or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Jobs talks new iTunes functions, DRM and video, iPod storage [transcript]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jobs talks new iTunes functions, DRM and video, iPod storage [transcript]

post #1 of 71
Thread Starter 
During a press conference on Monday, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs announced that iTunes will soon begin selling DRM-free music tracks from record label EMI and later fielded questions on the prospect of DRM-free videos, the effect of higher bit-rate tracks on future iPod capacities and more.

Jobs, who was joined by EMI Group chief executive Eric Nicoli, also revealed that new iTunes Store functionality will allow customers to set their iTunes download preference to DRM or DRM-free tracks only.

A full transcript of the Q&A session that followed the formal presentation has been transcribed by AppleInsider, below. Most answers were provided by Jobs if not indicated otherwise.

Q&A Transcript

Q: When are The Beatles tracks going on and will they be DRM-free?
A: Steve: "I wanna know that too."
Q: Nicoli: "So do I. I think... We're working on it and hope it's soon."

Q: You both talk about simplicity and ease of use for the customer, but doesn't having a split system make things more complicated. And, in the past, I've heard you, Steve, argue against exactly this kind of thing and against high prices.
A: Well I think what's going to happen is really simple: which is, people are going to have a choice. And people are going to make that choice and they're going to set iTunes one way or the other. So as an example for myself, I'd rather pay the extra 20 pence and get the higher-quality DRM-free music. And I'll just set iTunes to say, "whenever that's available, buy that." So I won't be presented with two choices, I'll just be presented with one.
Q:Why not just offer one choice?
A:Why not just offer one choice? Because we don't want to take away anything from people. They can still buy exactly what they've been buying for, in this case 79 pence here and 99 cents in the US. So what we're adding is a choice, a new choice, and people can choose whichever one they want. And I think, again, in our preliminary surveys, I think the majority of the people are going to choose the higher-quality DRM-free version, but we'll find out.

Q: You mentioned that 2.5 of 5 million [songs in your iTunes] catalog will be DRM-free by the end of the year. That's presumably not just EMI Records by the end of the year.
A: That's correct. That's our estimate. That's EMI content plus other content from other labels.
Q: And the second part of my question is: What do you think this will have an impact on the iPod-iTunes relationship in terms of now being able to buy your music on any player and not just on iPod?
A: Well again, you've been able to play all sorts of music on iPod forever. iPods have played MP3s forever. So the only music that has been in question is music you buy off the iTunes store. Now again, you can burn a CD and read that CD back in and it takes off the DRM. So you could then play it on anything else. We compete based on having what we we think is the best music store and based on what we think is having the best music players. And if customers agree with us, we are going to do well. If they don't, well we're going to get a message back that we have to work harder.

Q: How important is this initiative and what it says about Apple's view on DRM to the outstanding disputes with the Nordic consumer groups?
A: Well, you know our point of view has been that we're not offering customers anything here today that they can't get on every CD that's shipped. Right? They get DRM-free music on every CD that is shipped today. So, we're not offering anything online that they can't get on a CD today.

Q: Eric, going forward, if you're going to be rolling this out to mobile services, will this be in developing markets -- the Far East and eastern Europe -- are they going to have DRM-free music?
A: It will mean that DRM-free tracks are available to all retailers. Yeah, all digital retailers around the world.

Q: Eric, the music industry has talked about DRM being the vital block against unlimited file sharing. What do you think the impact of this is now going to be? Are you now giving people the green light to share unprotected MP3 files as they like?
A: Well, we've always argued that the best way to combat illegal traffic is to make legal content available at decent value and conveniently. And we take the view that we have to trust consumers. The fact that some will continue to disappoint us and continue to steal the music is inevitable. So this doesn't in any way diminish out commitment to fighting piracy in all its forms, and we will continue to do that. At the same time, we think that the key is to give consumers a compelling experience -- the best possible digital music experience. To trust them. To educate them, because many are not quite sure what's legal and what's not legal. And, I think that way we will grow sales rather than diminish them.

