digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Steve Jobs and EMI present "an exciting new digital offering" -- live!

engadget.com — slide text 1: Value for money Choice Ease of Use - slide text 2: .. - slide text 3: DRM Free Superior sound quality - slide text 4: DRM free tracks

show profanity settings
expand all
  • THiNK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Updated:
    slide text 1: Value for money Choice Ease of Use
    slide text 2: digital consumers stated that they agreed fully or somewhat with the statement "it is important to be able to transfer files between devices"
    slide text 3: DRM Free -- Superior sound quality
    slide text 4: DRM free tracks at twice the sound quality or Standard sound quality tracks with DRM. DRM free complete albums at twice the sound quality. Ability to upgrade already purchased tracks and albums. DRM free music videos
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57256kbps AAC audio, full albums for the same price, upgrades for previous purchases at $0.30/song. I'm in love.
    • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+55Key points:

      * DRM Free Tracks will cost $1.29 and will be 256kbps AAC.
      * DRMed tracks will stay $0.99 and 128kbps.
      * You can upgrade songs to the DRM-Free format for $0.30.
      * These songs will be available in May.
      * There is currently no timeframe for the Beatles catalog.
      * Steve Jobs: "our projection [is] for other labels coming on board as well."

      * Audio Playback of the confrence: http://cache.cantos.com/mp3/pjx-d254/pjx-d254_MP3.mp3
    • acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Holy jeez, I thought he was flipping us off using an EMI censor box for a second.
    • KrocCamen, on 10/12/2007, -77/+20Dear Apple/EMI,
      Congratulations on succesfully coming up with a way to charge us more for what should come as standard, and that we already enjoy at no extra cost on traditional CD media.

      We, your customers, already enjoy >1000 Kbps crystal audio quality without any DRM on the CDs we purchase.

      I now see that starting May, the Apple iTunes store will offer DRM free songs at 256Kbps (over the normal 128 Kbps) for an increased price of $1.30 / £0.99 over the DRM priced $0.99 / £0.79.

      If it were not already inane that music purchased online comes with restrictions on how you may use it, but a regular CD does not, it would therefore seem even stranger that a DRM free track should actually cost more than it's restricted brethren; especially considering that DRM is actually the cause of most of your technical support costs due to consumers being unable to use their legally purchased songs on an equal manner to CD Audio purchased content.

      Therfore; should not DRM-Free music come as standard as does with Audio CD - and should therefore be cheaper because of the reduced support costs associated with DRM Free music, in addition to the lack of physical distribution required such as packaging and printing, as well as the additional competition that should occur on a free and open market where online music stores can compete on equal merits without vender lock in caused by one-device-only proprietary DRM?

      You may proclaim that the additional expendature gives you "Double the Quality!" but it is only double the quality of the already low bitrate files on iTunes in comparison to super high quality lossless CD Audio. As it is, a 128 Kbps AAC file is already within the quality region of a 256 Kbps MP3 file due to better enocding technology provided with AAC, so therefore a 256 Kbps AAC is not going to offer much audible difference that merits the extra cost, when only a handful of people will have audio equipment capable of making the difference in bitrates noticable, and still then a physical CD will far exceed 256 Kbps AAC file.

      It is only with astonishment that I can belive that you have figured out a way to only increase the cost of music, in a market where it is already greatly overpriced already because of your strong arm tactics in controlling the output of the industry and preventing healthy competition on the online marketplace with digital restrictions.

      I expect lossless FLAC/AAC, DRM-Free digital files at a reasonable price as I get with CD Audio. Why then is this not the case on the now significantly important online marketplace?


      Kroc Camen.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Can't please everyone I suppose.

      You have your points, but one step at a time. It took a compromise to get this far, quit being so arrogant and demanding everything from businesses. Give it time and those prices will come back down. Once everything is DRM-less there isn't much of a reason to dangle a carrot infront of the lables.
    • howismydriving, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58kroccamen: The DRM free cds are still 9.99 to download, the same as the DRM kind. If you could please point me in the direction of the store where I can buy a full CD for 9.99 the day it comes out, I would really appreciate it. I have never found this "fabled" store that has cds for 9.99 the day they come out. I hear about it all the time. Is there a secret hand shake to find out about it? Is there a password when you go to the checkout so they magically take of 20-80% of the CD price? I would really like to know.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Also consider this an experiment. The music lables consider us pirates and think if they pull protection they will lose sales. This has the potential to show them that fair-use and quality sells better than mistrust and crap.
    • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@howismydriving

