difference would probably be rather subtle, however, and it doesn't seem likely to me that any lossy file could possibly sound as good as a lossless recording, even if the lossy came from 24-bit masters and the lossless one came from a 16-bit CD. Until I encounter listening tests to the contrary, the CD will be my preferred method of buying any music I care about.

(For the occasional "disposable" single, $1.30 for AAC-256 with no DRM is fine with me, and I'll happily take that option over $0.99 for DRM-laden AAC-128)

Re:Are consumers that dumb?

[Millenniumman]

But they are not as convenient, which is the point of downloading music.

  Maybe you value packaging more than instant purchase and shipping, but others do not.

Defeats the point

[RockoTDF]

Thing is, if the price is raised above 99 cents, then you get into the $1+ range, at which point you might as well go out and buy the CD, defeating the point of iTunes if you want to buy entire albums/singles instead of just individual songs. Personally I'd rather pay 99 cents for a DRMed song and do the old burn/re-rip switcheroo and waste a 10 cent CD than pay extra for no DRM.

Re:Defeats the point

[jizziknight]

IIRC, with the EMI deal, they kept the price of the full album the same.

Re:Defeats the point

[Echnin]

...Except albums are still $9.99 without DRM and at the higher bitrate.

Re:Defeats the point

[ArchdukeChocula]

Why not just use PlayFair or some other DRM cracking tool? If you've paid for the tracks it's certainly not a moral wrong and it's no more contra to the DMCA then any other means of circumventing DRM. Of course it doesn't the nifty backups that your method does, but you can still burn everything to a DVD after you're done.

Re:Defeats the point

[markbt73]

$1.29 for a new song with no DRM is fine with me, as long as the price goes down with the age/popularity of the song.

I don't buy much new stuff, and it kinda annoys me to have to shell out a buck for a song by a band that doesn't even exist anymore. Make this month's flavors $1.29, this year's hot bands 99c, and older stuff between 50c and free, and I'll use the iTunes music store a hell of a lot more, and not just for freebie stuff. And if somebody uses an old song in a movie or TV show and it gets popular again, start charging for it again.

Charge for the stuff you just made to recoup your expenses. That's fair. But a 20 year old song that maybe 10 people a year search for, just let me have the damn thing.

Re:Defeats the point

[Lockejaw]

Thing is, if the price is raised above 99 cents, then you get into the $1+ range, at which point you might as well go out and buy the CD

Sure, the CD is cheaper than buying each track on the CD individually, but most people seem to just want a few tracks out of the ten to fifteen they have to pay for.
The combo meal may be a better deal than ordering each item separately, but all I want is the burger.

Re:Defeats the point

[Genady]

While I agree that for things that are easily available at your local used CD place this logic makes sense... try buying an Adrian Legg CD in po-dunk-ville. Half.com isn't as friendly as clicking 'buy' on an album on iTunes, and certainly not delivered as quickly.

What you're saying makse sense for people that don't have eclectic tastes (or who have the same eclectic tastes as every other eclectic).

Re:Defeats the point

[balsy2001]

I have thought the same kind of thing for years now. Some of the execs need to take some basic economics. Pricing based on demand.

Re:Defeats the point

[croddy]

I should not have to violate the DMCA in order to do what I want with the things I've purchased. I'm certainly not going to go through that extra inconvenience merely to enjoy the additional expense and inconvenience of the iTunes store.

Re:Defeats the point

[That's Unpossible!]

Thing is, if the price is raised above 99 cents, then you get into the $1+ range, at which point you might as well go out and buy the CD, defeating the point of iTunes if you want to buy entire albums/singles instead of just individual songs

Thing is, you're wrong because the albums are still going to be $9.99.

Personally I'd rather pay 99 cents for a DRMed song and do the old burn/re-rip switcheroo and waste a 10 cent CD than pay extra for no DRM.

Setting aside the quality degradation of this method, it also seems to illustrate that your time is nearly worthless.

Re:Defeats the point

[barutanseijin]

What's worse is the money you pay for tracks by dead people.

Re:Defeats the point

[brunascle]

oi, and what you're left with is an audio file so lossy-compressed that it sounds like one continuous frequency. no thanks.

Re:Defeats the point

[larkost]

I think they are well aware of it... they have just gotten used to the idea that they can dictate demand through control of the advertising avenues (radio playtime, etc), and thus feel hurt when the game somehow eludes their control.

Re:Defeats the point

[WilliamSChips]

And the cost of albums isn't going up, except maybe for 10-song albums which will increase a whopping 9 cents...

Re:Defeats the point

[fermion]

The fallacy, as no one else has the courage to point out, is this policy only applies to EMI. For that matter, I have not seen a single EMI album that I can buy without DRM at 9.99.

There is no reason to believe that other labels will charge 1.29 for DRM free music, or that the price for a full album will continue to be 9.99. It would have made much more sense to lower the price of the defective music to .89, to compete with wal mart, and continue to charge 0.99 for uninfected music. Even with a higher bit rate, there is little reason to charge more for a product that does not seem to be increasing demand.

Loose?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...if they are willing to loose the DRM, he'd be willing to...

loose? I don't normally point out spelling or grammar errors in comments, but come on, this is the article summary. Isn't an editor supposed to at least read these?

As for the rest of this, is this supposed to be something new? He already made statements that said he'd offer all comers the same deal as EMI. I'm pretty sure the price was implied to be part of that deal.

Re:Loose?

[Slarty]

Whatever happened to LoseNotLooseGuy? He'd have been all over this, but I haven't seen him around for a couple of years.

Re:Loose?

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

Didn't Apple loose the DRM years ago? Isn't that how iTunes got started?

Re:Loose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, loose is still correct in this case. From m-w.com:

Main Entry: loose
Function: verb
...
5 : to make less rigid, tight, or strict : RELAX

Re:Loose?

[ZeLonewolf]

I'm sure it's not what's intended, but consider the lyric from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Re:Loose?

[Tuxide]

Consider the difference between

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:

and

He hath lost the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:

Re:Loose?

[SnowZero]

It would be loosen in that case. Please go back to English class...

Re:Loose?

[Rei]

Just point loosers at this site; it's self-explanatory.

Re:Loose?

[hampton]

Why is this modded Insightful but the one above it pointing out"lables" Offtopic?

Clearly grammar errors are killing slashdot but nobody likes that jerk who points out spelling errors!

Re:Loose?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well, my post clearly is offtopic with the comment about the editing, but it also has information about the topic in question, so a lot of moderators may have held off giving it an offtopic rating simply because some of it was on topic. I'm not sure what about my post could be considered insightful, but different people have different opinions about that. If I came across a post like my own when moderating, I'd probably leave it be, but I can understand an offtopic or and informative or both. (Mind you, both your post and this one are clearly only discussing moderation and are offtopic.)

Re:Loose?

[drinkypoo]

The word obviously doesn't mean what you think it means. :) In this context, "loose" means "let go". It's functionally identical to "unleash" (and in fact, unleashing is loosing.) Maybe you do realize this, but in that case, how could you possibly believe that the use of the word in the summary would make sense?

Re:Loose?

[maxume]

Unfortunately, he got loose. And now we all lose.

Re:Loose?

[ZeLonewolf]

Well hey...maybe Steve Jobs is waiting for the music industry to unleash thunderbolts of DRM...er...oops :)

obvious

[User 956]

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been talking smack about DRM

Of course he is. He doesn't want to be caught sideways when Amazon unveils their DRM-free music service (which should be coming out this spring/summer)

Re:obvious

[shawnce]

Maybe you missed this? "Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store"

Re:obvious

[User 956]

I didn't miss that. Amazon has been working on their service for the last 8-12 months.They didn't start working on it in the last 5 days.

Jobs doesn't care about DRM as an issue. Jobs cares about keeping the majority of the digital music market in Apple's hands. If he doesn't start selling DRM-free songs before Amazon's imminent release, Apple loses.

Re:obvious

[dr.badass]

Amazon has been working on their service for the last 8-12 months.

Apple has been working on their service for four years. So what? Also, The link doesn't say anything about DRM-free music. In fact, it says "yes, it's fair to say this is going to be YAPFSS -- yet another PlaysForSure service". Every story I can find about DRM-free content from Amazon has come after Apple's DRM-free deal with EMI.

Re:obvious

[User 956]

Every story I can find about DRM-free content from Amazon has come after Apple's DRM-free deal with EMI.

Well, you're not not searching very hard, are you? Amazon has been talking about it for 6 months.

Raise it from 99 cents?

[CastrTroy]

Why would anybody pay more than 99 cents for a song? You can get a DRM free CD for about $10-$15. Sure if you only want 1 or 2 songs, then you're still saving money, but I don't think that paying more than 99 cents is going to do it for most people. I'm on eMusic, and I pay about 30 cents for a song. I still think it's a little pricey, considering what you end up getting in the end.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[SpeedyG5]

And you pay 9.99 for the CD without the drm but the singles price goes up, to 1.29 for the drm free version that is also better quality. it gives incentive to buy the album.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[Volante3192]

Given the Sony rootkit fiasco, can you be certain that $15 CD is DRM free?