Q: Eric, I think you set a target, Is it for one fifth of your revenues to be digital in four years' time and does this mean you're going to expand that target now?
A: Clearly we hope this will grow our sales. We are are confident it will. We are on track, in any event, for a quarter of our sales to be in digital form by 2010. It's clearly, since we haven't sold a single track in this new arrangement yet, it's hard to predict with a useful degree of accuracy but certainly we think it will make digital music more accessible and thereby promote sales, which is the main point in doing it.

Q: Steve, have you begun have talks with any of the other majors about doing this, and if not are you confident that they'll follow EMI's steps and drop DRM?
A: Well, I can't speak for others but what I can say is that EMI is pioneering something that I think is going to become very popular. I think they deserve a lot of credit for that. No. 2, again, I have to say that what we're announcing here today is providing the consumer nothing more than they get off every other CD they buy. Because no CDs ship with DRM. Sony tried that but it didn't work out so well. I didn't work. So this is not something radically new in the sense that 90 percent of the music that ships by the music industry today ships without a DRM.

Q: That sounds like a bit of a plea to the majors, maybe some majors that are standing in the way of doing a deal like this ... which you suggest only half of your tracks will be in this form by the end of the year... Are some majors being more difficult with this issue than others and, if so, can you tell us who?
A: You know, I'd rather not go into that. But there are always leaders and there are always follows and different people choose where they want to be. I think customers are going to love this though. This is an opportunity for everybody to win. The customers win cause they get what they want. They get higher audio quality and they get the safety net of knowing they can take this track -- without having to burn it to a CD and read it back in -- they can have it be interoperable. So customers get what they want and the music companies make a little bit more for offering more value. And so everybody wins here.

Q: I take it then that you are going to advocate taking the DRM off of the videos you sell on iTunes. Any particular [inaudible] you could do that with the Disney company?
A: You know, video, uh... I knew I'd get that question today. Video is pretty different than music right now because the video industry does not distribute 90 percent of their content DRM free; never has, and so I think they are in a pretty different situation and so I wouldn't hold the two in parallel at all.

Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?
A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter. It was driven by the fact that we have the consumer at the center of our strategy. We're interested in providing consumers with the best possible experience. It's clear from our research and from all the feedback we've been getting as digital music has been growing, that many consumers find it frustrating that they don't have interoperability. It's also clear that some care about sound quality. So by combining these two in the new premium downloads, we think it's a very positive step. Yes, we expect sales to grow as a result of this. We remain optimistic that in due course digital growth will outstrip physical decline. It hasn't happened yet but clearly we think this is a big step in helping to promote digital sales. Don't ask me to predict exactly when it will happen because I can't. It's important to say that digital is still very much in its infancy. Despite the sensational job that iTunes has done over the last four years, this is an industry in its infancy. The opportunity is massive.

Q: Steve, I was just wondering now that part of the link between iTunes and iPods are broken, do you expect a fall in iPod sales?
A: You know, again, I don't see any link that has really been broken because people have always been able to take music that they've gotten from elsewhere, such as ripping their CD collection, and put it on iTunes or any other music player. People have always been able to buy music on iTunes, burn it to a CD, burn it and rip it, and put it on any player they wanted to. So this magical link that some people have postulated has not really been there. And so I think our success, again, has been based and will be based on whether people think we have the best and easiest to use music store, and whether we have the best and easiest to use music players. And we've never felt any different than that. We're going to keep trying as hard as we can to work with Eric and his team and the other labels and independents to make the best music store. And they're constantly giving us suggestions on how to make it better, as are customers. And we're going to work to make the best music players we can and hopefully customers will agree that we do.

Q: And Eric, I was just wondering which other electronic digital retailers you are talking to apart from iTunes?
A: Well we hope that all digital retailers would embrace this. It's hard to see why they wouldn't. And that's our objective.