      You mean like Best Buy? Every cd is $9.99 on its release date. Check their website if you still don't believe it (Music -> New Releases).
    • Mohonri, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15While this may seem good on the surface, this is exactly what many people have warned about: The music labels have, through DRM and the DMCA, effectively stripped fair use. And now they're selling that same fair use back to the consumers. Yes, they are raising the bitrate to 256kbps, but that move is simply a red herring to keep people from complaining about having to pay for the fair use rights they should have in the first place.
    • musicbear, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@chumpchief... Best Buy could be GIVING CD's away and I wouldn't support them... yikes!
    • KrocCamen, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7It is exactly because consumers have not demanded enough of the labels that EMI / Apple can get away with this crap. Charging more for fair use already given to you by law. If the music labels had adopted the Internet 10 years ago, when they should have, instead of avoiding it as long as possible, then 10 years of healthy competition would have lead to cheap music prices and wide interoperability; but as it stands that is not the case because the labels are so backwards they fear any change that undermines their business. This new deal is simply EMI finally finding the solution to being relevent in digital distribution.
    • lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Honestly, Thank god I listen to only electronic music which isn't protected by the RIAA nor full of DRM filth. Also, it's great that the European artists are not against, but rather in favor or pirating their promos - Even Armin Van Buuren (#2 best EDM DJ in the world) gave a shout out during his 5 year radio show anniversary to a website notoriously known for pirating electronic music - trancetraffic.com
    • chemicalpink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@ kroccamen

      "considering that DRM is actually the cause of most of your technical support costs due to consumers being unable to use their legally purchased songs on an equal manner to CD Audio purchased content."

      Actually, I used to work for iTunes Support, and very few (1 in 100, possibly) emails were because of that.
    • fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I hope that these new files will be identical for each whom downloads it. This will make it wonderful to download on P2P since 1 million people will have the same song with the same name/hash. This will make AAC popular on P2P, and in general. Then new CD players will support AAC in addition to MP3.
    • skoles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ howismydriving

      http://www.newburycomics.com/rel/v2_home.php?storenr=103&deptnr=384

      Newbury Comics, a New England area chain, always has new releases for cheap. Most CD's don't go above $11.99 after that which I believe is still a fair price.

      When I was out of state for a while I hated the fact I could only find stores selling them at the $18.99 price still.
    • web.phreak, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Its a step in the right direction, albeit a baby step.

      I for one have absolutely NO interest in ANY compressed music and chose not to infect my music collection with such. Whether CD ripped or downloaded, lossless is all I will personally consider.

      This is not a compromise. Five years ago they could have said - "Hey, bandwidths are not such that we could offer lossless.. ", not today though.
      Absolutely no excuse.

      I, for one, applaud Kroc!
    • superterran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The music companies are very timid. Expecting them to make a leap from DRM to completely unprotected is asking a lot. Look at it from their point of view...

      Unprotected media is easy to copy, move... you can literally beam music from one phone to another in like ten seconds; DRM stops all of that - it made it so you could only have that song work in one place; and the only way around that takes a few steps more than most people knew how. Piracy used to run rampant everywhere - but we, as a society, were the ones who screwed the pooch on companies trusting us with unprotected media.

      However, the landscape has changed - folks. Most software has some sort of subscription functionality that makes the software great - don't pay for the software, can't get feature_x that requires the internet and for you to login. It's been gradual, but we've grown to accept that we have to pay for things for them to work right. Most people don't think of online music downloads as AAC files sitting on a hard drive with a wrapper that prevents them from launching unless there is a digital signiture file somewhere - they see it as iTunes, and the songs they paid for in it. That shift in thinking, that iTunes is more than a sum of it's parts, it's a living - breathing - service that people use to experience their music, is why these companies are testing the waters.

      Of course, the day after they start selling DRM free music, the tubes will be clogged by people passing it all around; we'll undoubtedly ***** all over five years of learning to respect intellecutal property.... because that's how we do it.
    • Hilton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Selling digital music DRM-free is the right step forward for the music industry," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO.

      More: http://news.taume.com/Technology/Industry/EMI-Launches-DRM-free-Music-Downloads-832
    • guytoronto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I for one have absolutely NO interest in ANY compressed music and chose not to infect my music collection with such. Whether CD ripped or downloaded, lossless is all I will personally consider. "

      Better give up all your CDs then. Any music you have has been compressed, just in a different way.
  • alexmuller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Seems to have happened then (quote from linked story):

    8:21 Press release out: EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire.
    Apple's iTunes store to be the first online music store to sell EMI's new downloads
    • howismydriving, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3ChumpChief: The first 10 cds that they had were 9.99 for release, but the rest of them were not. They put the few cheap ones at the top so you go into the store. If you would have scrolled down you would have seen that. That is one of the oldest marketing tricks in the world to get you in their real/virtual store.
    • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice use of reply... but if you noticed, those aren't released today, they're preorders. If you wait until they come out, they'll be $9.99 too.
  • metalica77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Holy Crap it's a sign from god.

    http://w3.cantos.com/07/pjxrobbi-703-5zvx0/interviews.php?task=view#

    Link to the download page. Right Click "podcast" and save target as to download the audio" I might actualy download stuff from itunes now.
  • EmailAddress, on 10/12/2007, -33/+5The best online MP3 store was/is Allofmp3. The simple fact that they offer .wav format and various mp3 qualities gives many options to the buyer.

