Apple's iTunes Plus now world's largest DRM-free music catalog

[AppleInsider]

Apple on Wednesday issued a formal announcement regarding its expanded iTunes Plus service, which now offers more than two million tracks at the reduced price of just 99 cents.

All iTunes Plus tracks feature DRM-free music with high quality 256 kbps AAC encoding for audio quality which the company claims is "virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings."

In addition, the iTunes Plus catalog is now the largest DRM-free catalog in the world, and includes artists from Sub Pop, Nettwerk, Beggars Group, IODA, The Orchard and many others, along with EMI's digital catalog.

"iTunes Plus has been incredibly popular with our customers and now we're making it available at an even more affordable price," said Eddy Cue, Apple's vice president of iTunes. "We're adding over two million tracks from key independent labels in addition to EMI's digital catalog and look forward to even more labels and artists making their music available on iTunes Plus."

EMI began offering their catalog on iTunes Plus earlier this year, and their selection has grown to include singles and albums from the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Norah Jones, Frank Sinatra and the solo catalogs of all four Beatles.

With the expansion of iTunes Plus, customers can now download tracks from a variety of labels without limitations on the type of music player or number of computers that purchased songs can be played on. iTunes Plus songs purchased from the iTunes Store will play on all iPods, iPhone, Windows or Mac computers, widescreen TVs with Apple TV, as well as many other digital music players.

Apple, however, did not comment on how owners of DRM-wrapped tracks purchased from its download service in the past can upgrade to the iTunes Plus versions. Before dropping the price of iTunes Plus tracks from $1.29 to $0.99, the Cupertino-based company charged a $0.30 per-track upgrade fee.

Apple's iTunes Store maintains its position as the world's largest digital media catalog with over six million songs, 550 television shows and over 500 movies and has sold over three billion songs, 100 million TV shows and over two million movies.

Reports that Apple would expand its iTunes Plus service while simultaneously dropping the price of the higher-quality songs were first published by ArsTechnica earlier this week.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ascii]

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

[kim kap sol]

Originally Posted by ascii

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

YES...and Steve Jobs should have hired YOU to go into those conference rooms to negotiate such a deal with the record labels.

[BenRoethig]

Thank God for competition.

[Thataboy]

Originally Posted by ascii

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

No, it should not have been MP3. AAC is covered by iPods and Zunes and I think current Sonys. That is almost the entire market. If crappy Creatives and iRivers are so concerned, then they can support AAC as well (if they don't already). Why should they have gone with an archaic format? To play files on $10 Chinese ripoff players? Like people who buy MP3/WMA players would buy on iTunes in the first place!

[gloss]

Originally Posted by Thataboy

No, it should not have been MP3. AAC is covered by iPods and Zunes and I think current Sonys. That is almost the entire market. If crappy Creatives and iRivers are so concerned, then they can support AAC as well (if they don't already). Why should they have gone with an archaic format? To play files on $10 Chinese ripoff players? Like people who buy MP3/WMA players would buy on iTunes in the first place!

The newest Zen supports AAC as well.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Thataboy

No, it should not have been MP3. AAC is covered by iPods and Zunes and I think current Sonys. That is almost the entire market. If crappy Creatives and iRivers are so concerned, then they can support AAC as well (if they don't already). Why should they have gone with an archaic format? To play files on $10 Chinese ripoff players? Like people who buy MP3/WMA players would buy on iTunes in the first place!

Besides MP3 having lower quality per bitrate it also has higher licensing fees than AAC. Apple was right to support this open standard.

The Zune supported AAC from day one and I suspect that now that Apple is that largest online retailer of DRM-free audio that firmware updates for all the other players will finally support AAC.

[icedtea1996]

so 100 dollars store credit for people who bought the files for 1,29?