Q: We had a bet in the office today about today's announcement. The wildest one was that Apple would announce a buyout of EMI. [laughter from crowd] Is that anything you've considered?
A: Steve: Actually, we heard rumors that EMI was buying out Apple too and neither one is true.
A: Eric: And it depends which Apple you are talking about, of course. [more laughter]

Q: What's the point of DRM on 79 pence tracks? If it doesn't work, why not remove it completely?
A: Steve: For those customers that are very price sensitive, we don't want to raise prices on anybody. We really believe in continuing with what we started and if people want to continue to pay 79 pence for their tracks, and they're perfectly happy with the way they are, we don't want to tell them they have to pay more. We want to offer them more value for a little more money and give them the choice. But we don't want to say that we're taking away something that you've known and loved and feel comfortable buying. We want to entice them into buying something ... a little more. And they get to make the choice, not us.
A: Eric: It's clear from our research that not everybody wants interoperability or needs it. Not everybody cares about sound quality. But I hope, as I demonstrated, that many do. And that is where the opportunity is and we feel it justifies a premium.

Q: Two things. One, do you think this will really signal a more flexible attitude to pricing generally on iTunes? And secondly, is there a danger that consumers apart from feeling grateful will feel slightly cheated that they've been given these two things and asked to pay 20 pence more to upgrade some of their material they should already have?
A: Steve: Well I 'll answer the second part first. I think think when you give people choices, most people feel good about that. So this is a choice and they can make it either way they want. We believe the music lovers are in control of this in the end. And so we're giving them a choice and they can choose whichever way they want to go. And sure, this is a little bit more flexibility. There's two choices instead of one. Life is a balance between total freedom and simplicity. And we try to strike the local maximums, where we can give people what they tell us and what we think they want. And I think we've demonstrated that we've done a pretty good job of that. Customers have really loved iTunes and the last thing we want to do is screw that up for them.

Q: Eric, how is it going to work with other download stores? For example, you have stores [inaudible] that offer tracks as low as 29 pence and stores like eMusic that offer a subscription service. Are you going to insist that they just have to go with the 79/99 pence ala-carte model to have your stuff?
A: Remember that we don't set the retail price. We set the wholesale prices. We're making available downloads in standard form and in premium form. Retailers can take them or not take them. Consumers can buy them or not buy them. So we're offering complete flexibility.
Q: So stores such as eMusic that offers everything DRM-free for the moment can offer just the DRM-free 256K quality stuff and not have to offer the DRM-enabled stuff.
A: Our products and our prices are available to everybody.

Q: I've got two questions for Eric. Given that Warner is opposed to the idea of removing DRM, does this make a Warner/EMI merger even more unlikely? [Laughter] And secondly, is this the silver bullet that will turn EMI around?
A: The answer to the first question is very brief, which is that we never saw merit in stimulating or fueling speculation on the subject. You must ask Warner how they feel on this initiative, but I certainly don't want to discuss it in the context of merger prospects. Silver bullet -- I think it's a very important step. I think it's a major step, a commercial step. We will benefit from it. I don't think there are silver bullets in a business like ours. We have to do all the right things and we have to do them right and clearly. Digital growth is a very important part of our future strategy and we feel that this will help to generate growth.

Q: Eric, I just want to remember things your predecessor asked for tier pricing on iTunes two years ago. Steve, an 80GB iPod will hold 20,000 tunes at 128K, how many will it hold at 256K? I assume ....
A: Heh, it's proportional. [Laughter] But as you know, storage has been going up, prices have been coming down. It's a good time to do this.

Q: I'm wondering, the 20 percent increase in price -- How you can account for that because obviously compression... you're using the same machines to compress [inaudible] I take it... so the sample doesn't take that much more time to increase. So how do you account for a 20 percent increase in price?
A: Steve: Well, first of all, we're not increasing the price by 20 percent because you can still buy exactly the same product at the same price as yesterday. So what we're doing is adding another product that is priced higher and offers more features. And the features that it offers is higher sound quality and it offers hassle-free interoperability. And if you think those are worth it, you can pay the extra 20 pence and, if you don't, you don't have to pay the extra 20 pence. So it's not a price increase. It's a second product that you get to choose to buy or not.
post #2 of 71
I wish some politicians could handle reporters like Steve Jobs does.
post #3 of 71
Man... is it just me, or do some of those questions seem to beat a dead horse.... how many times does Steve repeat "PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A CHOICE WITH iTUNES!".... questions about iPod/iTunes "lock", questions about tier pricing.... Do these reporters listen to the answers given to other questions.. or are they just working on their next question?
post #4 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordy View Post

I wish some politicians could handle reporters like Steve Jobs does.


