No, you still need an iPod to play AAC files, and you can still only sync iPods with iTunes. This announcement mean dick all to people who want to use a different player or different software.
Quitr a few players have AAC, look it up before making a statement like that.
Most people don't look for tracks on torrents, they just buy what they want. how this will affect them is hard to tell. If they are happy with the 128 quality, and they don't move songs around, they might not understand the difference, other than to see that it costs more.
15M folks actively do and downloaded 5 Billion files in 2006 vs 13M households that use paid digital music download services.
"Paid usage is gaining on P2P; however P2P users tend to download many more files per user, than do those consumers who pay for music downloads,? Crupnick noted."
I would say that Limewire moves more music than iTunes...
Quote:
I've never bought a song from any digital service, and I downloaded a few from torrents and newsgroups to see how the quality was, and it was BAD.
From my own encoding, I find that 256 is playable fairly well on my system, so I might buy some here.
You aren't in the target demographic. The folks that engage in P2P are likely clustered in the younger demographic.
Ancedotal evidence is questionable but if folks find it compelling, when we bought a niece an iPod I offered to buy her some starter iTunes downloads and she replied "oh, don't bother, I have Limewire"...
I think there is small risk for EMI but also smaller payoff than some think. I think there will be a bump as the anti-DRM crowd buys in but in 10 years looking back the historical data will follow the same trend lines (i.e. this isn't a hockey stick event). IMHO of course.
Ancedotal evidence is questionable but if folks find it compelling, when we bought a niece an iPod I offered to buy her some starter iTunes downloads and she replied "oh, don't bother, I have Limewire"...
No. Anyone can use AAC. It's a rare player that doesn't already have it. This puts the onus on those companies who haven't put AAC into their players..
My big beef is with car audio systems: why can't any of those (as far as I know) play AAC burnt to CD-Rs (as they do MP3s)? It is convenient to have a couple of CD-Rs with hundreds of songs in them lying around in my car, rather than carry my iPod with me at all times.....
Usually such offerings are offered immediately, unless there are other circumstances that need to be address (eg: FCC approval of iPhone). I think the reason that Jobs gave a release date of May is to allow the other companies on iTunes to weigh the possibility of what EMI is doing and to follow suit with the same offerings. Thereby, allowing ALL iTunes audio to be offered as 128k Protected AAC and 256k AAC at the same time.
Don't forget also the multitude of indies that asked for this sort of arrangement for years. I understand that Jobs wanted to have one of the heavyweights first to commit to non-DRMed music, but now that it's done, nothing stops the indies to jump right in. That would allow Apple to claim more than only the EMI tracks as being DRM-free, even if the other big 4 don't follow.
Kidding. Yes, I did but after Christmas morning. Would have felt too scroogish to give a stern lecture on the immorality of digital piracy when all the kids are opening presents.
As it was, it was more of a wishy-washy comment to the parent over a stern lecture because she's not MY kid. I prefer not to have other parents lecture my kids so I return that favor by not lecturing theirs.
If iTunes gift cards were easily available then I'd have gotten her one anyway. I think I got her a DRM protected DVD for her birthday instead. The horror.
"Paid usage is gaining on P2P; however P2P users tend to download many more files per user, than do those consumers who pay for music downloads,” Crupnick noted."
I would say that Limewire moves more music than iTunes...
That's not what I was saying. I said that most people don't look for songs on torrents, not that most songs aren't downloaded from torrents.
Apple has 100 million individual customers for iTunes, as Jobs stated publicaly.
Please get what I say straight for once before disagreeing with it.
Quote:
You aren't in the target demographic. The folks that engage in P2P are likely clustered in the younger demographic.
Ancedotal evidence is questionable but if folks find it compelling, when we bought a niece an iPod I offered to buy her some starter iTunes downloads and she replied "oh, don't bother, I have Limewire"...
I think there is small risk for EMI but also smaller payoff than some think. I think there will be a bump as the anti-DRM crowd buys in but in 10 years looking back the historical data will follow the same trend lines (i.e. this isn't a hockey stick event). IMHO of course.
Vinea
It doesn't matter that I'm not in the primary demographic. I didn't say I was. But, I've commented about my interest in this matter, as have you, since the questions first started, years ago. I do know that friends of mine, as well as myself, who can afford to buy whatever they want, won't buy from digital services because of the quality. As we buy a hundred CD's a year, or more, apiece, that demographic is of value. Kids may be the largest buying group, or the largest group using torrents, but we are the group who can buy the most as individuals.