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[lurker5]

But you are also paying a monthly fee which you must factor in. If you're like me, who buys at the most 10 tracks a month, $1.30 is not that bad. No matter what the others say, $1.30 for a high quality DRM-free download with no montly fee is still a great deal.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[CastrTroy]

As long as you make sure to check for the CD-Audio Logo when you buy the CD.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[CastrTroy]

There's no monthly fee per say with eMusic. You pay a flat rate like $10, and you get to download 30 songs in the month. Given the option of using iTunes and spending $10 on 10 songs, or eMusic, and spending $10 on 30 songs, I'd pick eMusic. Even if you only download 10 songs, you're still getting the music DRM free. However, it's kind of a bad argument, because eMusic doesn't carry all the popular bands, and has mostly indie stuff. However, there's enough stuff that I can find to download that my $15 a month for 50 songs account will always be completely used up at the end of every month for about the next 8 years. This is assuming they never add any new music (which they always do). So I could either spend $15 on iTunes for 12 songs (assuming $1.30 for DRM Free songs) or I can spend $15 on eMusic and get 50 songs. For me, it's a pretty easy choice.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[SydShamino]

For the many, many, people who don't spend at least $10 a month on music, what you described is a monthly fee.

(For the record, I've spend $15 so far this year, and that was for a physical two-CD compilation that also came with all the band's music videos on a dual DVD. I also "bought" one free CD download at Magnatune using a gift card they handed out at SXSW.)

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[jonbryce]

Pretty much none of the plastic music disks in HMV/Virgin had them last time I looked.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[CastrTroy]

I used to spend very little on music. Usually 3 or 4 CDs a year. Now I spend quite a bit more on music (12 months * $15 = $180 a year). However, its not because I have any more money than I did before, it's because I found a way to make the $15 a month easier to justify. I found it hard to justify the cost of most albums, being that they were around $15. Sometimes for as little as 10 songs. However, with eMusic, I don't mind spending the $15 because I'm getting a lot more out of it. The reason I wasn't spending so much before was because it just seemed like I was spending so much for so little.

Re:Raise it from 99 cents?

[SydShamino]

I've listened to the music from the CDs I bought this year, together with the music from one bought last year, on continuous repeat at work for the last two months. I don't digest and expel new music fast enough to need a continuous supply, even if that supply can be hand-picked a track at a time.

No DRM cool, higher price not so much.

[dcskier]

Can we still have the option of DRM w/ the lower price? I'm all for getting rid of the DRM on iTunes, but not for the expense of another $.30 a song. Plus the sound quality is fine for me right now, I'm not a audiophile and I'm sure those who are weren't using iTunes in the first place. This just kinda feels like when the cable company adds new features or channels and then feels free to raise your rates since they're making 'improvements' to your service that you didn't ask for.

I thank Jobs for a step in the right direction, but it still has strings attached. Why should I have to pay a premium to own my music, errrr sorry I meant the RIAA's music.

Re:No DRM cool, higher price not so much.

[Paulrothrock]

To be fair, they'll probably still offer DRMed, lower quality music for the same price. Just burn, rip, burn if it's that much of a problem for you.

Re:No DRM cool, higher price not so much.

[syousef]

obs, record labels, RIAA go fuck yourselves. I want the low price and the lack of DRM thank you very much. Your music isn't worth half my pay cheque, and nor do I want to be screwed (or made a criminal who is risking 5 years jail) when I go to listen to what I bought on a different player. JI won't buy your shit until you give me something I can use at a reasonable price. I'm no longer a teenager and frankly can't give a shit about most of the sad excuse for pre-processed market researched "music" coming out of your so called "artists" these days anyway. It's simple supply and demand. You ain't supplying what I am demanding, and I'm not going to settle for $30 a disk you fuckers. No sale!

Re:No DRM cool, higher price not so much.

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

"$30 a disk you fuckers. No sale!" It's $10 a disk. No clue!

Re:No DRM cool, higher price not so much.

[syousef]

"$30 a disk you fuckers. No sale!" It's $10 a disk. No clue! ...because of course everyone lives in America don't they? You're the one with no clue. Where I live (Australia) there are still plenty of albums priced over $25.

Re:No DRM cool, higher price not so much.

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

Well I don't live in America either, so apparently you're guilty of exactly the same assumption. I thought you were talking about iTunes, like TFA and basically everybody else. Or are we all just supposed to guess at the private little war you're having in your head?

But but but ....

[Vicegrip]

But we like suing people who prefer high quality audio ... we would prefer if all online music was 24kbs and required a new DRM key for each play session.

We of the RIAA will resist this thing called "progress" until our lawsuits make us hated more than rush hour traffic. *cough* .. well we might already be there, but there are still 10-year-olds to sue.

Marketing

[blhack]

This is nothing but marketing guys. If jobs was so anti-drm, why is it still so difficult to get music or videos OFF of the ipod? The DRM can even stay on the tracks, just add something in itunes to export music from the actual device to the disk of the computer it is attached to. I understand that there are already programs out there to do this, but it shouldn't have to be like that. Also, look at how successful the itunes store has been. I have bought a total of about 3 cds in my entire life, but i've also purchased 5-6 songs from the itunes store. Why? Because its convenient at work. If jobs said to the record labels "either drop/relax the DRM, or we're going to pull your music from the store" then we might actually see something happen. Until then, this is just marketing.

Re:Marketing

[gnasher719]

'' This is nothing but marketing guys. If jobs was so anti-drm, why is it still so difficult to get music or videos OFF of the ipod? ''

The normal way is that you buy music, either on CD or through a download, then you move it to other media that you own, like from CD to your computer, or from your computer (downloaded) to a CD, to an iPod, to a different player, etc. And there are legitimate uses where DRM gets into the way, that's why people complain about it and that's why I am glad that EMI is getting rid of it.

Nowhere is there a legitimate reason to copy from an iPod _to_ your computer (except for a computer crashing and the only "backup" on the iPod). On the other hand, it is easy enough to make backups of your files in iTunes, and easy enough to install those backups on any computer you own, without needing any additional software.

Re:Marketing

[maubp]

"Nowhere is there a legitimate reason to copy from an iPod _to_ your computer (except for a computer crashing and the only "backup" on the iPod)."

Rubbish! How about using the iPod to transfer music between my own computers? Sounds like perfectly common reason - without even stretching things like from my computer to "my" computer at work, where the legalities get a bit murky.

Re:Marketing

[macshome]

iTunes has been able to do this with purchased tracks for quite a while now. If I want to transfer all my music though I just copy it to a drive and them import into iTunes on the other machine...

Re:Marketing

[chibianh]

You can do that in disk mode...

Re:Marketing

[OldeTimeGeek]

You can copy the backup (you *are* backing up iTunes, right?) to another computer and import them. You'll need to authorize the computer to play iTunes-purchased music (iTunes will prompt you) - but it's pretty painless.

So long as you haven't done this five other times, you're in... More info: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=930 14

Re:Marketing

[bkr1_2k]

It's not difficult to get music or videos off the ipod. Apple just doesn't provide you the tools to do it.

Re:Marketing

[gnasher719]

'' Rubbish! How about using the iPod to transfer music between my own computers? Sounds like perfectly common reason - without even stretching things like from my computer to "my" computer at work, where the legalities get a bit murky. ''

And that has been easily possible with every single iPod (except for the tiny shuffles), and it is easily possible using any old USB memory stick.

Re:Marketing

[armanox]

Ever try looking in those hidden folders? Especially with WMP, it's fantastically easy to find the music you're looking for (if you put it on in mp3 format) and copy it off. I'd tell you exactly what folder, but it's been months since my iPod went under.

Re:Marketing

[blhack]

If you're me, and use your ipod to actually STORE all of your music, then this is a problem. It doesn't make any sense to keep 2 copies of you music when you really only need to have one. Also, if you move from computer to computer; I.E. home -> work -> laptop -> friends house -> party that needs some tunage -> etc, then the ipod has the potential to be a truly great device. The machine is not only a media player but a media storage device (which is why it is mounted as a hardisk under windows and mac by default).

Re:Marketing

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> I have bought a total of about 3 cds in my entire life, but i've also purchased 5-6 songs from the itunes store.

You own three cds and 6 mp3s from iTunes and you bought an iPod? Let me guess, you also bought two books once and then built a library to keep them in.

Re:Marketing

[elfguy516]

There is a very easy way to get music on and off an iPod. Enable disk mode and treat it as a nice external hard drive. Then it becomes very simple to move files around. Can you still watch the videos or listen to the music? Probably not, but thats how the program works. If you don't like it put linux on it and make it do what you want it to, but don't complain that Apple made it difficult when as you said there are plenty of ways to get the files on and off with the default settings.