"Obama-Jobs'08"


post #5 of 71
I think the 256-Kb/sec. AAC will be hugely important for people who buy classical music
post #6 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Steve: Well, first of all, we're not increasing the price by 20 percent because you cans till buy exactly the same product at the same price as yesterday. So what we're doing is adding another product that is priced higher and offers more features. And the features that it offers is higher sound quality and it offers hassle-free interoperability. And if you think those are worth it, you can pay the extra 20 pence and, if you don't, you don't have to pay the extra 20 pence. So it's not a price increase. It's a second product that you get to choose to buy or not.

Well if one always wished for DRM free iTunes music and never planned on paying more than 99c per track for that, to them it may as well not exist and today's occurrences havn't changed a thing. As I said earlier Apple and EMI should offer DRM free 128Kbit songs for 99c and DRM free 256Kbit songs for $1.29c, cause that would actually make some real sense, that would please everybody and that would be what "the customer" actually wants. I can understand them wanting to charge more for songs at double the bit rate, but not more for them leaving out the DRM software.

- Brendan Sheehan Jnr.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #7 of 71
"Jobs - McCain (or any other Republican) '08"

-=|Mgkwho

:P I had to.
post #8 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulgreen View Post

I think the 256-Kb/sec. AAC will be hugely important for people who buy classical music

I love classical music, I don't buy that much, but I read you loud and clear.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #9 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Well if one always wished for DRM free iTunes music and never planned on paying more than 99c per track for that, for them it may as well not exist.

Perhaps one could say that freedom always costs more than bondage but that would be rather trite in the context of DRM on entertainment mediums...

For folks clamoring for DRM free music its time to put up.

Vinea
post #10 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Perhaps one could say that freedom always costs more than bondage but that would be rather trite in the context of DRM on entertainment mediums...

For folks clamoring for DRM free music its time to put up.

Vinea

Don't worry, I plan to! The higher encoding rate alone makes the price increase worthwhile. How long has it been since a major media distribution channel actually decreased the level of DRM at the same time as doubling the product's quality?
post #11 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulgreen View Post


"Obama-Jobs'08"



Don't you mean "Jobs-Obama '08"?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Perhaps one could say that freedom always costs more than bondage but that would be rather trite in the context of DRM on entertainment mediums...

For folks clamoring for DRM free music its time to put up.

Vinea

I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #13 of 71
Quote:
Q: I take it then that you are going to advocate taking the DRM off of the videos you sell on iTunes. Any particular [inaudible] you could do that with the Disney company?
A: You know, video, uh... I knew I'd get that question today. Video is pretty different than music right now because the video industry does not distribute 90 percent of their content DRM free; never has, and so I think they are in a pretty different situation and wouldn't hold the two in parallel at all.

One step at a time I guess.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,
post #14 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.

So...when given the opportunity to provide studios with the data that folks prefer no DRM with concrete evidence (ie sales) you'd rather send a petition to Apple about how they aren't going far enough?

Come on...you DON'T think that Apple is stacking the deck in favor of no DRM? They could simply have charged more money for no-DRM which the studios could then claim "there's no interest in the buying public to reduce DRM...only pirates want us to eliminate DRM" if there were weak sales.

In this case you get both higher quality and no DRM for 30c/song and zero (I believe) per album. Now if you're DRM agnostic but want "higher quality" you automagically count in the "See the market wants no DRM" column.

Studios wanted more album sales anyway so this is another nudge toward no DRM...the cost delta might result in simply more no-drm album sales vs individual track sales.

Vinea
post #15 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Don't you mean "Jobs-Obama '08"?

JoBama 08!
post #16 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

One step at a time I guess.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,

Better talk to your congressman. Or elect Steve for President.

In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it a crime to bypass copy protection.

http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/Secu...pyrightAct.pdf
post #17 of 71
Way to go Apple!! Everything I buy will be high-quality, DRM-free from now on and I'll be the first to upgrade all my songs too. It's going to sound great through my AppleTV!
post #18 of 71
Man I'm so happy to see this today.