If I switch to buying 50 albums a year to iTunes, which is now possible, even though the quality is still not up to CD quality, that would be much more than most people buy during that period.
My wife now buys about 100 songs a year, and my daughter buys almost 200 from iTunes over the course of a year.
My big beef is with car audio systems: why can't any of those (as far as I know) play AAC burnt to CD-Rs (as they do MP3s)? It is convenient to have a couple of CD-Rs with hundreds of songs in them lying around in my car, rather than carry my iPod with me at all times.....
If this takes off, and remember that Jobs said today that half of the songs they sell by the end of the year will be DRM free AAC, perhaps they will.
It depends on the need they think they see. It's not the auto manufacturers, but the player manufacturers. They figure that if you'll go to the trouble to encode to disk, you may as well go to MP3, as everyone offers that, and so they don't have to pay for the AAC license as well.
Don't forget also the multitude of indies that asked for this sort of arrangement for years. I understand that Jobs wanted to have one of the heavyweights first to commit to non-DRMed music, but now that it's done, nothing stops the indies to jump right in. That would allow Apple to claim more than only the EMI tracks as being DRM-free, even if the other big 4 don't follow.
I think they are intending that. Otherwise, without any known commitment from the other big 4, why would Jobs have said that half of the tracks they sell by the end of the year would be DRM free?
A large portion of that is likely to be the indies.
First time poster but long time reader and Apple shareholder.
The press release and commentary pushes "DRM free" but if other players that don't support AAC can't play the tunes doesn't DRM still exist? In other words, isn't AAC just Apple's own DRM?
Or is Apple opening up AAC so that these "DRM free" tunes can be played on any player that supports MP3?
A fair number of players support AAC. It's pretty easy to license from Dolby labs, and a firmware upgrade is all that would be required.
I myself will be pressing a button to upgrade my EMI tracks at .30 per.
I expect this is a huge winner for Apple and EMI.
I am looking forward to the Beatles launch!
The month's lag is undoubtedly for the reencoding.
It sucks though they now offer it for 1.29. Seems Steve Jobs couldn't keep it at 0.99 because that is what he wanted all along! It would be really great if the DRM free songs didn't complement the "normal" tunes, but *replaced* them.
It is slightly risky for both Apple and EMI, so they do have to be compensated somewhat more. Without DRM they are selling regular .m4a ACC files instead of the regular .m4p protected ACC files. That means they can play on devices that support ACC such as the Zune.
Bit touchy, are we? I was merely stating my dislike for people who always find some excuse to complain no matter what they're offered. So, cool off dude, will ya?
Bit touchy, are we? I was merely stating my dislike for people who always find some excuse to complain no matter what they're offered. So, cool off dude, will ya?
Why don't you wait until someone actually makes that complaint before you go off on a rant?
Bit touchy, are we? I was merely stating my dislike for people who always find some excuse to complain no matter what they're offered. So, cool off dude, will ya?
I'm glad we're seeing some movement on this so soon. I thought it might take a while for the big companies to open their eyes.
I think the price increase will cement the decision in the minds of the people who prefer DRM systems. If people are willing to pay more for tracks without DRM and the numbers are significantly more, then I think this could certainly pave the way for the end of DRM and good riddance it will be.
I have a movie that was bought legally on itunes and it was bought with a relative's account. It was put on my machine and I tranferred it to my new one. Now it doesn't play, so every computer I get, I have to tell my relative to change their account settings. It's a stupid system because after that experience, I have no desire to buy anything more from itunes whether it's music or video and I actively discourage people from buying itunes media because of the DRM and I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
I don't think this will negatively affect itunes sales because it's already gained a good deal of popularity and few online stores come close to offering the same song selection.
Also, I'm not sure why people keep going on about the Beatles. They weren't all that good IMO.
Why don't you wait until someone actually makes that complaint before you go off on a rant?
you what now? doemel made his comment in direct response to one by dacloo. He even quoted dacloo's comment. So I don't really get where you are coming from.
Writing posts that tell people to shut up, and offer nothing else, are not welcome. Please don't do it.
That's not what I was saying. I said that most people don't look for songs on torrents, not that most songs aren't downloaded from torrents.
Apple has 100 million individual customers for iTunes, as Jobs stated publicaly.
Please get what I say straight for once before disagreeing with it.
The NPD data cited only covers the US for 2006 and appears to be on a household rather than individual basis.