Re:Marketing

[blhack]

i know you will never see this unless you watch your old posts for moderation like a hawk (like i do lol)......
but i have about 10k songs sitting on a mt-daapd server that i can snag via VPN from anywhere, and an iPod full of music and movies that i take biking/listen to while i sleep. I'm "good friends with one of the DJs at a local radio station who gets lots of promo cds that he gives me cause he doesn't want them"....i've also heard that people store music on alt.binaries.somethingorother, and something called FTD....errrr FTP or something like that?

Album deal

[Bearpaw]

I'll start buying music via iTunes if (a) they lose the DRM and (b) offer a deal on buying entire albums. (Which I think would actually increase their bottom line, but I admit I'm not a marketer.)

Re:Album deal

[remahl]

They have always had a deal on buying an entire album. And it's even more advantageous now that the per-track price has increased.

No!

[n6kuy]

The labels have already loosed the DRM.

We want them to lose the DRM.

I think it is more than marketing

[Infonaut]

If jobs said to the record labels "either drop/relax the DRM, or we're going to pull your music from the store" then we might actually see something happen.

Sure, Jobs could tell them to drop the DRM "or else," but if he made a threat like that, he'd have to back it up. We're talking about the music industry, which has been effectively a cartel for decades. The EMI move was the first time any of the major labels stopped playing along with the rest of them, and that only happened because EMI is having a tough time financially. Jobs can't run iTunes without music, and the labels know it. He has to do business with them while pushing them to get rid of DRM at the same time. I doubt that's an easy task.

I suppose Jobs could shut down iTunes out of spite if they all didn't remove DRM. But something tells me shareholders wouldn't be so keen on that idea.

Attribution?

[Infonaut]

How do we know Jobs verbally stated that he'd drop the 99 cent pricing restriction? There's no attribution in the article to such a statement. Is this from an anonymous source? Was the writer there when the statement was made? The AP usually does better than this.

Here are some figures

[hellfire]

CD's average $15 right now. With DRM on iTunes, most albums cost $10 for the whole shebang, regardless of the number of songs. Add 30% and you are up to $13. Which means an album on itunes is less than a CD still.

Jobs is just using the store to promote his iPod and always has. He gets little profits from music sales. If you want music to cost less, break the RIAA first. That's your only choice.

Re:Here are some figures

[shawnce]

The "30%" only applies to song purchase. Album purchases haven't changed in price when buying 256kbps sans DRM.

Re:Nice, but...

[geek]

You do know Apple is still charging the same 9.99$ for the whole album right? They only increased the per song price. The songs also come with the album art embeded in the file. You aren't paying more, period. You also get the convieniance of buying online and getting immediate delivery.

Two words

[geekoid]

Contractual obligations.

Now for some more words.
WHat is it with you people? SUre Apple fanboys are annoying, but to keep saying stuff like this in the face of what has been going on is just stupid.

Jobs told the Music industry that there is no way DRM can work.
In order to gte those contracts for the music, he ahd to agree to a bunch of stipulation.
Now he is moving tracks like crazy. Billions of tracks.

Now that the industry sees that people will pay for music, Jobs has a carrot to wave under their noses.
30 cents more a song. Looking at the history, that would be over 800,000,000 dollars that they would have earned.

Steve Jobs is playing the game very well. In the end, DRM will no longer be needed.
WIll it be because a bunch of people whined on /.? will it be because a few people didn't buy 'major label' music? no. It wil be because they can make more moebyt without it. It will be because of good business, and it will be because of the tireless efforts of the people cracking DRM.

So, to Steve Jobs, and to all the people who crack DRM: Thank you very much.

Access to Music on iPods

[twitchingbug]

Parent has a good point. We should now be able to get direct access to our non DRM tracks on our iPods in Hard Drive mode. Make it happen Apple iPod engineers!

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[geek]

If you buy the whole album, even if it has 20 tracks, it's $9.99. Please do a little research before spreading this FUD.

Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney, and he goes on and on about DRM-free music, but doesn't push for Disney to release its movies on unprotcted DVDs, HD-DVDs, and/or BRs, nor DRM-free online web releases. When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull. Jobs, stop grandstanding about music and start releasing your own company's movies in unprotected fashion. THEN you'll have some credibility on this issue.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[r3m0t]

Video is different from audio.

In audio, the studios are selling CDs unprotected by the planeload, but - what's that? You want a convenient format? OK, buy it at the same price of a CD, but get it unusable in a variety of confusing ways! Alternatively, you could commit to paying us a monthly fee for the rest of your life!

In video, the studios have never sold unprotected videos. There has always been quality loss when copying a VCR tape, and DVDs (HD-DVDs, Blu-Rays, UMDs) have always had copy protection. Therefore, it's quite reasonable that their new non-physical format also has copy protection.

I want DRM-free video just as much as you, but I don't think Jobs is being in any way hypocritical.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[That's Unpossible!]

Jobs made one valid point -- people are accustomed to renting movies, so they are familiar with the idea that they have limited use of these movies. People have never been used to renting music, they've always "owned" it without many restrictions, so that is how he justifies this position in his mind.

My feeling is that Jobs is focusing on music first. Once he has that accomplished and the sales numbers (presumably) back the claims that removing DRM will actually improve sales, then he has some ammo to approach the movie industry with a similar proposition.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[tm2b]

Oh my fucking god, you people are unbelievable.

A couple of months ago when he published his DRM views, it was "yeah, right. Until you start selling DRM-free tunes on iTunes, you have no credibility." Now, it's "gimme DRM-free Video from a public company where you're a tiny (a few percent) shareholder, NOW!"

What the hell is it with you people? He's used his influence and control (which everybody constantly complains about) to engineer the largest single rollback of existing DRM in history - can you see Bill Gates doing that? Cut him some fucking slack.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[suv4x4]

Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney, and he goes on and on about DRM-free music, but doesn't push for Disney to release its movies on unprotcted DVDs, HD-DVDs, and/or BRs, nor DRM-free online web releases. When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull. Jobs, stop grandstanding about music and start releasing your own company's movies in unprotected fashion. THEN you'll have some credibility on this issue.

There's a big difference between having majority (over 50%) and being the single largest shareholder. He may talk about DRM-free as much as he wants. When the votes are counted, the other shareholders still have their ability to overrule it if they deem it unwise.

Plus I doubt even Jobs wants to suddenly drop all the DRM and go for it. It's a risk, what IF it turns out this leads to major drop in profits? Those things happen gradually and in separate stages, they don't happen overnight.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[drinkypoo]

In video, the studios have never sold unprotected videos. There has always been quality loss when copying a VCR tape, and DVDs (HD-DVDs, Blu-Rays, UMDs) have always had copy protection. Therefore, it's quite reasonable that their new non-physical format also has copy protection.

In hate, the KKK has always strung people up and set them on fire. Therefore, it's quite reasonable that they should continue to string people up and set them on fire.

What kind of argument are you trying to make? Obviously the quality loss of copying VHS wasn't sufficient for them because they introduced Macrovision to make it even lossier. That is NOT what this is about. They don't care what the quality is, because people will watch super crap quality and eschew the purchase/rental. If cam VCDs aren't sufficient proof of this, I don't know what is. All they want is to make it harder for people to get any kind of copy in the first place. They don't give a shit about degradation. This makes the iTunes burn-and-rip thing all the more puzzling, but I guess they realized that the majority of consumers want the ability to make a physical disc.

The simple fact is that DRM is bad and wrong in their last format, and it's bad and wrong in THIS format too.

I want DRM-free video just as much as you, but I don't think Jobs is being in any way hypocritical.

Supporting DRM in one place is supporting it in all places.

Disney doesn't want people to copy movies because children destroy movies and this turns into revenue (replacing the destroyed copies.)

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[larkost]

At least give the man a chance by quoting his full statement:

Video is pretty different from music right now because the video industry does not distribute 90 percent of their content DRM free. Never has. So I think they are in a pretty different situation, and I wouldn't hold it to a parallel at all. In other words: he doesn't have a stick that he can beat the major players around the head with. You think he is going to come out swinging on an issue he has no chance of winning and would hurt his relationship with the very industry he is trying to woo? Once Apple is the largest online video distributer, then if he wanted to he could express that opinion (assuming he has it in the first place).

He has also said in the past that he thinks that the way people use video and audio is very different. He made that statement in a different context but I can see that as being a valid viewpoint on this issue as well.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[dr.badass]

Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney

This doesn't mean what you think it does. Jobs holds about 138 million shares, of which there are over 2 billion. He isn't some kind of all-powerful ruler of Disney. He may have sway, but he's not in the same position of control as he is at Apple.

[...] but doesn't push for Disney [...]

How do you know he doesn't?

When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull.

His point is that movies have never been available without some form of copy protection, so the argument that can be made with music doesn't work. That's not bull, it's true. I would suspect it's only going to become easier when the DRM-free music push (which happens to be lead by Jobs) turns out to be advantageous for the record companies.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[gnu-sucks]

There actually is similar "DRM" to that of a video tape on digital audio cd's. Check out SCMS. SCMS prevents digital copies of cd's using S/PDIF on consumer equipment.