    $1.29 is too expensive. It's not even a lossless file format. Maybe 1.29 could be an excuse for 40mb lossless file, but for a 2-3mb lossy file?

    This is straight up rip off. Only the laymen,Steve and EMI are excited.
    • hgb5150, on 10/12/2007, -35/+5This adds up to $13 for a 10 song album encoded with lossy compression, plus you get no hard copy or liner notes. Jobs must laugh at the sucker iTune customers all the way to bank.
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42AllOfMP3 also wasn't paying the artists at all and was mob run.
    • Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36For people, like me, who honestly don't care about the difference between 256 Kbps and lossless, this is great.
      Also, its $0.30 more per track, but if you buy a whole album DRM-free it's still the standard price.

      There are some people who are going to complain about this. If enough do, the RIAA will say "See, I told you so" and go back to the DRM hell we've been living in.
    • Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14hgb5150, the article says that albums will remain $9.99, but at the higher quality option.
    • EmailAddress, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4@colincornaby

      Allofmp3 was probably no saint, but it presented a way of distributing music which was, in my opinion, nice. It offered many options.

      @Manhigh

      go back to the DRM hell? If they go back then I'm sure more people will seek to acquire music through other means. The goal here should be to make people want to pay for music willingly, feeling that they are getting a nice deal and supporting the artist.

      $1.29 is a nice deal? The increase gets you DRM-less and 256 from 128. The bit-rate is a simple selection in a audio converting program, so in my opinion it's no big deal so as to increase price. Then it's the DRM-less part. So .30 cent penalty to do what mp3s were done originally???? This is just a money grab by the big company, greed.
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Allofmp3 WAS?
      They are still around, it is just a bit hard to pay them. I still use em every day.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Money grab? Hardly. It's a carrot to draw the other music studios in to DRM free music, now they can have a tiny bit of that $2 price increase they wanted, but at the same time be forced into offering higher quality and no DRM. When they see it works they'll just drop the money loosing DRM option all over the place.
    • balloot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I would love to take these "256 kbps is lossy wah wah wah" and see if they could actually tell the audible difference between that and a lossless format. I would be willing to be they couldn't. 99.99% of consumers would rather have the gain in download speed that comes with compression over the almost imperceptible to human ears higher quality of a lossless format. Deal with it.
    • maexus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@balloot

      Actually, I could. That's not really fair though, I mix and master tracks quiet a bit which requires me to use monitors. Now most consumers using average equipment? Yea, prob not.
    • ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@maexus

      That's nice, but there is no such thing as a truly lossless digital format, even uncompressed. I've recorded in nice studios and even uncompressed .WAV/whatever still sound slightly different than the real thing. Even straight to DAT still sounds a bit off, which is part of the reason big producers (Bob Rock, Mutt Lang, other big label idiots, etc) go crazy with compression (which makes horribly sterile and too bassy, but not warm records... however it will sound better on radio, like good music is ever on the radio).
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am happy they made DRM-free tracks. I am also happy they have higher quality downloads at a premium.

      I am just disappointed they didn't make the DRM-free policy apply to the 99 cent downloads too. Must we really pay a premium to free ourselves of man-made shackles?
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It sounds like they are mixed together in the list. Can I filter to make sure only non-DRM is offered to me? If so, I might actually become interested in online music.
    • MrObjectional, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My bet is that it will be another button next to where buy is today. You see the track and click the buy button for whichever version you want.
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would prefer to not even have to be offered DRMed music. It would be a shorter, better listing without it.
    • mcstewart37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9iTunes will probably handle these DRM-free songs in the way it handles explicit vs. clean tracks, with 2 tabs in the album view of the store. They can add a 3rd tab for "DRM-free".
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Steve Jobs says you can set a preference that will automatically show just the DRM free version of a song if it's available.
    • DrBiggly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Filter by price? Should be plainly obvious as long as the pricing scheme is as stated. Knowing the iTunes store, it should be pretty simple to tell. :)

  • lnknpk04, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37never thought i'd see the day. kudos steve
    • TheRealDeal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@lnknpk04

      Agreed. This is awesome!

      Quite honestly, anyone that sees this as a negative, needs their head examined.
  • NewChar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11This is cool, but do we need 8 front page stories about the same thing?
  • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Steve Jobs really is Jesus!
    • JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33So would a chocolate Steve Jobs be sacreligious?
  • MrObjectional, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19This is a great day for music lovers. Finally DRM free music from a major retailer!

    So... will the complainers actually switch or keep pirating?
    • Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm guessing many will keep pirating. There's always some who will justify the behavior that is marginally more advantageous to themselves.
    • Ming0, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"There's always some who will justify the behavior that is marginally more advantageous to themselves."

      Actually, iTunes isn't really all that beneficial to the artists, and I doubt the extra .30 will go to the artists.