Regardless of which way you wish to parse your comment, the NPD data still seems to indicate that there are both more households (15M vs 13M) using P2P networks and more songs downloaded on P2P networks than paid networks (5B files vs 500M files).
Perhaps you would be better off questioning the way NPD conducts these surveys as opposed to their relevance to the discussion.
Unless you are implying that your "most people" comment encompasses the entire music market vs just the digital music market. Which would beg the issue of the relevance of that observation on whether EMI's risk is very large (given CDs are higher quality and mostly DRM free) and what sentences 2 and 3 of the quoted paragraph mean in that context...(you know the parts about 128 quality and price increase).
Perhaps you could also be a tad less defensive in our discussions eh?
Quote:
It doesn't matter that I'm not in the primary demographic. I didn't say I was. But, I've commented about my interest in this matter, as have you, since the questions first started, years ago.
I don't believe I've commented on AAC/iTunes quality given I don't personally own an iPod. It seems good enough for mobile use but that's neither here nor there.
Please refrain from saying what I have or have not stated in the past unless you have a quote. This is the second time you've done so and the second time I believe is inaccurate.
Quote:
I do know that friends of mine, as well as myself, who can afford to buy whatever they want, won't buy from digital services because of the quality. As we buy a hundred CD's a year, or more, apiece, that demographic is of value. Kids may be the largest buying group, or the largest group using torrents, but we are the group who can buy the most as individuals.
The suggestion that audiophiles are a major demographic of interest is well... Is a demographic of some value? Yes. But not as much as a mainstream one.
So I don't believe it's a stretch to say that that kids both outnumber audiophiles in number and economic value by orders of magnitude. Within the context of what "most people" do with respect to music searches/purchases, one demographic matters to such a discussion.
you what now? doemel made his comment in direct response to one by dacloo. He even quoted dacloo's comment. So I don't really get where you are coming from.
Writing posts that tell people to shut up, and offer nothing else, are not welcome. Please don't do it.
Really?
In what universe is the comment "It would be really great if the DRM free songs didn't complement the "normal" tunes, but *replaced* them..." considered to be "bit*h bit*h nag nag"?
Comments
No, you still need an iPod to play AAC files, and you can still only sync iPods with iTunes. This announcement mean dick all to people who want to use a different player or different software.
Quitr a few players have AAC, look it up before making a statement like that.
Most people don't look for tracks on torrents, they just buy what they want. how this will affect them is hard to tell. If they are happy with the 128 quality, and they don't move songs around, they might not understand the difference, other than to see that it costs more.
15M folks actively do and downloaded 5 Billion files in 2006 vs 13M households that use paid digital music download services.
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_0703141.html
"Paid usage is gaining on P2P; however P2P users tend to download many more files per user, than do those consumers who pay for music downloads,? Crupnick noted."
I would say that Limewire moves more music than iTunes...
I've never bought a song from any digital service, and I downloaded a few from torrents and newsgroups to see how the quality was, and it was BAD.
From my own encoding, I find that 256 is playable fairly well on my system, so I might buy some here.
You aren't in the target demographic. The folks that engage in P2P are likely clustered in the younger demographic.
Ancedotal evidence is questionable but if folks find it compelling, when we bought a niece an iPod I offered to buy her some starter iTunes downloads and she replied "oh, don't bother, I have Limewire"...
I think there is small risk for EMI but also smaller payoff than some think. I think there will be a bump as the anti-DRM crowd buys in but in 10 years looking back the historical data will follow the same trend lines (i.e. this isn't a hockey stick event). IMHO of course.
Vinea
Ancedotal evidence is questionable but if folks find it compelling, when we bought a niece an iPod I offered to buy her some starter iTunes downloads and she replied "oh, don't bother, I have Limewire"...
And then you offered some moral guidance, right?
No. Anyone can use AAC. It's a rare player that doesn't already have it. This puts the onus on those companies who haven't put AAC into their players..
My big beef is with car audio systems: why can't any of those (as far as I know) play AAC burnt to CD-Rs (as they do MP3s)? It is convenient to have a couple of CD-Rs with hundreds of songs in them lying around in my car, rather than carry my iPod with me at all times.....
Hair Brained Theory Alert:
Usually such offerings are offered immediately, unless there are other circumstances that need to be address (eg: FCC approval of iPhone). I think the reason that Jobs gave a release date of May is to allow the other companies on iTunes to weigh the possibility of what EMI is doing and to follow suit with the same offerings. Thereby, allowing ALL iTunes audio to be offered as 128k Protected AAC and 256k AAC at the same time.