[Ireland]

Looks like they can't simply flick a switch, Harrison is still 1.29

[plus]

Originally Posted by ascii

And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

How long is it going to take everyone to get it—MP3 is obsolescent, and very nearly obsolete! AAC is roughly a decade newer, and has replaced MP3. Heck, even my Sony-Ericsson "walkman" mobile phone (W810i) supports AAC!

[icedtea1996]

Originally Posted by plus

How long is it going to take everyone to get it—MP3 is obsolescent, and very nearly obsolete! AAC is roughly a decade newer, and has replaced MP3. Heck, even my Sony-Ericsson "walkman" mobile phone (W810i) supports AAC!

if people dont "get it" then obviously mp3 is not obsolescent. the same way that hd-dvd doesnt hit as big as dvd did - the image/music sounds more than adequate the way it is now (unlike VHS or audio tape were) and space wise everyone seems to cope too, if thats one of the advantages of aac (the only step forward i can think of in terms of music-files).

so no need to tell people whats obsolete and what not - because when it works, people make it obsolete, not the manufacturers trying to sell new old bs.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by plus

How long is it going to take everyone to get it—MP3 is obsolescent, and very nearly obsolete! AAC is roughly a decade newer, and has replaced MP3. Heck, even my Sony-Ericsson "walkman" mobile phone (W810i) supports AAC!

Having support for does not make a codec obsolete. Only when it's no longer in wide use will be obsolete. MP3 is very slowly obsolescing despite the iTunes Store efforts. This is mainly due to hardware support and user knowledge on audio codecs (see ascii's comment, above, as example) as most legal music is still purchased on CD and illegal music is mostly downloaded as MP3.

Factory car stereos may support MP3 but usually not AAC, after-market car stereos usually support MP3 and it's a crapshoot between WMA or AAC support or neither.

[anantksundaram]

Friends, whether you are Apple consumers or shareholders -- I hope each of you is both -- these are the best of times.

Stop bitching.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by Ireland

Looks like they can't simple flick a switch, Harrison is still 1.29

99p now I got my mind set on, buying some of those

- update: just tried to down load "I got my mind set on you" and it says something to the effect of "this song is being modified please try again later" so it seems its really not as simple as throwing a switch. wonder will they email me a reminder?

[ascii]

Originally Posted by Thataboy

Why should they have gone with an archaic format? To play files on $10 Chinese ripoff players?

No. Because it was something new, a paid download store.

And when you're making something new, part of the battle is explaining it to people. And since most people already knew what MP3 was, they should have leveraged that, instead of futher complicating things by changing the format on people. And then to add insult to injury they add DRM which is a whole other layer of conceptual complexity. It's a wonder it took off at all.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ascii

No. Because it was something new, a paid download store.

And when you're making something new, part of the battle is explaining it to people. And since most people already knew what MP3 was, they should have leveraged that, instead of futher complicating things by changing the format on people. And then to add insult to injury they add DRM which is a whole other layer of conceptual complexity. It's a wonder it took off at all.

Great argument! You just stated that change brings complications and so we stay away from it. Apple is a witch, we should burn it to the ground!

Or, since the codec required DRM by the RIAA, had less licensing fees than MP3, is better quality than MP3 and--most importantly--was invisible to the user when paired with an iPod that there were many reasons to go to AAC.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by ascii

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

So.. are you saying YOU are no-one?

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ascii

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

Whatever it is you are on, come off it.

AAC is part of the MPEG-4 standard. Does that really make it some alien format that no one had ever heard of? Also, AAC is more open and less proprietary than MP3.

I think players should definitely play MP3 for the existing files, but I really don't see why MP3 format should be used for new files, except by owners of older players.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by ascii

And when you're making something new, part of the battle is explaining it to people. And since most people already knew what MP3 was, they should have leveraged that, instead of further complicating things by changing the format on people.

Yes, they should have leveraged that. Now they are stuck with music players which hardly sell, and an online store that is loosing out to all competitors.