Computers are not considered the same 'class' of equipment, so they're allowed to duplicate/copy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMS

That said, because computers don't pay attention to SCMS (and they are aware of this -- my powerbook's cdrom will report if a track has SCMS, see the man page for drtool), there isn't any sort of *effective* DRM on proper redbook audio cd's. But you better believe there's basic DRM on every single one.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[r3m0t]

I know it's probably too late to reply now (I just woke up) but...

Jobs is not (at least publically) philosophically opposed to DRM. He's just opposed to people paying the same amount of money digitally as with CDs and them not getting a fair value (as determined by their alternative, CDs). He is upset that the industry is going to such lengths to "protect" music while "90% of music is sold unprotected today".

With video, you're paying the same thing (or less) as a DVD and getting the same restrictions, and also getting the video in a much lower quality. That's fair, to Jobs. So to him, in this situation, DRM is fine.

With Mac OS X, restricting some software to some hardware is ethically fine, as long as there are viable alternatives. So in this situation, DRM restricting OS X to Apple computers is fine too.

Re:Jobs, where are Disney's DRM-free movies?

[drinkypoo]

Jobs is not (at least publically) philosophically opposed to DRM. He's just opposed to people paying the same amount of money digitally as with CDs and them not getting a fair value

Sorry buddy, you're deluded. The only reason Jobs is against DRM is that the consumer (at least, the aware consumer - you might even say DRM-aware (ha ha)) is against DRM. It's also because Jobs is in favor of money. If Jobs can sell music that works on everyone's player then he can sell music to more people. Apple's likely already got most of the mileage it can get out of selling DRM-encrypted tracks, as opposed to selling both encrypted and unencrypted.

I'll stick with my emusic account

[rsilvergun]

No DRM, good quality mp3s, and 75 downloads a month. Yeah, I can't find too many big names, but there's plenty of stuff there just as good.

Still a cheaper option.

[jbrandv]

We have a good used music store. Used CDs are $1-$2. I purchase the CD, RIP it to my media server then return the CD for ~1/2 of what I payed. So for .50-$1 I get ALL the songs on the Cd plus I can use OGG, MP3, AAC, etc. Why would I want to pay more than that for one song? Unless it's a ring-tone of course.

Re:Still a cheaper option.

[argent]

I was with you right up to "then return the CD for ~1/2 of what I payed".

If you're going to break the law anyway, why not save $.50 to $1.00 and borrow the CD or download it from P2pServiceOfYourChoiceSter?

Re:Still a cheaper option.

[dwightk]

still a cheaper *illegal* option... Just download the songs and save the $.50

Re:Still a cheaper option.

[MikeBabcock]

If he lives in Canada or several other countries, that behaviour isn't illegal at all.

If he's in the United States, then sure, it is, but quit assuming everyone has the same local laws and customs that you do.

Talking smack

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I thought this was an English language web site.

The answer is obvious...

[enc0der]

If people don't like the price on iTunes, they aren't going to buy the tracks, then the labels and Apple will have to make a decision to lower prices in the future. We can let our money talk for us. Personally, I try to buy most of my music from the artist when they tour, so I buy on CD. It just seems the best solution overall. This especially because burning an 128Kbps file to audio then re-ripping it just DESTROYS the quality of the audio even further.

Re:The answer is obvious...

[haut]

I agree - there are many other avenues to purchase your music, as pointed out in this thread, and if people don't like the price at iTunes, they'll go somewhere else. Pricing is something done by the person selling, and if the consumers don't like it they won't buy as much (or at all). The interesting dynamic with selling digital files is that their total cost is virtually the same whether they sell 100 or 1,000,000 tracks. When selling a mass manufactured physical product, typically the more you make at once, the cheaper the cost per item. However, the amount you manufacture at once will likely depend on the demand for your product (since holding inventory costs money) and the price you set for the product must take this all into account. In this case, the record labels are simply trying to maximize revenues by looking at their expected price/demand.

As someone who buys used CDs often, I wonder a couple of things. First, is there going to be a used music market in 15 years? Are you allowed to sell DRM-free digital music files? How could they police it to make sure you didn't keep a copy? Do record companies think that this possible destruction of the used music market increases or decreases the value of digital music to them? If they'd like to dismantle the used market, they can drop the price on digital tracks so that physical media is left in the dust and in the future there won't be any left to sell secondhand.

ringtones anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, $1.30 might seem like a lot, but consider the thriving ringtone market, where people spend $2+ for retarded 30 second clips of fergie or whoever, that have ultra-crappy quality, and can't even be listened to anywhere besides a tiny cellphone speaker!

These songs will sell fine.

Lose vs Loose

[mad.frog]

How did you manage to get this right in the headline and STILL get it wrong in the summary?

Geez!

Re:Lose vs Loose

[Seenhere]

This way they are guaranteed too be right half the time! One out of to isn't bad!

Re:Lose vs Loose

[DrEldarion]

One out of to isn't bad! AAAAAAAAAAAH!

Re:Lose vs Loose

[the phantom]

That bothers you, but "This way they are guaranteed too be right half the time!" doesn't?

Re:Lose vs Loose

[g0at]

And "lables"? What the hell is a lable?

Salsdhot: Folklore edtied by ilitterates.

b

Sounds great.

[jshriverWVU]

A year ago, people were arguing "why should I pay $15-$20 for a Cd when I only want 1-2 songs, because musicians suck now adays only have 1-2 good songs" so iTunes starts up. You can buy that one or two songs and save the "crappy filler songs tax". People were happy but didnt like the DRM (which I agree with). So not they're removing the DRM, increasing the quality of the encoding and only adding $0.30 to it. Now people are crying "why should I pay $0.30 more when I can buy the CD for less".... *shakes head* if you want a complete CD then buy the CD, if you want 1-2 songs buy it online. I'm not flaming it's just a perfect example of you can't always make everyone happy. For me this sounds great. When an artist I really like comes out, I grab the CD at a local store, if it's a one hit wonder I hear on the radio, I'll buy the one song online. How is this not a good thing? No this isn't a flame, just frustrated when people ask for things, get it, then complain against their own argument.

Re:Sounds great.

[Bert the Turtle]

iTunes didn't start up because people only wanted one or two songs. Singles sales have been crap since albums on cd became decently affordable. The point of iTunes was two-fold. 1) Sell DRM crap to people so they HAVE to buy another iPod when their's packs in. 2) Allow one song impulse buys of radio classics. The point about the extra 30% price is that Jobs has been FORCED to make this move by the DRM being declared illegal in several European countries, and he is smoke-screening to try and make a profit out of being forced to un-DRM the music. Jobs is a master of illusion. With sleight of hand he makes a 0% price hike look like he is fighting for what the people want. It's the same nonsense we get when apple pretend to be so friendly and chummy with their geek bars in Apple stores, while crushing any journalists that dare to even comment on conjecture of what Apple might be offering in their next product line. Jobs is a control freak but king of PR. The fact so many people fall for his bullshit is a testament to his skill.

Re:Sounds great.

[Fujisawa Sensei]

musicians suck now adays

What's this 'now' part? I doubt those things have changed in hundreds of years. The only difference is now you have recording and distribution, so the garbage circulates better. But fear not, its always been there.

Re:Sounds great.

[Kjella]

I'm not sure how on earth Jobs convinced the big labels to go with a flat 99c pricing, but he did. If you take say 15$ for a regular album, there's usually two megahits worth $4, 4 decent ones worth $1 and 6 crappy ones worth 50c. At least that was the breakdown I'd have if I had tried to figure out why the CD was worth 15$. For the megahits, it was and still is the best bargain ever. Before you could buy cow carcass at the butchers, now you get prime tenderloin at the same price and that's somehow not an improvement? Btw, did anyone notice that full albums would still sell for $10, not $13? And that you still have the option of buying the same 128k DRM'd AACs if you feel that is a superior offer? It's quite impressive how people are able to make something that's at least not worse, in some cases clearly better and still make it out to be a bad thing.

Newsflash: There's such a thing as a cheapskate, that'll never get anything cheap enough and will always whine in the hopes they'll go even lower. If iTunes was killing your budget, you wouldn't have a computer or iPod to play it on. Other people are willing to pay, perhaps you're not *worth serving*? It seems many people here on slashdot have a problem with that concept, but it should be bloody obvious to anyone that can understand that profit = margin * quantity. If I have to lower the price 10c to get you, I lose 10c from everyone that was willing to pay more. If you're costing me more than you're worth, I'm not going to sell it to you. Personally I'm mostly just pissed with services I can't have, like the latest US series and Doctor Who. Screw the local broadcast company, sell it directly to me in a timely fashion.

Soundbite society

[dazedNconfuzed]

Gotta like how someone participating in a soundbite-oriented society (/.) will criticize another for not writing a comprehensive tome detailing the limits and degrees of a statement which is, for 99% of purposes of discussion, true in just a few words.

OF COURSE some CDs have DRM. MOST DON'T. This in contrast to the subject at hand, being songs downloaded from iTunes, which practically all DO have DRM.

