I wonder what the interface for this will be like ? Will you have 2 'buy song' buttons ? What if you want to mix and match some DRM and non-DRM purchases from the same album. What if you later do a 'complete my album' (new feature) - do you get DRM or non-DRM, or a choice ?
Not saying that they haven't thought of this, just curious how they solved it.
i think asking for DRM free file at $0.99 is just too much. remember, EMI is taking a HUGE risk by doing this. kudos to EMI for showing some guts to actually try this.
Remember, stripping DRM also has an impact on iTunes sales too. It probably isn't huge but Apple could lose a little bit of market here.
EMI is taking NO risk in doing this. Remember the whole premise of the move is that pretty well every track on earth is available FOC if you can be bothered to look for it; but a large and viable number of people choose not to. Its about the service not the product... same with the iTunes store... there is no downside for Apple here and its the smartest thing EMI have done in years.
I wonder what the interface for this will be like ? Will you have 2 'buy song' buttons ?
Good question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee4orce
What if you want to mix and match some DRM and non-DRM purchases from the same album. What if you later do a 'complete my album' (new feature) - do you get DRM or non-DRM, or a choice ?
Not saying that they haven't thought of this, just curious how they solved it.
I'd say you can buy any combination you want.
If you've spent $2.29 on 2 songs (one DRM, one non-DRM), then that value gets discounted off the album price. They said the albums will be non-DRM.
I suspect that the record companies want to encourage sales of albums. By selling DRM free singles at slightly higher cost, and keeping the albums the same cost, they make a nice win.
ps. I would have liked to see them do something interesting with videos (eg: if you put the original CD in your computer, you can purchase the music video for $1).
For a list of popular EMI bands, see this Wikipedia page.
Not to sound cynical, but I wonder which of the bands in that Wikipedia list might be excluded from going DRM-free because of licensing or what have you?
And to continue in my slightly cynical line of thought, how long now before see a headline that reads "Universal buys EMI, Shuts Down DRM Free Experiment?"
With that said, this might get me to actually start buying music from the iTunes Store (or at least EMI artists) coupled with the Complete My Album feature. Maybe if they could hurry up and get the DRM-free Depeche Mode tracks out there...
What I would like to see is VBR AAC files, though from what I remember the quality of the VBR is not the greatest, or at least didn't used to be. That or AAC+ with SBR, then I could also listen to the streams I want with iTunes rather than VLC.
This is good news, the only two small anoyances right now are; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with .99c a song thing that will still encompass DRM. Contrary to some beliefs in this thread I don't think this is a risky move, it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO. 2. The other little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" Etc. etc.
I think a better idea would have been to drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles.
drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate.
Maybe. But watching how sales are affected will be a real education for Apple and EMI. What proportion of people will pay extra for the non-DRM double rate? Will it affect album buying patterns?
i don't think this will affect ipod sales at all and if anything it willl increase itunes sales through peoples ability to sync them with other mp3 players.........
now will itunes support other MP3 players ???????? that would be intresting.
other BIG thing here is Steve's pre anounce ment whats he saving up his "oh by the way it's avalible now" for ??????
Because choice is bad? If no-DRM isn't a compelling choice for $0.30 more then the consumers will have spoken that to the masses non-invasive DRM (unlike Sony's rootkit) is just fine if costs are lower. That and 128 kbps is also fine for most folks.
I'd say the $0.30 is worth it...
Vinea
or maybe they'll just have spoken that they'd rather pay 99 cents per song because it's an easier number to think of then a dollar thirty, which sounds like a dollar fifty
I urge everyone here to copy and paste this in this link, or write some similar feedback there and send it to Apple. This is our chance to get heard people:
I urge everyone here to copy and paste this in this link, or write some similar feedback there and send it to Apple. This is our chance to get heard guys and gals:
On an iPod with iPod headphones i can't tell the difference, but with a real hi-def system I can tell the difference upto around 192kbps AAC (encoded with iTunes). But regardless of what percentage of the population can tell the difference using such-and-such equipment the real issue is perception.
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.
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?
I think a better idea would have been to drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate.
When EMI first announced they were looking into DRM free songs, they said they would charge more, so it wasn't Apple's decision. The higher bitrate makes people feel they are getting more for their money.
But I imagine this will show that most people don't care about DRM.
Comments
Not saying that they haven't thought of this, just curious how they solved it.
i think asking for DRM free file at $0.99 is just too much. remember, EMI is taking a HUGE risk by doing this. kudos to EMI for showing some guts to actually try this.