IN YOUR FACE NORWAY! They just killed your argument dead. Of course Norway got kind of silent so methinks Apple put the DRM free content smackdown on them a couple of weeks ago.

I'll certainly buy my Jazz and Classical at 256kb AAC. I haven't tested myself but I'm sure the doubling of bitrate is going to help.

Anyone do any comparison themselves?


Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Man I'm so happy to see this today.


IN YOUR FACE NORWAY! They just killed your argument dead. Of course Norway got kind of silent so methinks Apple put the DRM free content smackdown on them a couple of weeks ago.

OMG!!!11one!
Let's see... Norway asked for interoperability. Apple indicated that their preferred business model wouldn't include DRM. Apple is starting down the road of offering DRM-free alternatives. How does that course of events justify such a LOUD REACTION?

Quote:
...Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.

Playsforsure has been dead for a while now. But your point would be well taken, if you'd found an effective pun on the Zune's DRM scheme.

But since Zune can play unencrypted AAC files, this has the interesting side-effect of opening up a new distribution channel for high-quality content to play on a Zune, too. Wait... Isn't that exactly the sort of effect the Norway consumer ombudsman had been advocating all along?
post #20 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

Man... is it just me, or do some of those questions seem to beat a dead horse.... how many times does Steve repeat "PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A CHOICE WITH iTUNES!".... questions about iPod/iTunes "lock", questions about tier pricing.... Do these reporters listen to the answers given to other questions.. or are they just working on their next question?

As long as they ask him those questions, he will give them those answers. They may ask the same question in different ways, but the answer remains the same.
post #21 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Well if one always wished for DRM free iTunes music and never planned on paying more than 99c per track for that, to them it may as well not exist and today's occurrences havn't changed a thing. As I said earlier Apple and EMI should offer DRM free 128Kbit songs for 99c and DRM free 256Kbit songs for $1.29c, cause that would actually make some real sense, that would please everybody and that would be what "the customer" actually wants. I can understand them wanting to charge more for songs at double the bit rate, but not more for them leaving out the DRM software.

- Brendan Sheehan Jnr.

Well, it makes sense to YOU.
post #22 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.

The reason is simple.

While it's isn't all that difficuly to burn a Cd with whatever encoding you may want, and then give it away to someone with a different player, or even to just play on their computer, that is still too much work for many people.

Now, it's easy to just give them the song as is, no work involved. So there is a greater chance of people doing that.
post #23 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

One step at a time I guess.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,

It matters because CD's have never had DRM. That means that all of this music is already available for pirating without having to use wonky programs to do it.

It also matters because without DRM, all of this music is available to anyone.

But with video, that is not the case. All DVD's are DRM'd. While it's possible to get around that, it does take some work, and a fair amount of time. That means the average person won't be doing it. Having the video without DRM therefore will make it just as easy to give away as music.

This also means that the content providers will, in their eyes, be taking a step backwards to the days of VHS, where the anti-copying provision never really worked, as long as you were willing to buy a $30 to $50 box to plug in between recorders.
post #24 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So...when given the opportunity to provide studios with the data that folks prefer no DRM with concrete evidence (ie sales) you'd rather send a petition to Apple about how they aren't going far enough?

Come on...you DON'T think that Apple is stacking the deck in favor of no DRM? They could simply have charged more money for no-DRM which the studios could then claim "there's no interest in the buying public to reduce DRM...only pirates want us to eliminate DRM" if there were weak sales.

In this case you get both higher quality and no DRM for 30c/song and zero (I believe) per album. Now if you're DRM agnostic but want "higher quality" you automagically count in the "See the market wants no DRM" column.

Studios wanted more album sales anyway so this is another nudge toward no DRM...the cost delta might result in simply more no-drm album sales vs individual track sales.

Vinea

Right.
post #25 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I repeat; I can understand them charging more for songs at a higher bit rate, but not for leaving out the DRM software. The biggest thing that bothers the most amount of people is not the quality, it's the DRM, but they for some reason have chosen to tie the two together. It should be a choice of quality, not a choice of DRM. DRM doesn't work, Steve Jobs has even said that himself. DRM shouldn't be a choice at all, it shouldn't exsist.