      If you love a particular band or artist and want to support them, do the following: pirate their CD, buy a ticket to their next show and then purchase a t-shirt and a sticker from their merch table.

      http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
    • Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5ming0: So you're saying it's better for artists to get $0.00 from a sale as opposed to $0.05 (or even $0.01)?

      If I'd ever been creative and capable enough to get a work out there that people were willing to buy, I'm sure I'd want to make at least a little off it in return for my time spent. Selling merchandise is just an extra on top of that.
    • moofer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It think you will see many pirates continuing to do so - DRM was just a hollow excuse to some (not all) of them. The main issue is money, and people will always want to get something for nothing.
  • starbird, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12As some have pointed out, the whole album sale is the higher quality/DRM-free. I see it as win-win-win.

    "DRM-free albums will be priced at the same price (but higher quality) as current, DRM-crippled albums."

    So it's win-win-win, if they don't F it up. Record companies get more full album sales, people get higher quality, DRM free, and iTunes gets to work with ANY portable player.
    • invader, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Still no win in there for artists :-(
    • wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@invader: Depends on which label they are signed with. Yes, this is no win for EMI label artists, since they only pay artists a fraction of their iTunes rake, but some labels do pay most of the iTunes rake back to the artists.
    • streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok: When can I have my CDBaby tracks available in 256k DRM free? I guess I should contact CDBaby and see if they're in talks yet... This is exciting for all involved, I think. :)
    • StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, CDBaby signing up for this will be a great win for indie artists.
    • fangorious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@invader

      If you're with a major label your big win is the increased sales of your record, which means they'll promote you more, which puts more people in the seats at your concerts, where you make all your money anyway. So it's probably not a direct win in terms of increased royalties for album sales (Although it should be) but it should still benefit the artist thru extra promotion. There's also the word of mouth. I know I'll be telling my family later today to buy some EMI produced albums off iTunes and follow-up with letters to explain that this change is in the right direction but more change is needed. I intend to make it know to both Apple and EMI that this move will be directly responsible for me breaking my years-long boycott of not only major label music but lossy encoded music too.
  • WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Seriously... how many times is this gonna get posted... five times on the front page alone. It's great news and all, but geez...
  • hgb5150, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Great deal for the record companies too. They sell songs for the same price but their distribution costs go way down. The consumer pays the same.
  • dareiff, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3It's not that great of news. Sure, Steve Jobs is trying to get better download selection, DRM-free of course, and I doubt that Apple will see much more of the download price at all. (They already made close to nothing)

    The problem is, though, that free is still better than .99 cents. Free is, especially, better than 1.29. Who's going to pay 1.29 when they can get it for free?

    Follow me?

    The music industry needs to change its pricing of online sales. Who would buy a song for .29 cents, legally, than search around and find a torrent? I think I would. So does that mean they would sell more downloads? Yes. Without a doubt; it can't be argued. Does that mean they would sell upwards of 3 times the amount of tracks? I would still say yes. Almost without a doubt.

    Anybody have thoughts on that?
    • mostman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Here are my thoughts.

      Where do I tell my computer lame Dad to get free music?
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think most people are buying from the iTMS because of convenience anyway.

      You can often get the same albums for less using Amazon Marketplace or even at Target sometimes, but people still buy from iTMS.

      If I could just think of a song I wanted and buy it right now from iTMS, I would probably pay the price they charge.

      And now, with DRM-free content, maybe I will be able to.
    • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@mostman - you say that like bit-torrent is complicated. Clients are just fancy download managers, and you get specialized search engines. People like your dad don't care that the underlying protocols are different than standard http downloads. Search, hit download, wait. In comparison with iTunes, which is Search, hit 'buy now', wait considerably less time.

      That said, this still takes care of two of the three requirements to get me buying music again (the last of which being actually giving the artist a decent cut). If it's true that a full album download with the DRM-free 256k songs will also be $9.99, that's awesome, as the price increase is quite honestly very lame.

      And yes, I think the pricing is a bit much, all things considered. But you have to also consider how much use you get out of songs. I have plenty of tracks that have been played several hundred times. That's at least a solid five hours just out of that one song. For a buck? Honestly, it's not that unreasonable. A video game costs $50 and you get thirty hours or so out of it, give or take (usually take). Movies are even worse at a solid eight bucks admission per person for two hours, with declining quality (DVDs are even worse, except for those rare few that get watched all the time). At a dollar a song, that's some of the cheapest entertainment out there over the lifetime of the content.
  • deja2004, on 10/12/2007, -29/+0So, does this mean that iTunes will soon start ripping audio CDs DRM-free?
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I believe they added this feature in iTunes 1.0.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It has had that feature since _before it was iTunes_. (SoundJam)
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oh look, you're trying to be funny. How cute.
    • bradtacs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5dumbass...
    • testdrivemedia, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Bradtacs:

      Was that really needed?
    • deja2004, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7I'm sorry, I don't use iTunes to rip CDs and I was under the assumption that they ripped to a protected AAC format in a .m4a container (FairPlay, I think). Not trying to be cute or a "dumbass", just misinformed... thanks anyway.
    • xioner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'll try to be helpful then:
      Go to iTunes preferences. Under advanced importing you can change your settings in all sorts of ways. I go for 192 MP3, but some people go for lossless open codecs... pick your poison and be happy :-)
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You actually can't rip music in iTunes with DRM even if you want to. You can rip to AAC, but it's unprotected AAC - which would even play on a Zune.
  • MadEnvoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15*****. Now I may have to install ITunes and buy an Ipod...
    • Lazyboy0172, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2oh no, you wont have to. See, bittorrent will still be working...
      also, drm free means you dont have to have the ipod.
  • mostman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Excellent news. Hopefully it is easy to find the tracks. I doubt if most people will be able to tell the difference on their ipods - appleTV - perhaps.
  • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The first day this comes out I'm voting for it with my cash.
  • testdrivemedia, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2if a 'real' CD is around the same cost, why would anyone bother? A rack full of 'real' Cd's looks way cooler than a long library list in WMP or iTunes.

    ***** iTunes... the labels should just do it on their own. Stop lining Apple's pockets.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to the content (except perhaps a few mixes or whatever). If the labels feel they can do better on their own, they are free to do so.

      Why the complaints?
    • Radan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Apple are not the ones who are selling the music. They don't set prices, they don't choose what they are selling nor in which quality. What Apple does, is to deliver a system wich deliver the products. If you look at the stats Apple gets only a tiny percentage of those 99 cents. The rest goes to the big bad record companies we all love to hate.
      What Apple is making money on is firstly, the iPod which by now has around 70% of the market so even if the songs were DRM free it wouldn't matter as you would most likely put them on an iPod anyway.
      That's what iTunes Music Store is all about. They want you to bind yourself to iTunes and later buying iPods which syncs with it. If everyone starts using iTunes for music, movies, iPod games, Apple TVs, TV-series, iPods, iPhones or whatever, they won't start using another application or service just for for example downloading music, when iTunes is already synced with half of your apartment.
    • Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What if you move around a lot and don't want the extra crap to move?
  • zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Good *****... Now I might actually start buying some of those iTunes Exclusives they sell.
    • mrfx2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Well your a ***** dumbass for spending for taking off DRM and bringing the market were we dont need it.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10and "your" reading skills need to be evaluated since you conveniently left out the part that they're double the bit rate as well.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I believe his writing and comprehension skills are somewhat questionable as well
  • heifetz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The difference in bitrate seems almost reversed for me. Logically, the bitrate for DRM music should be higher than for non-DRM music. If it's DRMed, why wouldn't you provide the best quality possible? Instead, we get lower quality DRM music, and have to pay for higher quality non-DRM music. In a fair world, the bitrate should be the same for both versions, and the difference you pay is solely from DRM.
  • coffeemonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've previously refused to download audio, except for the rare free track offered directly from the artist's site, preferring instead to buy CDs and rip them for personal use.

    Now that iTunes is offering DRM free music with no lock-in, the last hurdle to my actually signing up and purchasing music is falling away.

    Now the record companies just need to put out good music.
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Plenty of good music out there. Stop listening to mainstream ***** off the radio, and go find it.
    • MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> "Stop listening to mainstream ***** off the radio, and go find it."

      That's always the answer, huh.

      What if you like mainstream music? Why did Apple become the biggest online music store? And why did they have to go the DRM route first?

      Napster and the MP3 proved that you can deliver music online... but the labels didn't get it. It took a computer company to create the store. I don't know why the labels themselves deliver music directly to the consumer.
  • taxali, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Anti-Climactic.

  • peterinjapan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thing is, you can get the most famous 20 or so Weird Al songs easily. Not a problem at all. But if you are a collector or fan of Weird Al, and if you want minor tracks, forget it.

    Or, my daughter is practicing the flute, so I went online and bagged a bunch of the music she was practicing with. There was a huge selection of music, and I was happy to be able to choose what she needed. Just try searching for classical music on the file sharing places -- you can get a bunch of general stuff, but nothing that's special.

    This is really good. It's been silly that I can't give my son our Star Wars collection on his stupid keitai. In the future it might be possible.
  • naio21, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3Steve Jobs is a moronic POS. Apple is a ***** company.
    • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Aww. Did your mommy not hug you enough?
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4naio, thanks for your post about my son (who is doing much better and we expect a full recovery). Why would you post something like this and not expect to be slammed. You're better than that.
    • Radan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5lol! Did you take that directly from "Trolling for dummies - Top ten things that upsets Mac owners"?

      The CEO of Apple is....
      Stupid [ ]
      Ugly [ ]
      A Piece of ***** [X]
      Gay [ ]

      The Company Apple is...
      Stupid [ ]
      FOR N00BS! [ ]
      ***** [X]
      Gay [ ]
    • naio21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Radan and antoniojvr: LOL!