Re:Soundbite society

[Just Some Guy]

OF COURSE some CDs have DRM.

OF COURSE no Compact Disc Digital Audio disks have DRM. There are a few non-audio discs that contain some audio information that may be so infected, but it's impossible for a CDDA disc to be ruined that way.

Re:Soundbite society

[Hatta]

OF COURSE some CDs have DRM.

Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?

Can we also get a +1 ironic sig moderation?

Re:Soundbite society

[drinkypoo]

Didn't we just have a conversation about this? Even a hybrid CD with a data section and a red book audio section is still allowed to wear the COMPACT DISC DIGITAL AUDIO logo, and the data section can contain an autoinstalling rootkit and it will still be an entirely valid and licensed CDDA. It's only when you start mucking with the actual structure of the disc that it changes.

Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Apple needs some leverage, since there's no economic reason for the RIAA to switch over to non-DRM music witout an incentive. Welcome to economics.

Right. Jobs can offer the buck thirty now, get the MAFIAA on board, and then next year or the year after convince them to lower the price for competitive reasons, say to $0.99. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Indy labels go to $0.99-nonDRM first.

For those who've been following iTunes since the beginning you'll notice that word-on-the-street (when the iPod was still "lame, no wireless") was that Apple was against DRM from the beginning but the labels wouldn't get on board without it. Jobs convinced them that online music would be big, but they still don't trust his judgment.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[swissfondue]

Ok, here is a real life example: Yesterday I bought "Sophomore Jinx" by Rob Costlow from the Swiss iTunes Store at CHF 15 (USD 12.40), whereas I could get it at Amazon Germany for EUR 21,98 (USD 29.00).

Many stores do not even carry thhis artist in Switzerland.

Herein lies the value of iTunes Store for me.

A/V heading in opposite directions?

[HockeyPuck]

Has anybody noticed that for the general public, audio and video quality is heading in opposite directions? Head down to your local "big box store" and you'll see that they're pushing products that have superior VIDEO quality:

digital/satellite cable, HDTV, LCD/plasma screens with 1080i/p.

However, when it comes to audio, the sources for audio (mp3s for the majority) are worse quality now, then at any other point. Records, tapes, even plain old CDs have better quality than some down sampled mp3.

Are we getting complacent with our audio quality? Or is it just that the jump to HDTV from non-HDTV video is so great that it's an easy sell? Walk over to the AudioDVD/SACD section and you'll see almost nothing. Companies push for you to buy a $2000 stereo system, and then feed it with 128kbps mp3s...

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[jshriverWVU]

I agree for the most part, but there has been a recent push toward HDRadio. I'm still a little fuzzy on the technical details, but it seems nifty once you get past the marketing.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[ThousandStars]

Audio has reached the point at which most people can't hear the superior quality. If you can't tell, does it matter? Video hasn't reached that point and still has a long way to go. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a while for next-gen video formats to take off because the improvement they offer over DVD is relatively less than DVD offered over VHS.

You haven't seen much improvement in book tech over the last 100 years, and those improvements have been incremental. The same thing is happening to audio and video; once you've made things as nice as people can perceive, there isn't much more to be done.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[HockeyPuck]

I agree that audio tech has reached a certain plateau with regards to DVD-A and SACD, however, mp3s seem like a 'step backwards'.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[juniorbird]

I'd say that audio has gotten worse in terms of audio fidelity quality, but better in terms of portability quality and convenience quality. Clearly, this is a trade-off that a certain subset of consumers is willing to make. Sure, the new tuner sounds worse but it's got an iPod button; the speakers aren't that great but they're wireless; the broad market seems to prefer convenience and portability over audio fidelity.

(It may also be that the broad market understands how to judge what features deliver what degree of portability and convenience better than they understand how to judge what features deliver what degree of quality. If that's the case, typical consumers may then give up on better audio fidelity, or make purchases that they inaccurately perceive as delivering better audio fidelity).

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[oyenstikker]

Most HD Radio stations will run multiple broadcasts, so the quality will be _worse_ than FM. "HD" is just a marketing gimmick. It does not mean "high definition".

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

However, when it comes to audio, the sources for audio (mp3s for the majority) are worse quality now, then at any other point.

Don't you think this comment is a little weird in an article about Apple offering a higher quality audio than they have in the past? The truth of the matter is, increased audio quality is not all that important. The vast majority of people listen to low quality headphones and car speakers with road noise overlaid. They listen to mediocre quality speakers, indifferently placed in their homes, which also have background noise going on. For most people in these conditions, they won't even be able to tell they are listening to a higher bitrate rip.

Or is it just that the jump to HDTV from non-HDTV video is so great that it's an easy sell?

Aside from the sales guys at bestbuy, I think you'll find that the adoption rate for HDTV has been lower than even the most pessimistic sales estimates. At least most people can see the quality difference there, but it is not like people absolutely have to have higher definition TV. A few high end, early adopters want higher quality everything, but that is not the general trend.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[jshriverWVU]

Interesting, will have to dig further. I do remember reading that multiple channels could exist on the same frequency, and each would be using a really really low bitrate, so agree it might turn out to be worse than FM quality even if digital. I'm curious if HDradio will also have RDS streams.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[MikeBabcock]

Aside from people with massive hearing damage, most people can in fact hear the difference between 96, 128, 160, 240, etc. bitrates of MP3s for example. Most people just get accustomed to low bitrates because its what they listen to. People who listen to the radio a lot and low-bitrate MP3s are startled to hear my 224 bitrate encoded tracks on my stereo system. "It sounds so clear!" they say, well yeah, duh, cause I didn't rip all the audio quality out of it.

To be fair, a lot of people are using really crappy (you crappy brands know who you are) speakers and whatnot that degrade the audio quality so much they wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but that has nothing to do with how well their ears can discern the difference.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[kindbud]

MPEG4 HDTV uses AAC as to encode the audio channel. This is the same codec Apple iTMS sells their tracks in. You can think of them as mp4 audio tracks. It's state of the art, same audio quality as any HDTV broadcast. Nobody is getting short-changed on audio quality by iTMS.

Re:A/V heading in opposite directions?

[strikethree]

Audio has reached the point at which most people can't hear the superior quality.

Dude, I am half deaf and *I* can hear the difference between 192 and 256 bitrate mp3s. With many different songs, I can hear the difference between 256, 320, and FLAC... and even FLAC can not convince me that it is live. The cymbals give it all away. I can hear the compression patterns in the cymbals and again in the vocals.

Of course, there are no "compression patterns" in FLAC or on CDs, but the cymbals are a dead giveaway that it is a recording... and this from a person who is half deaf.

strike

Re:Why hasn't anybody written a workaround for DRM

[Phroggy]

You don't understand how lossy compression works, do you? Transcoding is bad.

As for stripping the DRM but maintaining the original compression, it's been done (jHymn), but Apple released a new version of iTunes that broke compatibility with that, so it doesn't work anymore. If you think you can fix it, by all means, give it a try.

Re:Why hasn't anybody written a workaround for DRM

[soft_guy]

This would reduce the quality of the audio.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[Tuoqui]

The biggest cost isnt the physical media (well maybe it used to be). It also isnt the money going to the artist. The biggest costs are in marketing and lawyers. To recoup these costs and make some change for themselves they put the price as high as the (mostly) free market will permit them to do so.

So yeah when you buy that CD, you're paying for all their marketing campaigns and for lawyers who are going out and suing the ass off 10 year old kids, but not the 10 year old kids of the guy who owns Time Warner though, oh no they just get a stern talking to and an increase in their allowance so they can buy as many CDs as they please without having to download them.

Re:Nice, but...

[ichthus]

Ok, you caught me :) I own a Sansa e280 and I've never used iTunes [crowd sneers]

I was not aware of the $9.99/album price. That's cool. And, your point about immediate delivery is well-taken.

Re:Nice, but...

[Registered Coward v2]

Ok, so now when you purchase a whole album, you get:

)) Pay as much or more than you would for the CD
)) Lossy compression (maybe better quality, but still not as good)
)) No album art
)) Save the producers the cost of stamping CD/printing art/distribution

Why am I paying _more_ for this? Hmm. Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.

I doubt iTunes was really about buying a whole album, especially since they unbundled the purchases from the beginning.

They're betting that more people will want to buy 20 songs for $20 from various artists rather than 2 CD's that have maybe 2 or 3 songs they want and a bunch of filler. They then added the ability to shop online instead of going to the record store and instant loading to an iPod. The CD ripper who wants most of the songs is not really their target market; IMHO.

They are essentially saying 2 things:
1) Consumers - we belive you will value the added quality and lack of DRM and are willing to pay a premium for this.
2)Record industry - we will raise prices to CD prices, he added premium will cover incremental piracy loses like CD's do today.

This does represent a bit of a strategy change in that non-DRM songs should work easily on any mp3 player; so they are no going for the Zune / Zen / etc. buyer as well. Given the iPod's dominance in the mp3 market they probably are less worried about losing a few player sales versus pushing iTunes out to compete with rival services and manufacturers.