Remember, stripping DRM also has an impact on iTunes sales too. It probably isn't huge but Apple could lose a little bit of market here.
EMI is taking NO risk in doing this. Remember the whole premise of the move is that pretty well every track on earth is available FOC if you can be bothered to look for it; but a large and viable number of people choose not to. Its about the service not the product... same with the iTunes store... there is no downside for Apple here and its the smartest thing EMI have done in years.
now i think apple need to improve and tune their AAC encoder.
Why? What specifically is wrong with it?
I wonder what the interface for this will be like ? Will you have 2 'buy song' buttons ?
Good question.
What if you want to mix and match some DRM and non-DRM purchases from the same album. What if you later do a 'complete my album' (new feature) - do you get DRM or non-DRM, or a choice ?
Not saying that they haven't thought of this, just curious how they solved it.
I'd say you can buy any combination you want.
If you've spent $2.29 on 2 songs (one DRM, one non-DRM), then that value gets discounted off the album price. They said the albums will be non-DRM.
I suspect that the record companies want to encourage sales of albums. By selling DRM free singles at slightly higher cost, and keeping the albums the same cost, they make a nice win.
ps. I would have liked to see them do something interesting with videos (eg: if you put the original CD in your computer, you can purchase the music video for $1).
What if you later do a 'complete my album' (new feature) - do you get DRM or non-DRM, or a choice ?
Albums are always DRM-free now, as I understand it.
AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be ?indistinguishable? from the original uncompressed audio source.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
For a list of popular EMI bands, see this Wikipedia page.
Not to sound cynical, but I wonder which of the bands in that Wikipedia list might be excluded from going DRM-free because of licensing or what have you?
And to continue in my slightly cynical line of thought, how long now before see a headline that reads "Universal buys EMI, Shuts Down DRM Free Experiment?"
With that said, this might get me to actually start buying music from the iTunes Store (or at least EMI artists) coupled with the Complete My Album feature. Maybe if they could hurry up and get the DRM-free Depeche Mode tracks out there...
I think a better idea would have been to drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles.
drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate.
Maybe. But watching how sales are affected will be a real education for Apple and EMI. What proportion of people will pay extra for the non-DRM double rate? Will it affect album buying patterns?
now will itunes support other MP3 players ???????? that would be intresting.
other BIG thing here is Steve's pre anounce ment whats he saving up his "oh by the way it's avalible now" for ??????
Because choice is bad? If no-DRM isn't a compelling choice for $0.30 more then the consumers will have spoken that to the masses non-invasive DRM (unlike Sony's rootkit) is just fine if costs are lower. That and 128 kbps is also fine for most folks.
I'd say the $0.30 is worth it...
Vinea
or maybe they'll just have spoken that they'd rather pay 99 cents per song because it's an easier number to think of then a dollar thirty, which sounds like a dollar fifty
"This EMI DRM-Free thing is good news. There are still a few small annoyances right now however; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with the .99c a song thing, that will still encompass DRM. I don't think going DRM-free is a risky move for any of the two cpmpanies involved (Apple or EMI), it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO, so the customer shouldn't have to pay for that luxury. 2. Another little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" etc. etc.
I think a better overall solution would have been to drop DRM completely for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM-free and .99c (128bit), and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles alike."
I urge everyone here to copy and paste this in this link, or write some similar feedback there and send it to Apple. This is our chance to get heard guys and gals:
not unless you check your spelling first.
Remember, stripping DRM also has an impact on iTunes sales too. It probably isn't huge but Apple could lose a little bit of market here.
iTunes sales will increase. It's the iPod marketshare that now has a greater likelihood, however slight, to be affected negatively.
Why go to 256, since Apple 'claims' the following from Dolby Labs
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
On an iPod with iPod headphones i can't tell the difference, but with a real hi-def system I can tell the difference upto around 192kbps AAC (encoded with iTunes). But regardless of what percentage of the population can tell the difference using such-and-such equipment the real issue is perception.
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.
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?
not unless you check your spelling first.
I think it's sorted now. I was up until 4am working on my website, very tired
I think a better idea would have been to drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate.
When EMI first announced they were looking into DRM free songs, they said they would charge more, so it wasn't Apple's decision. The higher bitrate makes people feel they are getting more for their money.
But I imagine this will show that most people don't care about DRM.