[jamiec]

Originally Posted by ascii

And when you're making something new, part of the battle is explaining it to people. And since most people already knew what MP3 was, they should have leveraged that, instead of futher complicating things by changing the format on people. And then to add insult to injury they add DRM which is a whole other layer of conceptual complexity. It's a wonder it took off at all.

This is kind of like Monday-morning quarterbacking -- except that in this case, you're second-guessing the quarterback that totally clobbered the other team.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

AAC is part of the MPEG-4 standard. Is it really some alien format that no one had ever heard of? Also, AAC is more open and less proprietary than MP3.

It doesn't matter what the "official" standards are, when you're rolling ou something new you want to be as simple as possible, and that means using the defacto standard

Later, once people are used to it, and understand and have experience with music downloads as such, then introduce things such as superior codecs and other options.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Whatever it is you are on, come off it.

AAC is part of the MPEG-4 standard. Does that really make it some alien format that no one had ever heard of? Also, AAC is more open and less proprietary than MP3.

His name is ascii, after all. If he ever gets it he should change his name to Unicode or UTF-8.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by noirdesir

Yes, they should have leveraged that. Now they are stuck with music players which hardly sell, and an online store that is loosing out to all competitors.

Amazon uses MP3 and they are the ones scared Apple enough to lower their prices.

[ShavenYak]

And when you're making something new, part of the battle is explaining it to people. And since most people already knew what MP3 was, they should have leveraged that, instead of futher complicating things by changing the format on people. And then to add insult to injury they add DRM which is a whole other layer of conceptual complexity. It's a wonder it took off at all.

Yeah, the iTMS is just sooo complex because they used AAC. If only Apple had used MP3, they could have been the biggest online music retailer in the world. Oh, wait.. they are anyway.

And, of course, it wasn't Apple that insisted on DRM. Precious little good the music store would be with no one willing to put their music in it for sale.

Interestingly, some of the record labels mentioned in the article (Beggars and The Orchard come to mind right offhand) have been available on eMusic for quite some time, in MP3 format, for as low as $0.25/track IIRC. Seeing that iTunes is a household name and eMusic is relatively unknown, I'd say Apple made the right decision to get the studios on board and use DRM.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

So.. are you saying YOU are no-one?

So.. are you saying you don't know what a figure of speech is?

[Nicnac]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Great argument! You just stated that change brings complications and so we stay away from it. Apple is a witch, we should burn it to the ground!

Or, since the codec required DRM by the RIAA, had less licensing fees than MP3, is better quality than MP3 and--most importantly--was invisible to the user when paired with an iPod that there were many reasons to go to AAC.

And yet some people are still buying VHS tapes of the latest movies. While AAC might be newer and better, mp3 is known to the average (read: dumb) consumer. Try to tell that person about AAC and they will likely go all glassy eyed just as if you're talking about HDCP or DRM.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Great argument! You just stated that change brings complications and so we stay away from it. Apple is a witch, we should burn it to the ground!

I'm just saying you ease people in to things. Who knows how much bigger they could have been by now if they had started out non-DRM MP3. CDs might be obsolete by now.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by solipsism

His name is ascii, after all. If he ever gets it he should change his name to Unicode or UTF-8.

And if you were trying to explain character encoding to someone would you teach them ascii first and then utf-8, or would you just jump right in to the variable number of bytes per character that is utf-8?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ascii

Who knows how much bigger they could have been by now if they had started out non-DRM MP3.

How about it not existing at all. Apple had to fight with the major labels (read: RIAA) for years over subscription verse purchasing before they even allowed Apple to sell their music. Without DRM there would be no major labels and therefore no real interest in the iTunes Store.

[monkeyastronaut]

Originally Posted by ascii

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

i agree. mp3 is the "lowest common denominator" and normal people (read: not us, appleinsider geeks, gizmodo readers, etc) understand it.

for normal people ipod = mp3 player. amazon was wise enough to notice that people "just get" mp3s and appropriately called their store "amazon mp3" (but even them, i think they offer other formats).... my point is, unprotected mp3s should ALWAYS be a choice on the menu because the format is popular, regardless of other technical considerations.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ascii

It doesn't matter what the "official" standards are, when you're rolling ou something new you want to be as simple as possible, and that means using the defacto standard

Later, once people are used to it, and understand and have experience with music downloads as such, then introduce things such as superior codecs and other options.