Where are the EMI songs?

[corby]

I still can't find any of these alleged DRM-free songs on ITMS. I have searched numerous EMI artists, and only have the option to buy the 99 cent tracks.

Do these actually exist, or is this just a plan with an unspecified future implementation date?

Re:Where are the EMI songs?

[TheRaven64]

According to every press release and article about them, they will be appearing 'in May.' The end of May has not been reached yet, so you may have to wait for up to three more weeks.

Re:Where are the EMI songs?

[byjove]

The press release just says it will be released some time in May.

Re:Where are the EMI songs?

[alphaseven]

Do these actually exist, or is this just a plan with an unspecified future implementation date?

At the Apple/EMI press conference a few weeks ago, the guy from EMI said they would be selling DRM free stuff on iTunes eventually, but he did say they would be selling 320kbps DRM-free mp3s of "The Good, The Bad, and the Queen" immediately on the band's website. So EMI is selling DRM-free music now, it's just not widely implemented yet.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[SnowDog74]

You say: An album worth of tracks on iTunes cost more than a full price new release.
I say: Buy the album at the album price, not the tracks individually. Whether there are one track or twenty five on it, it will cost you less than the CD.

You say: iTunes will not let you mix and match an album worth of tracks for the price of an album.
I say: No one else will. Not Amazon. Not Best Buy. Nobody.

Oh, and by the way... if you already bought a couple tracks of an album and want to complete the album, iTunes will let you grab the rest of the album for the album price less the money you already paid toward the tracks you already have... even THOUGH as a portion of a full album the per track price is less than 99 cents, they're still letting you apply what you have paid thus far to an album price, rather than a prorated per-track album completion price. The same model will likely apply when the per track price is $1.30 and the album prices are still $9.99 even for the higher fidelity (as Apple has stated they plan to do).

Care to identify a single music retailer other than Apple who will do this?

The problem in your assumptions is that you think that the entire price of a product is associated only with the tangible materials that went into it. As if there are no other people to be paid other than those who work at the manufacturing plant, and as if there's no inherent market value to the INTANGIBLE content... (i.e. lyrics, music) in a musical work, and as if there are no costs to maintaining data centers with global load balancing that can serve millions of customers worldwide without crashing to a grinding halt.

Also, you're saying it starts to look worse and worse for individual singles. Do you remember when a single cost $1.49 to $3.49 just to buy it on a crappy analog cassette? I sure as hell do... and then you could only buy the singles that the studio released AS singles. You had no option of buying almost any track off an album, much less digital. It has only gotten better.

There is also a premium associated with the convenience of the iTunes model. Amazon will charge you shipping unless you want to wait an indefinite period for their SuperSaver shipping by which time you could have downloaded many times that amount of content from iTunes. Your time is worth money... how much? That's open to debate depending on the individual but I would imagine it's no fun to wait days on end just to get that one song you wanted... and when you do, Amazon won't let you have just that one song. It's got to be the entire album... one song you want, and a bunch you might not.

There is no direct analogy between what Amazon offers in terms of product and service, versus what Apple offers. And you are overlooking a very important competitive edge here because the ability to mix and match whatever tracks you want at a fair market price is one of the key attributes that makes iTunes so much more convenient and consequently hugely popular and still increasing in popularity.

The Apple business model can command a premium for the non-DRM tracks because of the limited alternatives to having their a-la carte purchasing options and the convenience of their user interface, search capabilities and purchasing system.

Re:Nice, but...

[UnknowingFool]

Again we see the same arguments against iTunes (and all other online music stores) as we've always seen. Now that they are raising the quality and the price, they are no more valid than they were before.

)) Pay as much or more than you would for the CD

A full album is still $9.99 which is higher than some albums but generally this is still cheaper than you can get at a big box retailer (not including sales discounts).

)) Lossy compression (maybe better quality, but still not as good)

[sarcasm]Yes, because everyone can tell the difference between lossless and compressed music. And everyone cares. I've seen three year olds throw tantrums when they realized their favorite Barney song was in 128kbps MP3 instead of FLAC. Man, the bloodcurling screams of "I want FLAC!" are unnerving.[/sarcasm]

)) No album art

As of iTunes 7.0 you can import album art. There's nothing like have the physical art, but it's a start.

Why am I paying _more_ for this? Hmm. Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.

You are not paying more for an album in most cases. What iTunes gives you is convenience. You don't have to drive down to the store. You don't have to wait for it to be shipped from Amazon. You don't have to spend time ripping it. Also, iTunes (and all other online music stores) are not for audiophiles. They are for regular people. If you want to buy the CD and rip it yourself in FLAC, no one is stopping you.

Steve Jobs: The Junkie Years

[Dogtanian]

What the heck is "talking smack about DRM" supposed to mean anyway? Where I come from, "smack" is slang for heroin, so perhaps he's trying to get Trainspotting onto the iTunes video store...?!

Or maybe Jobs' was just so off his face on drugs that he mistook the head of EMI for his dealer? ;-)

Re:Why hasn't anybody written a workaround for DRM

[macshome]

DRM Dumpster has been doing this a while now...

http://www.burningthumb.com/drmdumpster.html

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[SydShamino]

You say: iTunes will not let you mix and match an album worth of tracks for the price of an album.
I say: No one else will. Not Amazon. Not Best Buy. Nobody.
Starbucks was allowing this, with their music kiosks a year or so ago. My wife made a compilation CD of RHCP greatest hits while waiting for her coffee one morning. However, she says that the kiosk has been removed from her Starbucks now.

Having never set foot in a Starbucks, my details may be hazy.

wait... you can *buy songs on iTunes now?!

[Mateo_LeFou]

If so, that's news to me. I've refused to be an iTunes patron because you are actually just "licensing" the things you get there. The difference is *huge.

Just 'cause it doesn't have DRM doesn't mean that Apple isn't managing digital restrictions via EULA...

Gotta love your turntable!

[razpones]

My records are free of DRM and sound great, on top of that i can record them in to my computer and if the hard drive dies my records are safe.

$0.88. Every song. Every day. WalMart

[Animats]

Remember, WalMart Music is at $0.88 per song. Increasing the price much beyond that will drive customers to WalMart.

The RIAA members have very little leverage against WalMart. WalMart sells over 40% of the RIAA's market volume. But music is a minor item to WalMart; they use it mostly as a traffic builder for their stores.

The record companies can, of course, send someone down to WalMart in Bentonville, to sit in the waiting room to wait their turn with a buyer on the Corridor of Doom to discuss raising prices. Which is not likely to work.

Re:$0.88. Every song. Every day. WalMart

[dwayner79]

Not while Walmart is married to IE and Windows Media player.

Re:$0.88. Every song. Every day. WalMart

[WiseWeasel]

Too bad there are barely any MP3 players that will play those Walmart Music Store downloads... And they're crappy DRM'd WMA tracks. I think most people would rather save their $0.88 than waste it on that crap... Now if Walmart was selling DRM-free music, Apple might have something to worry about...

Go ahead Labels, do whatever you want.

[merc]

The label cartels can have DRM, high-priced tunes, no-DRM, whatever they like, I honestly don't care. There seems to be this notion that if the media barons give in a little bit and waver on the DRM issues that people will be willing to spend more, perhaps even more than what the songs are worth. Perhaps this is true for some consumers; however, only speaking for myself I can hold out for DRM-free music at a price that I feel is fair.

Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy with just not having their music at all. I can do without it, completely! If they can do without my dollars then I guess everyone is happy.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[cwilly]

Actually, marketing costs are paid for out of the artist's share (typically about 15% of the gross), so really, we're just paying the record label's share (typically 85%) until the artist's puny 15% has paid for ALL the expenses related to the album. There is no "biggest cost" related to the price of a CD/album/whatever, though the labels like to say it's the cost of producing a CD...which still comes out of the artist's share.

Music is a commodity and should be treated as such

[pjviitas]

Everyone on here is talking like music is a durable good of some kind while it's not. It's more of a commodity than anything and should be priced according to it's demand.

MP3's have given the record companies the perfect medium for doing what they have been trying to do for years...commodify music. They just haven't been smart enough to realize it yet.

As far as CD's are concerned...leave those to the audiophiles who will pay top dollar for sound quality.

Just my 2 cents.

Hedghog

Nothing New

[twistedsymphony]

I guess the lesson that we can learn from the success of the iTunes store is that people will pay extra for convenience, even if it means that they'll get a little less.

Nothing new, compare the per-can cost of a drink from a vending machine versus getting the same can in a 24 pack from the grocery store.

Re:Nice, but...

[soliptic]

Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.

It never stopped being a good idea, imho.

Many point out these advantages:

• DRM free
• Lossless audio quality which you can rip to VBR/320 now and still have the option to rip to FLAC in a few years time, WAV a few years after that (as HDD capacities increase), if you so desire.
• Artwork/lyrics

But these miss the biggest advantage of all, imho: Backup.