Just a guess, maybe Apple decided they would like ALL their music offering to eventually move to a higher bitrate (256 instead of 128). While at it (the encoding) they got the music companies to agree to drop the DRM. They figure more people would be interested in this higher quality music and the majority would choose it over the lower quality. Thus, why spend the time to re-encode all the 128 bitrate songs so they don't have DRM. Just a thought.
post #26 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by macintel4me View Post

I thought I heard YoMama at first.

Way to go Apple!! Everything I buy will be high-quality, DRM-free from now on and I'll be the first to upgrade all my songs too. It's going to sound great through my AppleTV!


I'm there ALSO! I've just added four 400GB SATA drives to my G4 tower to be my media server. I've been re-encoding all my music CDs (500+) at AAC 320 bitrate. I was just wishing I had higher quality purchased songs. Now I can upgrade! I've been eyeing HDTVs of late and once purchased I'll order my AppleTV.
post #27 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Better talk to your congressman. Or elect Steve for President.

In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it a crime to bypass copy protection.

http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/Secu...pyrightAct.pdf

Maybe not entirely. There was a court case relating to that recently. I forgot the name, so I can't look it up, and I failed to bookmark it, but I'm sure that others here will find it.

The judge ruled that the anti-copying clauses in the DVD license were so badly written, by a "committee of lawyers" as was said by the court, that it was thrown out.

Some in the Senate, and the House, are going to be holding hearings on this as well.

What's interesting here, it that this agreement between Apple and EMI can now come up before those committees to testify, lending credence that DRM is not, after all, such a requirement.

This could influence those lawmakers to allow workarounds, or possibly even more.
post #28 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.

Actually Microsoft is killing Playforsure with their own Zune product. It won't play music purchased from Playforsure stores. They realized Apple had the right idea.
What I'm happy about is that Apple just gave the AAC standard a real boost with this move. Now ALL the other player will have to support AAC wholesouled if they want to play the game. Thank goodness Windows Audio didn't become the "standard".
post #29 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Man I'm so happy to see this today.


IN YOUR FACE NORWAY! They just killed your argument dead. Of course Norway got kind of silent so methinks Apple put the DRM free content smackdown on them a couple of weeks ago.

I'll certainly buy my Jazz and Classical at 256kb AAC. I haven't tested myself but I'm sure the doubling of bitrate is going to help.

Anyone do any comparison themselves?


Smart movie Apple. You know you have the inertia to withstand this. This will only "help" iTunes purchases and not hurt them. Microsoft is wincing right now. Playsforsure? Playsfordead.

What I've found is that 128 works fine for the headphones sold with these players, and really cheap computer speakers with poor hi frequency response, though some songs with strong hi frequencies can have distortion up there.

Going to 256 seems to solve the distortion problem with those.

Om listening over my audio system, 128 is 50/50. 256 is more like 90/10. 320 is most like true CD quality under those conditions, though there are still occasional differences.

If their 256 encoding is good, I will finally start to buy certain music from them, which I haven't done so far.
post #30 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As long as they ask him those questions, he will give them those answers. They may ask the same question in different ways, but the answer remains the same.

Don't you just wish other people performed this way when interviewed, instead of trying to think 'on the fly' and out-finesse pseudo-savvy reporters. Just answer the damned question as directly as possible.
post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

One step at a time I guess.
But I have to ask, why should video be any different even if its had DRM in the past? Just because that wasn't how it was set up before doesn't mean things could and probably should change,

IMO it's simple...

1 - iTunes (as in music) has grown into 'a force' in music sales and given Steve's desire for non-drm content the labels are taking notice and acting.

2 - iTunes (as in MPAA movies) isn't even a pimple on the ass of even the smallest national dvd retailer (just a guess but I'm betting pretty acurate) and as such the idea of Steve pusing the studios to not only provide Apple/iTunes with their movies but at the same time strip all the DRM from them... It just wouldn't happen.

Lets revisit this (if/when) iTunes movies is one of the largest (or one of the larger) sellers of movie studio content.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #32 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

Man... is it just me, or do some of those questions seem to beat a dead horse.... how many times does Steve repeat "PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A CHOICE WITH iTUNES!"