Don't forget also the multitude of indies that asked for this sort of arrangement for years. I understand that Jobs wanted to have one of the heavyweights first to commit to non-DRMed music, but now that it's done, nothing stops the indies to jump right in. That would allow Apple to claim more than only the EMI tracks as being DRM-free, even if the other big 4 don't follow.
And then you offered some moral guidance, right?
No comment.
Kidding. Yes, I did but after Christmas morning. Would have felt too scroogish to give a stern lecture on the immorality of digital piracy when all the kids are opening presents.
As it was, it was more of a wishy-washy comment to the parent over a stern lecture because she's not MY kid. I prefer not to have other parents lecture my kids so I return that favor by not lecturing theirs.
If iTunes gift cards were easily available then I'd have gotten her one anyway. I think I got her a DRM protected DVD for her birthday instead. The horror.
Vinea
15M folks actively do and downloaded 5 Billion files in 2006 vs 13M households that use paid digital music download services.
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_0703141.html
"Paid usage is gaining on P2P; however P2P users tend to download many more files per user, than do those consumers who pay for music downloads,” Crupnick noted."
I would say that Limewire moves more music than iTunes...
That's not what I was saying. I said that most people don't look for songs on torrents, not that most songs aren't downloaded from torrents.
Apple has 100 million individual customers for iTunes, as Jobs stated publicaly.
Please get what I say straight for once before disagreeing with it.
You aren't in the target demographic. The folks that engage in P2P are likely clustered in the younger demographic.
Ancedotal evidence is questionable but if folks find it compelling, when we bought a niece an iPod I offered to buy her some starter iTunes downloads and she replied "oh, don't bother, I have Limewire"...
I think there is small risk for EMI but also smaller payoff than some think. I think there will be a bump as the anti-DRM crowd buys in but in 10 years looking back the historical data will follow the same trend lines (i.e. this isn't a hockey stick event). IMHO of course.
Vinea
It doesn't matter that I'm not in the primary demographic. I didn't say I was. But, I've commented about my interest in this matter, as have you, since the questions first started, years ago. I do know that friends of mine, as well as myself, who can afford to buy whatever they want, won't buy from digital services because of the quality. As we buy a hundred CD's a year, or more, apiece, that demographic is of value. Kids may be the largest buying group, or the largest group using torrents, but we are the group who can buy the most as individuals.
If I switch to buying 50 albums a year to iTunes, which is now possible, even though the quality is still not up to CD quality, that would be much more than most people buy during that period.
My wife now buys about 100 songs a year, and my daughter buys almost 200 from iTunes over the course of a year.
So there is balance.
My big beef is with car audio systems: why can't any of those (as far as I know) play AAC burnt to CD-Rs (as they do MP3s)? It is convenient to have a couple of CD-Rs with hundreds of songs in them lying around in my car, rather than carry my iPod with me at all times.....
If this takes off, and remember that Jobs said today that half of the songs they sell by the end of the year will be DRM free AAC, perhaps they will.
It depends on the need they think they see. It's not the auto manufacturers, but the player manufacturers. They figure that if you'll go to the trouble to encode to disk, you may as well go to MP3, as everyone offers that, and so they don't have to pay for the AAC license as well.
But if everyone uses AAC, then that will change.
If iTunes gift cards were easily available then I'd have gotten her one anyway.
Are they not easily available in each country that has an iTunes store? Various different places sell them here in the UK.
Don't forget also the multitude of indies that asked for this sort of arrangement for years. I understand that Jobs wanted to have one of the heavyweights first to commit to non-DRMed music, but now that it's done, nothing stops the indies to jump right in. That would allow Apple to claim more than only the EMI tracks as being DRM-free, even if the other big 4 don't follow.
I think they are intending that. Otherwise, without any known commitment from the other big 4, why would Jobs have said that half of the tracks they sell by the end of the year would be DRM free?
A large portion of that is likely to be the indies.
First time poster but long time reader and Apple shareholder.
The press release and commentary pushes "DRM free" but if other players that don't support AAC can't play the tunes doesn't DRM still exist? In other words, isn't AAC just Apple's own DRM?
Or is Apple opening up AAC so that these "DRM free" tunes can be played on any player that supports MP3?
A fair number of players support AAC. It's pretty easy to license from Dolby labs, and a firmware upgrade is all that would be required.
I myself will be pressing a button to upgrade my EMI tracks at .30 per.