Yup, hard drives die. What happens when yours dies with all your MP3s (oggs, whatever) on it? You've got it all backed up - right? Well, I sure as hell haven't made a backup. I've got 80, 90 gig of music and a DVD burner that won't burn working DVDs - so that's 150-odd CD-Rs I'd have to sit there burning.

If you buy an albums' worth of music on CD, then rip, you get MP3s, and your CD goes on the shelf as a physical backup. Buy an albums' worth of music on MP3, if you want the physical backup you have to burn one. Well, do you burn CDRs every time you buy mp3s? Really? And even if you, consider:

• Which disc lasts longer - the glass-mastered, pressed redbook CD, or the burnt consumer CD-R? I know a load of my backup CD-Rs from five years ago, that never left their storage case in the meantime, no longer read. (If I hadn't been paranoid enough to burn everything twice, it'd be lost. So now that's 300 CD-Rs I'd have to burn...) Whereas well-kept twenty year old audio CDs still play fine.

Just my opinion of course. I'm not telling anyone what format to buy in - I see plenty of people come up with well argued reasons why MP3 suits them better, fair enough. I buy MP3s too, occasionally. When there's only one or two tracks on a CD that I want, then obviously it makes much more sense. This doesn't happen that often, though, simply because I mostly prefer artists who are capable of putting out albums that aren't 80% crap! In these situations, iTunes would need to be DRM-free, 256kbps, track for £0.50 / album for £5 or less* to be remotely attractive competition for CDs, in my eyes.

(* I realise that $0.99 / $9.99 is less than £0.50 / £5 at the moment, but we get the usual $=£ stitch up with iTunes.)

audiophiles

[falconwolf]

those ungrateful audiophiles still aren't happy

Why should audiophiles have to dumbdown their hearing just because others won't notice a difference? By the same token maybe we should also dumbdown the Einsteins and Hawkins of the world.

Falcon

Re:audiophiles

[heinousjay]

Anyone is entitled to their belief that they have special magical hearing powers that can discern frequencies above what has been encoded in a CD. The rest of us are entitled to ridicule such beliefs.

Re:audiophiles

[aywwts4]

Its not about frequencies! There is nothing pleasant or desireable about really high freqencies. Its about the difference between a 192kbps mp3 a 1411.2 kbit/s audio cd and 2.8 Mbps per channel! Surely you can hear the difference between a compressed mp3 and a audio CD, and even if you will never hear the difference between a audio cd and a SACD, the benefit of surround sound cannot be ignored. for years receivers have shipped with shitty "spacial effects" that simulate a concert hall, now instead of simulation, we can actually hear the music envelope us, bounce off the walls of a concert hall naturally, and stop sounding like we are in a dead void. Thats a benefit anyone can hear. Hell, just to hear Pink Floyd with all the original surround sound effects is worth it. All with the added benefit of making audiophiles happy.

Re:audiophiles

[FiloEleven]

Poor comparison. The "Einsteins and Hawkins of the world" are producing content while audiophiles (in this instance) are consuming it. They simply don't represent enough of a market share to make a difference, unless you count all 11 albums out on SACD and DVD-A.

Re:audiophiles

[falconwolf]

The "Einsteins and Hawkins of the world" are producing content while audiophiles (in this instance) are consuming it.

Audiophiles are the demand for high quality sound and therefore spur development of it. And it's not like no audiophiles produce music or the equipment it's played on. Many years ago I knew someone who built stereo equipment specifically because there wasn't any high quality equipment available that was affordable to him. So while he didn't play music himself or sing he did make the equipment and didn't just consume. Me, other than a receiver with a coil wrapped around a cardboard cylinder (many years ago), I haven't really built equipment myself but I used to play a musical instrument. I played the clarinet, and while I haven't played a clarinet in a long tyme I have a flute I want to learn to play.

Falcon

Re:audiophiles

[hobbit]

The fact that your friend couldn't afford the equipment may illustrate that one of the main drivers for the highest-end stuff is lucrativity. People buy gold-plated taps for their bathroom, but their higher cost doesn't make them any better at what they do.

And not to get too picky about it, but making your own equipment is not the same as producing content, unless he made that equipment for his recording studio.

For my own part, I can't tell the difference between CD and 256Kbps AAC, but then, neither have I ever met or even heard of anyone who has been proven in a properly-conducted double-blind test to have done so in a statistically significant manner.

Mod Parent Up

[pandrijeczko]

Personally, I will *NEVER* hand over my hard-earned cash for a music download - give me a shiny disk, cover sleeve and a plastic case any day.

Music is a major passion in my life, I'm very discerning about the CDs I buy and always hunt for the best prices for any CD once I know it's worth buying. As a result, I consider CDs to be great value for money because I only buy the ones that are worth the money. People who consider CDs to be overpriced are simply not listening to the right music and/or not buying them in the right places.

However, leave me to enjoy my music my way (as you've already said) and I'm more than happy to fight for you having the pay-to-download option that you want.

Mod this guy up for accepting it takes all types to make a world and that *ALL* we true music lovers despise DRM completely.

Everybody is forgetting something else

[tkrotchko]

Microsoft has been trying to take over the world with their WMP formats. They've done this because by locking down the media so tightly, they can boast about how secure music is with WMP, playing into the RIAA/MPAA fears about piracy. All the while, the main reason is to lock the media companies into a proprietary format, and then they can charge a toll at every step of the digital chain (think of a VAT tax on media with all the money going to MS).

So if Apple knocks out the structural underpinnings for DRM, that essentially screws Microsoft. It locks AAC into place as the defacto commercial way of selling digital music, further enshrines MP3 as the default used by consumers, and leaves the WMA/WMP format as nothing more than a niche used by the Zune.

I have to admit, Apple is playing this beautifully. I'm guessing we may see a few more chairs thrown in Redmond if the major labels dump copy protection.

Re:Everybody is forgetting something else

[macshome]

It locks AAC into place as the defacto commercial way of selling digital music, further enshrines MP3 as the default used by consumers,

I would bet that more casual consumers are encoding in AAC these days than MP3. It is the default for iTunes, and with all those iPods out there there are a LOT of iTunes users.

Re:Making my point

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we REALLY need to re-hash the voluminous tomes

Absolutely. This being Slashdot and you being on the wrong side of an opinion, that the 85% of music distributed via CD constitutes an 'outmoded distribution system', means that unless you fully and in great detail explain not only every possible nuance and misinterpretation of your argument but that you also post your full life history as it relates to the topic, and your DD214 if you have one.

Notice that no one has commented on the actual substance of your post yet.

So let this be a lesson. Do not go against the grain.

Audio Quality

[Swift2001]

I freely concede that CDs are more pure in sound that 128-bit AAC. Than 256-bit AAC? Not so clear, at least to my 60-year-old, rock-concert-damaged hearing.

However, a CD is 600 MB. If you buy one of those, for 9.99, say, you take a few hours to download it. Millions downloading CD-quality from iTunes? The price has to go up to cover the bandwidth.

I'd say, if you want pure fidelity, by DVD-Audio. CD is a compromise by itself.

In the future, when we all have a minimum of 10 Mb/s broadband, and iTunes will be free to use some variation of BitTorrent for its downloading, the price and time involved can come down. Until then, we're dealing with compromise.

Re:Audio Quality

[frogstar_robot]

Lossless codecs cut that 650/700 MB down to 350MB or less. Also many albums don't use the full capacity of disc. If one buys tracks ala carte then the numbers look even more reasonable.

Full albums are the same price though.

[CatOne]

If you look at Apple's model, individual DRM tracks are $0.99 while DRM'ed albums are $9.99 (typically).

With the DRM free stuff, individual tracks are $1.29 while entire albums are $9.99. So if you buy by the album (which is the closest analogue to a CD), you get no DRM and excellent quality.

Free markets people, it's not rocketscience

[dk.r*nger]

With DRM, iTunes has a defacto monopoly on legal online musictrade. Not only that, it's tied to the iPod.

When labels open up and start making their catalogs available in non-DRM versions, the barrier of entry to the business will drop significantly, since a music store will no longer need to own a hardwareplatform and maintain a quirky DRM system. This will create more actors on the marketplace, and the price will drop. At first the price will be $1.29, but soon someplace will come along and sell the tracks at $1.20, maybe even $.99. That will force Apple to match this, and in turn, there will be pressure on the labels to lower thier prices.

Jobs doesn't mind that - because he know that he owns the Walmart of musicplayers. Your one stop shop for anything that makes a sound. Therefore he will get the volume, everybody else will just be the long tail. It's much easier for him to be in the front of non-drm music, than to play catch-up after some bored european "consumer"(*)-organisations forces non-drm.

(*) They're all government-run, so it's not like consumers get to decide how, when or if they will be represented.

Re:Free markets people, it's not rocketscience

[brucmack]

They're all government-run, so it's not like consumers get to decide how, when or if they will be represented.

That's assuming a malfunctioning democracy... Ultimately the government has a responsibility to the voters to represent their issues appropriately. And that is in fact what is happening in the places where there is increased pressure on DRM.