      Hey macparrot, what happened to be the trouble with your son in the end? Growing too fast?
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3More than slightly off topic...
      After two MRIs, countless x-rays, a spinal tap, an EMG, two neurologists, two pediatricians, three visits to the hospital for at least three days each stay they have come to the conclusion that...

      drum roll please...

      they have no frigging idea why this happened.

      At this point the overlying cause for me is immaterial. I'm just happy that he'd doing better. No more wheelchair, walker is going away soon, he's using a cane and getting much better at holding his balance during physical therapy exercises. We're hoping for a complete recovery by summer. Thanks very much for asking!

      Sorry for the post hijack
    • naio21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1WTF??? Go figure... :-/
  • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1So, they offer the death of DRM and charge a 33% or so premium for the pleasure? Exciting for you -apple and EMI stock-holders? I'm not excited, I'm completely underwhelmed.

    This is corporate *****, corporate robbery, corporate disgrace and absolutely expected. Jobs is no better than the likes of the RIAA - he's clearly riding the crest of anti-drm attitudes, but only because he sniffs money.

    Bastards - the lot of them.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Did you catch the part where they are also 256kbps files now? That's a 100% quality increase too. Funny how the Mac Haters conveniently leave out things like that so as not to disturb their rabid Apple-hating.
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Oh shut the ***** up! if you're stupid enough to buy a DRM 128 AAC for .99, I can't see how you would think a $1.29 Non-DRM 256 AAC is a rip off.

      I BUY physical albums. I get my PHYSICAL copy, so I can rip it on my computer with my own audio preference, and have my own artwork. This is good news for me, now I can get iTunes exclusives in good quality (which I will download from torrent sites).
    • afwjam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3closer to 30.303%
    • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ Stilson - I use macs every day you *****.

      @ whitenoise - clever you...
  • mrfx2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3* DRM Free Tracks will cost $1.29 and will be 256kbps AAC.
    * DRMed tracks will stay $0.99 and 128kbps.
    * You can upgrade songs to the DRM-Free format for $0.30


    They are out of their ***** minds money to take it off?
    The sad thing is some ***** idiot is going to pay for it.
    • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Not out of their minds at all - this was always the Jobs goal - mission accomplished and he's certainly shameless enough to milk this *victory* until the last drop.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Not only drm-free but DOUBLE the quality for only a 30% premium. It's a good deal no matter which way you look at it. Looks like all the Apple haters and John C. Dvorak were wrong again. Jobs put his money where his mouth is, he addressed the two major customer gripes about the iTMS and came up with a decent solution, there is no denying it now.
    • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stilson - if you think you'll hear your music with double the clarity and fidelity then you are a dafter fanboy ***** than I gave you credit for. And the 30% premium is for something you once enjoyed for free with CD's and vinyl.

      No rip-off there then...
  • dragongrrl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9
    remember this and be sure to buy some EMI product (even one song!) when this goes live in May.

    there is no better way to drive out DRM than to support companies who take these steps. PLEASE SUPPORT EMI!

    (ps -- i don't work for EMI or Apple, i just support the eradication of DRM thru means that will actually succeed).
  • Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3.30 more to get DRM free? Retarded.
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Apparently the anti-apple crowd are going to stick to the following argument points:

    *Griping that Apple still sells DRM
    *Complaining that the DRM-free files cost 0.30 more while completely ignoring the fact that they're higher quality as well.
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11They will keep complaining until the songs are lossless and they are free. That's just the way they are. Feel free to ignore them. Even the FSF is happy with the move today:

      http://defectivebydesign.org/blog/969
    • wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@colincornaby: Some people will never be happy. Even if they tracks were lossless and free they find something else to complain about, like needed iTunes to access the store, or the format used, or how the artists don't get a fair cut... etc.
  • teetow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15256 kbps may not be lossless, but I challenge you to a double blind A/B test against FLAC any day. It's definitely good enough for 99.99% of the consumer market. Anyone who says otherwise is, in my view, just being an ass.
    • Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Nothing compared to the 2.8 Mbps of my SACDs. ***** iTunes.

      Nevertheless, I can't believe that people are cheering Apple for letting them sell to you the same thing twice!
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Nevertheless, I can't believe that people are cheering Apple for letting them sell to you the same thing twice!"

      Huh? I can pay 30 cents per track to double the quality and remove the DRM. I don't have to pay for the entire track over again.
    • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Nothing compared to the 2.8 Mbps of my SACDs"

      Congratulations, you officially have more money than brains. To say you've missed the point of this announcement would be a colossal understatement.

      MP3s are for portable players and computer playback. No-one in their right mind that cares about audio quality is going to buy compressed music at *any* bitrate, and no-one who is looking for some music to play back on their morning run is going to pony up for an SACD player and the (somewhat hard-to-come-by) media to go along with it.
  • BornGhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I've never been big on iTunes, or iPods, or anything Apple for that matter. But this is honestly a very awesome step towards a world where people can get decent quality music for any mp3 player they want without having to pay an arm and a leg. If this continues to develop and include more of the major music labels, as well as many of the indie labels (that would make my life), I may very well start firing up iTunes when I want a CD.