It really doesn't matter. iPods played MP3 all along, from the very beginning. There was no store in the beginning, it was just iPod. Legal sales of DRM-free tracks from the major labels simply wasn't going to happen five years ago. It doesn't matter what the market demand was, the labels just weren't going to provide it, there is no legal way for Apple to force them to say otherwise. As long as they were required to do DRM, then they can use the best codec available to go with it. Only five years later are they willing to try to sell without DRM, but this is, as far as I can tell, only two of the four major labels and many indies that offer DRM-free download tracks, so there's still some work to be done.

I think it's possible or even likely that how Apple did it was the way to get the labels to open up in the first place. Either way, we're gradually getting what we want. I doubt the labels would have done this without significant economic pressure from Apple's system.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by ascii

No. Because it was something new, a paid download store.

And when you're making something new, part of the battle is explaining it to people. And since most people already knew what MP3 was, they should have leveraged that, instead of futher complicating things by changing the format on people. And then to add insult to injury they add DRM which is a whole other layer of conceptual complexity. It's a wonder it took off at all.

So, you're saying that because Apple used a little known format, and had to explain why they thought it was better, rather than going for the much more widely used MPG format, they were never able to make a success of it?

I suppose you have a point. If they had used MPG, the itunes store, as well as the players might have bcome more popular.

[bdkennedy1]

Everything is how it should be from the beginning. It's just about money. Not about what's right. If we were talking about what's right, then we would be offered several different bitrates to download including lossless.

Originally Posted by ascii

DRM free is how it should have been from the beginning. And it should have been MP3 not some alien format no one had ever heard of.

[iPhelim]

throughout all of this no one has mentioned any iTunes stores except the US one. i cant understand what is happening on the UK store, since this morning the iTunes Plus section has been closed (giving 'could not complete' errors) and when you try to buy an iTunes Plus song it says the item is being updated....thats a whole day (and possibly more) of lost iTunes Plus sales in at least one country which is a real pain to me right now as i need to download a Plus album, it seems it really isnt as simple as flicking a switch.

What is interesting is UK price updates, it would be sooooo cruel for Apple to make the US Plus store cheaper and not change any others, well.......since this morning some iTunes Plus tracks have been displaying a price of 79p, the same as non-iTunes Plus tracks, BUT i would say the slight majority of tracks still bear the 99p price tag, is it really going to be left like that!?!? meaning you would pay the same in cents as you would in pence for an iTunes Plus track? and i hope they dont try and pull the 'its harder to sell stuff in the UK and it costs more and anything outside the US is hard to do" when the biggest iTunes Plus label, EMI, is based in London, dont get me wrong i love iTunes and Apple but they trump up the international bilge stuff all the time

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

i my point is, unprotected mp3s should ALWAYS be a choice on the menu because the format is popular, regardless of other technical considerations.

Have Apple ever sold the consumer what they think they want?

/Adrian

[mbaynham]

thats it, im suing apple, i want my 20p back!

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

YES...and Steve Jobs should have hired YOU to go into those conference rooms to negotiate such a deal with the record labels.

Über-pwnd!

[Ireland]

Thanks Amazon.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by Ireland

Thanks Amazon.

Yes, thanks Amazon. I'd like to see Apple lower their DRM'd music to 89 cents too.

[Galley]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Factory car stereos may support MP3 but usually not AAC, after-market car stereos usually support MP3 and it's a crapshoot between WMA or AAC support or neither.

Nearly every major car stereo manufacturer offers models that will playback .m4a files recorded onto CD in a data format. This includes Pioneer, Sony, Alpine, Kenwood, Clarion, Panasonic, and JVC.