The media also has a part to play in this... Here in Denmark a number of consumer-oriented tv programs have popped up over the last few years, that expose dodgy business practices, corruption, etc. This has great success in either forcing the companies to back down or the government to start an inquiry and possibly change their policies.

I don't get it

[dazk]

Can anyone here explain to me, why getting rid of DRM has to be connected to better Quality and higher price? I totally understand that higher quality warrants a higher price since the files take up more space and distributing them costs more bandwidth. But why oh why would they couple both moves? I sometimes get the impression that the music industry just does not want to accept the demands of the market. It just does not make any sense. Up to now, the argue for DRM because they imho wrongly believe that ditching DRM would cause even more copied music. That is indeed possible but increasing the price will just make it more probable. It should be the other way round. Getting rid of DRM eliminates costs for license management and support. All those calls by people reinstalling their machines not being able to listen to their music anymore because the counter is at the top will suddenly go away (for newly bought tracks that is). They should make DRM-free music cheaper. This would reduce the probability of people copying.

Re:I don't get it

[gnasher719]

'' Can anyone here explain to me, why getting rid of DRM has to be connected to better Quality and higher price? ''

First, there is EMI's point of view: They don't want to sell their music without DRM for the same price as with DRM. I bet it was difficult enough to convince their management to sell DRM free music downloads at all, no way to do it for the same price.

So what is Apple to do in this situation? They were not willing to lose money on selling music without DRM (there is not much profit per song right now; with the increased wholesale price for music without DRM Apple would have lost money at $0.99 per song). If they sold the same product with DRM for $0.99 and without DRM for more, there would be an outcry, and rightfully so. So they had no choice but to improve the product in some other way to justify the price increase.

The better quality gives Apple a justification for the price increase. On the other hand, it is a genuine improvement. On the third hand, it might be possible that Apple makes more profit from $1.29 without DRM than with 0.99 with DRM. On the fourth hand, making money is what public companies are supposed to do.

I don't think price and copying are too strongly related. Could be the opposite: High price indicates high value which means copying it is really bad. Low price would mean low value; not worth buying, so it gets copied. It is all a complicated relationship between law, ethics, purchase power and psychology. I personally think there will be more EMI music sold and more EMI music copied, with everyone being better off in the end.

Re:I don't get it

[dazk]

I understand Apple if the wholesale price really is increased for music without DRM. But why is it increased? This just doesn't make any sense to me and you did not give a valid reason for it to be more expensive besides EMI want's to sell at a higher price.

I really do think that copying is related to price and value especially copying using filesharing networks. The cheaper the product is when it is bought legally the higher the probability that people just pick the legal offering. The more expensive and restricted the legal offerings are, the more likely it gets that people say the legal offering is to expensive right now, I'll take the risk using filesharing.

How will they market this?

[guildmasterx]

If, hypothetically, Jobs succeeds in this endeavor, how will they market this (seemingly unnecessary) price change to regular consumers?

Sure we here on Slashdot may recognize the importance of DRM free music and increased quality, but will everyone else?

Re:How will they market this?

[WilliamSChips]

If there is one thing that Apple can do, it is market anything as an improvement. Apple managed to launch a successful marketing campaign for the Shuffle by focusing on one of its drawbacks. Compared to that, this will be easy.

Wrong

[WiseWeasel]

That's wrong. Music is not a commodity for several reasons. The first and foremost is that one piece of music is not interchangeable with another. The market for one artist's music is much different than another artist's. The other, and more significant reason is copyright. Copyright grants monopolies on content distribution and ownership, creating scarcity for particular copyrighted works. These factors mean that it's the copyright holder who determines the value of the music, not the size of the audience. If you don't want to negotiate a distribution contract with the copyright holder, you're up shit creek without a paddle.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[denobug]

The problem in your assumptions is that you think that the entire price of a product is associated only with the tangible materials that went into it. As if there are no other people to be paid other than those who work at the manufacturing plant, and as if there's no inherent market value to the INTANGIBLE content... (i.e. lyrics, music) in a musical work, and as if there are no costs to maintaining data centers with global load balancing that can serve millions of customers worldwide without crashing to a grinding halt. The cost of manfacturing a CD is brought up due to the fact that the Labels themselves use them as the argument for the reason why an album on a CD costs more than the on on a tape. We're just turning the table on them.

Re:Nice, but...

[WiseWeasel]

You should be happy about this then, since the new DRM-free downloads from the iTunes Store will be compatible with your Sansa player. You now have one more purchasing option to choose from.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[phalse phace]

Are you sure?

I wanted to buy this Tori Amos album. Guess what? It's NOT $9.99.

Same thing with this Elvis Costello album and ths Buena Vista Social Club album.

Please do a little research before spreading this FUD.

DRM free CD's cost no more

[SuperKendall]

In line with Jobs arguments that physical CD's are already sold DRM free, online album sales will still be $9.99 even for the higher quality DRM free version (which presumably will be the only version offered going forward when it is available).

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[Mordaximus]

Oh, really?

Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - $24.99 (28 tracks)
Tori Amos - American Doll Posse - $10.99 (23 tracks)
RUSH - Snakes and Arrows - $11.99 (14 tracks)
The White Stripes - Elephant - $9.99 (14 tracks)

Re:Nice, but...

[frogstar_robot]

I've seen two- and three-hundred gig external USB hard drives for less than $200. Looks like a good insurance policy to me.

Re:Nice, but...

[soliptic]

Heh. I have to admit, I'd absolutely never thought of that. I have an external USB hard drive, but I never considered using them as backup devices. If you unplugged it and tucked it in a cool, dry, stable cupboard (or whatever optimum storage conditions would be), how long could you expect to leave it and still have it operational and readable?

Re:Making my point

[rockout]

There should be a "+1 - Working in a DD-214 reference" moderation option.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[MojoStan]

Oh, and by the way... if you already bought a couple tracks of an album and want to complete the album, iTunes will let you grab the rest of the album for the album price less the money you already paid toward the tracks you already have... even THOUGH as a portion of a full album the per track price is less than 99 cents, they're still letting you apply what you have paid thus far to an album price, rather than a prorated per-track album completion price. That feature is called Complete My Album. It's a very nice feature, but I think it's important to mention its one big limitation: this deal expires 180 days after you buy those individual tracks from the album. For all those songs you bought more than 6 months ago, you get no discount for buying the rest of the album.

No DRM + Better Quality... uh... wait a minute

[Shivetya]

Steve is pulling a fast one on us.

I would be curious as to how much of that increased price is going to the studios versus what it going to iTMS. I have a feeling that stock holder pressure is going to force Apple to make iTMS turn a real profit. None of this "break even crap and rely on hardware sales".

Hence Steve is making us feel good by "standing up" to the labels while getting us to cheer him on for raising the price. The guy is pretty amazing at that.

Re:Nice, but...

[frogstar_robot]

Well, you'd want to at least make differential backups once a month or so. Just buy a new drive every few years. As long as either your live set or the backup is intact then you're in the sun. At the very least, you dilute the risk of losing all that data.

Audiophiles == Religion

[LKM]

I don't let audiophiles tell me what bitrate of music is acceptable, just like I don't let Christians tell me who created the Universe.

You're not the Einsteins and Hawkings of music. You're the Televangelists of music.

Lossless Compression

[LKM]

I think the best lossless can do is about - on average - halfing the size of a music file. It may be better for some types of music and worse for others, but it's nowhere near what lossy compression does.

Re:So... *More* than buying a CD?

[Knetzar]

"the RIAA needs to realize that over the past 50 years they've gone to progressively cheaper physical formats, without even pretending to pass the savings along to their customers."

Why do those equations not take into account the inflation rate? If you normalize prices at a particular year I bet you'll notice that they are going down. The bulk of the price increases are occurring when people will most accept them, at a format change.

RIAA == Religion

[falconwolf]

I don't let audiophiles tell me what bitrate of music is acceptable, just like I don't let Christians tell me who created the Universe.

But you let the RIAA tell you what the bitrate of your music is.

Falcon

And when exactly did Apple...

[walter_f]

.. start selling all the tracks of the Indy labels without DRM?

From the beginning of iTMS?
Last year?
Last week?
Not yet?

Hmmmm...

Apple TV now in Korea, still no iTunes Store

[karen26joyce]

Apple has been aggressively expanding into a number of Asian markets over the past few years, perhaps as part of their quest for world domination. Or maybe just because of the possible profits in any number of large markets with good technology infrastructures. The latest product to be launched in Asia is the Apple TV, which was officially let out into the wild in Korea this week. Convert Flash to Apple TV http://www.apple-tv-converter.net/

Why Apple is catering to audiophiles

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Apple is catering to audiophiles all of a sudden so that people who don't know what DRM is will buy the more expensive DRM-free trax.
Some of us have already said they don't want to pay extra for a song when all Apple did was refrain from adding something undesirable (namely DRM). Better sound quality is desirable and worth paying extra for, up to a point--and for only $0.30 extra, Apple likely hasn't gone past that point.
Better sound quality is also something most music fans will understand.