What choice was that again? My way or the highway? Buy a low quality, protected track from us or buy the entire album from someone else to get that track?
post #33 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Playsforsure has been dead for a while now. But your point would be well taken, if you'd found an effective pun on the Zune's DRM scheme.

It doesn't get the numbers iTunes gets, that much is certain, but it's still in use. How much of that business was lost to Zune won't be known until some more quarterly reports come out.
post #34 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lantzn View Post

Thus, why spend the time to re-encode all the 128 bitrate songs so they don't have DRM. Just a thought.

IIRC, that's not how Fairplay works. The file is encrypted after it has been encoded into AAC. Apple already has the songs at 128kb. There was a good article on Roughly Drafted a couple of months ago on how it's done.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...610E66A46.html
post #35 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

OMG!!!11one!
But since Zune can play unencrypted AAC files, this has the interesting side-effect of opening up a new distribution channel for high-quality content to play on a Zune, too. Wait... Isn't that exactly the sort of effect the Norway consumer ombudsman had been advocating all along?

I don't think this will help Zune much. Apple still has a huge installed base of happy iPod users. And even if they can buy new titles without DRM, any users that have used iTS for any length of time have a string incentive to stick with Apple.

I disagree with Steve Jobs that the non-DRM route will become predominant, and I don't think he believes it either. With a two tier-system, Apple gets to have it both ways -- non-DRM is available for the people who cry about it all the time, but most iPod users (i.e., the majority of MP3 player users) will stick with Apple.

This deal is aimed at regulators who want to shut DRM out of Eurpoean markets and not at the tiny percentage of iPod users that care about DRM.
post #36 of 71
Today changes everything for me. Up until now I've refused to buy anything from the iTunes store because I considered the price too high for 128-bit DRM saddled tracks. Yes today marks a price increase, but we finally have the choice of a product that's roughly CD quality at roughly CD price. I hope the other labels join the party sooner rather than later.
post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Maybe not entirely.

Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.

Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.

Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.

* http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
post #38 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

I disagree with Steve Jobs that the non-DRM route will become predominant, and I don't think he believes it either. With a two tier-system, Apple gets to have it both ways -- non-DRM is available for the people who cry about it all the time, but most iPod users (i.e., the majority of MP3 player users) will stick with Apple.

If they get the other labels on board, you're going to be wrong. I don't remember the exact number, but I think a bit over half of the tracks apple sells is in the context of a whole album sale, and those are going to be 256 DRM free. As someone else has said earlier in the thread, they have stacked the deck for DRM free to succeed.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #39 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Yes today marks a price increase, but we finally have the choice of a product that's roughly CD quality at roughly CD price.

Even $1.29 a track is a '(much) better than CD price', considering that most albums only have one or two good tracks on them, thus, you'd be better off 'cherry picking' the good tracks rather than buying the entire album.

Yay, music industry. So many acts today cannot put out a single cohesive album worth buying in its entirety. \

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #40 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Unless Congress revises the law, i.e., The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998*, or the Supreme Court overturns it, movie producers like MGM, Disney, etc., have the unalienable right to apply a technology that prevents duplication of their DVDs.

Only the owner of the copyright has such authority. As such, Apple cannot unilaterally remove or provide a means to remove said protection.

Citing cases without reference is inmaterial. Currently, their are no applications to the Supreme Court to overturn the law and Congress is not moving en masse to revise or rescind it.

* http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

The court case that Melgross is referring to is, I believe, the one between Kaleidescape and the DVD Copy Control Association. I'm very, very happy to hear that Kaleidescape prevailed*! (although, I'm sure, there'll be an appeal )

The case had nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA. Kaleidescape do not remove DRM at any stage. The DVD Copy Control Association were alleging that Kaleidescape's system violated the terms of the licence for DVD's CSS (content scrambling system).

* because I respect Kaleidescape's engineering, and it opens the door for Apple to implement a much cheaper alternative via AppleTV.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Jobs talks new iTunes functions, DRM and video, iPod storage [transcript]