I expect this is a huge winner for Apple and EMI.
I am looking forward to the Beatles launch!
The month's lag is undoubtedly for the reencoding.
It sucks though they now offer it for 1.29. Seems Steve Jobs couldn't keep it at 0.99 because that is what he wanted all along! It would be really great if the DRM free songs didn't complement the "normal" tunes, but *replaced* them.
It is slightly risky for both Apple and EMI, so they do have to be compensated somewhat more. Without DRM they are selling regular .m4a ACC files instead of the regular .m4p protected ACC files. That means they can play on devices that support ACC such as the Zune.
Shut up.
Bit touchy, are we? I was merely stating my dislike for people who always find some excuse to complain no matter what they're offered. So, cool off dude, will ya?
Bit touchy, are we? I was merely stating my dislike for people who always find some excuse to complain no matter what they're offered. So, cool off dude, will ya?
Why don't you wait until someone actually makes that complaint before you go off on a rant?
Or do you like arguing with imaginary foes?
"I hate when people say XXXX"
"I see, but no one's said that..."
"Well, they will!"
Bit touchy, are we? I was merely stating my dislike for people who always find some excuse to complain no matter what they're offered. So, cool off dude, will ya?
Yea. PMS is a bitch isn't it
I think the price increase will cement the decision in the minds of the people who prefer DRM systems. If people are willing to pay more for tracks without DRM and the numbers are significantly more, then I think this could certainly pave the way for the end of DRM and good riddance it will be.
I have a movie that was bought legally on itunes and it was bought with a relative's account. It was put on my machine and I tranferred it to my new one. Now it doesn't play, so every computer I get, I have to tell my relative to change their account settings. It's a stupid system because after that experience, I have no desire to buy anything more from itunes whether it's music or video and I actively discourage people from buying itunes media because of the DRM and I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
I don't think this will negatively affect itunes sales because it's already gained a good deal of popularity and few online stores come close to offering the same song selection.
Also, I'm not sure why people keep going on about the Beatles. They weren't all that good IMO.
Why don't you wait until someone actually makes that complaint before you go off on a rant?
Writing posts that tell people to shut up, and offer nothing else, are not welcome. Please don't do it.
That's not what I was saying. I said that most people don't look for songs on torrents, not that most songs aren't downloaded from torrents.
Apple has 100 million individual customers for iTunes, as Jobs stated publicaly.
Please get what I say straight for once before disagreeing with it.
The NPD data cited only covers the US for 2006 and appears to be on a household rather than individual basis.
Regardless of which way you wish to parse your comment, the NPD data still seems to indicate that there are both more households (15M vs 13M) using P2P networks and more songs downloaded on P2P networks than paid networks (5B files vs 500M files).
Perhaps you would be better off questioning the way NPD conducts these surveys as opposed to their relevance to the discussion.
Unless you are implying that your "most people" comment encompasses the entire music market vs just the digital music market. Which would beg the issue of the relevance of that observation on whether EMI's risk is very large (given CDs are higher quality and mostly DRM free) and what sentences 2 and 3 of the quoted paragraph mean in that context...(you know the parts about 128 quality and price increase).
Perhaps you could also be a tad less defensive in our discussions eh?
It doesn't matter that I'm not in the primary demographic. I didn't say I was. But, I've commented about my interest in this matter, as have you, since the questions first started, years ago.
I don't believe I've commented on AAC/iTunes quality given I don't personally own an iPod. It seems good enough for mobile use but that's neither here nor there.
Please refrain from saying what I have or have not stated in the past unless you have a quote. This is the second time you've done so and the second time I believe is inaccurate.
I do know that friends of mine, as well as myself, who can afford to buy whatever they want, won't buy from digital services because of the quality. As we buy a hundred CD's a year, or more, apiece, that demographic is of value. Kids may be the largest buying group, or the largest group using torrents, but we are the group who can buy the most as individuals.
The suggestion that audiophiles are a major demographic of interest is well...
So I don't believe it's a stretch to say that that kids both outnumber audiophiles in number and economic value by orders of magnitude. Within the context of what "most people" do with respect to music searches/purchases, one demographic matters to such a discussion.
The other not so much.
Vinea
Writing posts that tell people to shut up, and offer nothing else, are not welcome. Please don't do it.
Really?
In what universe is the comment "It would be really great if the DRM free songs didn't complement the "normal" tunes, but *replaced* them..." considered to be "bit*h bit*h nag nag"?
Mind your own business.