    Though I must say that having something a little more tangible is nice as well, so sometimes Amazon might come into play. Mmm, used CDs for $0.99.
  • DaveMode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is a step in the right direction, but not enough to keep me off of my Oink account.
  • Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WTF? Is that an old shuffle around his neck?

    Edit: wait, now I see, that photo is an old photo of him holding up some device (looks like a Mac Mini or Apple TV) and EMI has been photoshopped over top of it. My bad
  • martyf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Five things.

    1. iTunes - from version 1.0 (and before) ALWAYS had the built-in ability to break it's own DRM. Easy:
    a) Set preferences to use MP3 encoding when ripping CD's.
    b) Set ripping preferences to automatically rip CD's and eject
    c) Buy a DRM wrapped album, immediately make a playlist of the album tracks.
    d) Burn playlist to CD. When it's done, it automatically rips the CD. Now you have a DRM free CD.
    Now you have MP3's that play on anything that plays MP3.
    So all the arguments that ITMS purchased songs won't play on other MP3 players are wrong.

    2. Most people can't tell the difference between a 192k or a 256k rip, the 256K AAC is a distraction.

    3. The reason people love iPods and iTunes is because of simplicity of use and quality of meta-data.

    4. You can be sure that ITMS has some major marketplace differentiators in the wings (go beyond album art, think of all you could do with multimedia wrappers with the basic music files)

    5. The DRM war for stored music may be over, but the next frontier is going to be much more complex. Video media portability...that's the next battle for Apple to win.

    • andycr512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"1. iTunes - from version 1.0 (and before) ALWAYS had the built-in ability to break it's own DRM. Easy:
      a) Set preferences to use MP3 encoding when ripping CD's.
      b) Set ripping preferences to automatically rip CD's and eject
      c) Buy a DRM wrapped album, immediately make a playlist of the album tracks.
      d) Burn playlist to CD. When it's done, it automatically rips the CD. Now you have a DRM free CD.
      Now you have MP3's that play on anything that plays MP3.
      So all the arguments that ITMS purchased songs won't play on other MP3 players are wrong. "

      Uh... That's like saying that "roadblocks can be gotten around, but you have to tear off the guiderail, move a few bumpers, drive through it, then put them back. Why bother? Why are the guiderails there in the first place? Who is going to reimburse me for all the time lost burning about 15 songs at a time, then ripping them? Who is going to reimburse me for the now-coastered, or, if rewriteable, lifetime-reduced media?

      2. Most people can't tell the difference between a 192k or a 256k rip, the 256K AAC is a distraction.

      3. The reason people love iPods and iTunes is because of simplicity of use and quality of meta-data.

      4. You can be sure that ITMS has some major marketplace differentiators in the wings (go beyond album art, think of all you could do with multimedia wrappers with the basic music files)

      5. The DRM war for stored music may be over, but the next frontier is going to be much more complex. Video media portability...that's the next battle for Apple to win.
    • StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"5. The DRM war for stored music may be over, but the next frontier is going to be much more complex. Video media portability...that's the next battle for Apple to win. "

      How many torrent sites, podcasts, etc have two versions: regular and "iPod video"? Apple already won it. Portable video is not yet standard, but it's only a matter of time, and Apple's several steps ahead of everyone else in popularity.
    • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You don't need to worry about using MP3 instead of AAC when ripping, apple won't let you use their DRM on ur own files, remember the complaints by the EU and companies like Microsoft. It is a closed DRM system. No one but Apple can create protected songs using FairPlay(Tm) AAC is not a DRMed file. AACS is a DRMed file.
  • balloot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I would hope everyone puts their money where their mouth is. You wanted no-DRM, and EMI delivered. I hope people don't eff this up by sharing their bought EMI songs.
    • StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's not that we don't want people to share songs - it's that we want people to buy more (or at least the same amount of) CD's/songs as they are now.

      As an example of "sharing isn't all bad", I went to a concert with a friend. We didn't want to buy 2 copies of the CD when we could easily share the tracks, so I bought the CD and she bought a shirt.
  • spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Yay! We're back where we were 15 years ago! No DRM! Ridiculously high prices!
  • d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Walk it like you talk it, Stevie. Sell a version of Leopard for a premium that will install on any PC hardware.

    BTW, doesn't playing non-DRM content on an iPod use less battery power? If so, why isn't this being heralded as yet another way to save the planet from the evils of global warming?

    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ummmm, he DID talk it and walk it. He said Apple would sell non-DRMed content if allowed to by the major labels (of course it isn't ALL good since there were smaller labels that would sell content without DRM before the EMI announcement and were ignored by Apple) and that's what he did.

      As far as selling Leopard for anyone's PC...why? Apple has posted a profit almost every quarter since Jobs returned without selling OS X (or OS classic before that) for generic PCs. Apple seems quite happy catering to Macintosh users and not having to accomodate every MB, processor, and disk/optical drive ever made. If you really want to use OS X without buying a Mac, build a PC that is as close as possible in specs to a Mac and do what the OSX86 people do.

      Heck, even the Mac clones in the 90s used Apple's motherboard designs.
  • meshman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2$1.30 x 12 tracks = $15.60. I might as well buy the CD and have it in perfect quality.
    • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+81 album x $9.99 per = $9.99, whether you want it in 128 or 256 flavor.

      The per-album pricing doesn't change and, since your example cites buying a CD, is perfectly applicable here.
  • Squidly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I can deal with paying more for higher quality. I can't really justify having to pay more for non-DRM.

    Both versions (existing and higher bit-rate) should be DRM free.

    It's hard to put my finger on which side is behind retaining DRM in this "half" manner. Jobs dodged a direct question on this subject during the post-announcement press conference. "What's the point of DRMing lower bitrate songs?"

    Could it be that EMI demanded it. That they had cold feet going in and that this higher-price higher bit-rate thing was the only way they'd get their feet wet?

    Or is it that Apple wants to retain the DRM to hold on to the "lock-in" to the iPod player that they currently enjoy?

    Everyone is excited to hear about DRM free music, but there's a weird back-beat to this tune that not many are picking up on.
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The iTunes Music Store is not a money making business. It is simply there to subsidize the iPod. If you're not buying an iPod, you're not helping pay for the iTunes Store to exist. Therefore, it's understandable that Apple would charge a premium for music that could be taken to another player. Creative doesn't divert profits from their sales to support the iTunes Music Store.
    • spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3LOL not a money making business? That .50 cents a song isn't making them any money huh? Do we have different definitions of money?
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"LOL not a money making business? That .50 cents a song isn't making them any money huh? Do we have different definitions of money?"

      They don't earn 50 cents a song. Apple takes about 7 cents a song, and that money has to be used to pay for servers/power/storage/bandwidth. The iTunes Stores is funded a lot by iPod sales.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The point is obvious, as is the reason it was not explicitly stated.

      The higher bitrate is to convince average consumers they really want DRM-free files, for those that don't really know what DRM is it offers an additional incentive to pay just a little more.

      The higher price is to convince studios to get rid of DRM, even though they have to trade off the extra cost with a higher quality encode plus a DRM free file.

      The two aspects are to bring two sides closer together, consumers and music companies alike. The question was not answered because Steve doesn't want to tip his hand at exactly how he is luring in other major labels to follow suit.
  • buddhistMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've been lagging in redeeming my iTunes gift cards from Christmas, and now I'm glad I waited. More important to me than the DRM is the higher quality sample rate. I use 192K myself, because I can't distinguish it from uncompressed audio, but I can definitely hear the difference at 128K. A 30% markup (or less, if you by a complete album) for DRM-less tunes at a higher sampling rate than I normally use is quite a bargain, from my perspective.

    Congratulations and thanks to EMI and Apple for taking a big risk, and ultimately, changing the industry for the better.
  • pyrates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here's the problem. Consumers aren't even aware of DRM until it inhibits them. And the way they are doing this, consumers will ONLY see the lower priced one and wonder why their is 2 different prices and go for the lower priced one not realizing it has DRM. Because consumers are stupid. Here is what Apple could have done. Made the $0.99 one DRM free too and the $1.29 one stays the way it is. That way there is 2 grades of quality. The higher quality here is a GIMMICK, pure and simple. What they're really doing is charging you for fair use, which you already have a right to. And that is wrong. The good thing though is that the price of entire album's is not increasing and they are taking the drm off of it. So that I'm happy with. At least the albums that are under EMI that is.
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So when a user realizes that they can pay the 30 cent upgrade fee for the un-drmed track. Apple isn't going to charge them another $1.29 for the same track.

      And double the quality is a gimmick? It's near-cd quality.
    • Radan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2According to EMI and Apple, you can upgrade all your old songs to the DRM free format for $0.30/song.
  • r81984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I find it funny the RIAA says no DRM hurts sales and increases theft, but the companies that actually sell mp3s say they will sell more mp3s if there was no DRM.
  • MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, can the EMI tracks be burned an unlimited amount of times, or copied to other computers or non-Apple players?
    • althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The DRM'd music from itunes could always be burned unlimited times. They just stopped you from burning 10 of the same playlist so you couldnt mass produce cds easily. It never stopped you from changing the playlist by one song and burning more.

      The non DRM songs can be burned as much as you want and go on any player that can play AAC. Since they are not DRM'd iTunes also can covert them to mp3 for you on the fly.
  • WarBloodlust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/tech_news/EU_confirms_investigation_into_Apple_and_EMI_on_day_of_big_announcement

    Bad news for Europe?
  • omgcthulhu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh, Steve... I know your great plan ;-)
  • yakizz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0So... Things like this happen everywhere.
  • coreydoucorey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can't believe it! Rubbish. http://artriver.blogspot.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.