I should imagine that will this change the digital music player market as well. Won't most players now have a major reason to support AAC. Should be interesting to see how this announcement changes the market. Will AAC now become the dominant codec for non-Apple music players?
Fuck yes. This is fantastic news All of those "Jobs is just saying that he'd like to get rid of DRM, because he knows it'll never happen; he's lying" folks can go eat crow.
All we have to do now is wait and see how long it takes the other studios to follow suit. Hopefully independent record labels won't be too far behind on this one. Then Universal might follow suit leaving Sony and Warner dragging their feet.
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?
No. AAC is digital audio format like MP3. AAC is a newer and more compressed which makes a 128k AAC file hold more information than the same 128k MP3 file.
Apple used Protected-AAC, which adds DRM to the song via iTunes after it is downloaded to your computer. This makes the iTunes servers have less to worry about an how the first breaking of Apple DRM took place.
We will undoubtedly see more players start to support AAC (except for maybe the Zune, if it doesn't support it already). portable audioand video devices can even use updates to add this functionality, but other appliacnes like stand alone DVD players and in-dash CD players will probably be dumping WMA support in leu of AAC or adding AAC support alongside the common MP3 and WMZ support.
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?
AAC is an Audio Codec from the MPEG-4 standard. It was developed by the same organisation that developed mp3. It is an open standard that anyone is free to implement is exchange for a licensing fee.
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?
Replying to myself but another thought....will the DRM free 256 tracks be playable on any player while the DRM protected 128 tracks will still be lcoked onto Pods?
Won't most players now have a major reason to support AAC. Should be interesting to see how this announcement changes the market. Will AAC now become the dominant codec for non-Apple music players?
By supporting AAC, the players could now play iTunes content (EMI only)... a small extra reason to support it, but one that grows as other labels come onboard. iTunes won't encourage that in any way.
The lawsuits for .mp3 patents could add to this though.... Maybe some players will look into AAC instead.
I should imagine that will this change the digital music player market as well. Won't most players now have a major reason to support AAC. Should be interesting to see how this announcement changes the market. Will AAC now become the dominant codec for non-Apple music players?
I think that it is quite likely there will be an industry wide move towards AAC (of course, they would now that all of my music is mp3! ). As I'm sure y'all remember that series of lawsuits recently affecting a lot of the companies that rely directly or indirectly on mp3. I don't know the outcome.. Has the case even been heard yet? mp3 is pretty crappy anyway..
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.
You are so correct, there is no risk, most music has already been ripped and available oon the Internet for free, and new albums are made available this way within minutes.
People that will not pay for music will continue to do so, and those that will pay will get a nicer (but bigger) download.
Lets see how long it takes for the rest of the labels to jump on board.
Most of those 30 cents go to the label, so it is more revenue.
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 don't think any other players support AAC, and iTunes still only syncs to iPod, so this still locks the songs into the Apple system. It doesn't offer any more "freedom" to the average user, except to copy the files and give them to friends who also use the Apple system.
What I found interesting is the increase in bitrate. If they had kept the non DRM at 128 kbs, that would have kept pirating fairly low, since most music-sharing communities don't like/allow that low-quality material. Pushing it up to 256k makes it of more interested to a lot of people.
I think it's kind of strange that Apple sticks with such crappy standards in it's music and video encoding - they seem to expect that their users pay a premium for computer hardware but not for audio and video systems, where the glaring lack of quality inherent to iTunes audio and video really becomes obvious...
Also, the extra 30 cents per track is to pay for the extra bandwidth Apple will use to upload songs with are double the size...
That tosses out the conspiracy that Apple needs to lock people into iTunes and iPods.
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.
Comments
All we have to do now is wait and see how long it takes the other studios to follow suit. Hopefully independent record labels won't be too far behind on this one. Then Universal might follow suit leaving Sony and Warner dragging their feet.
Will AAC now become the dominant codec for non-Apple music players?
I hope so. It's about time everyone moved on from mp3.
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?
No. AAC is digital audio format like MP3. AAC is a newer and more compressed which makes a 128k AAC file hold more information than the same 128k MP3 file.
Apple used Protected-AAC, which adds DRM to the song via iTunes after it is downloaded to your computer. This makes the iTunes servers have less to worry about an how the first breaking of Apple DRM took place.
We will undoubtedly see more players start to support AAC (except for maybe the Zune, if it doesn't support it already). portable audioand video devices can even use updates to add this functionality, but other appliacnes like stand alone DVD players and in-dash CD players will probably be dumping WMA support in leu of AAC or adding AAC support alongside the common MP3 and WMZ support.
AAC huh? Do all the other players (e.g., Zune, etc.) support AAC now?
Yes, the Zune, mobile phones, PSPs and most portable players support AAC.
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?
AAC is an Audio Codec from the MPEG-4 standard. It was developed by the same organisation that developed mp3. It is an open standard that anyone is free to implement is exchange for a licensing fee.
Learn more here.
Whilst most mp3-players don't support AAC, most mobile phones do. Network audio players such as Sonos and the Roku Soundbridge support AAC.
Hopefully this move will lead to more hardware companies finally adopting AAC.
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?
Replying to myself but another thought....will the DRM free 256 tracks be playable on any player while the DRM protected 128 tracks will still be lcoked onto Pods?
Won't most players now have a major reason to support AAC. Should be interesting to see how this announcement changes the market. Will AAC now become the dominant codec for non-Apple music players?
By supporting AAC, the players could now play iTunes content (EMI only)... a small extra reason to support it, but one that grows as other labels come onboard. iTunes won't encourage that in any way.
The lawsuits for .mp3 patents could add to this though.... Maybe some players will look into AAC instead.
Replying to myself but another thought....will the DRM free 256 tracks be playable on any player
Any player that does AAC.
while the DRM protected 128 tracks will still be lcoked onto Pods?
Yes.
I should imagine that will this change the digital music player market as well. Won't most players now have a major reason to support AAC. Should be interesting to see how this announcement changes the market. Will AAC now become the dominant codec for non-Apple music players?
I think that it is quite likely there will be an industry wide move towards AAC (of course, they would now that all of my music is mp3!
here's hoping this is step 1 on the road to the death of drm.
step two? microsoft
Step 2, take the RIAA to court under RICO charges.
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.
You are so correct, there is no risk, most music has already been ripped and available oon the Internet for free, and new albums are made available this way within minutes.
People that will not pay for music will continue to do so, and those that will pay will get a nicer (but bigger) download.
Lets see how long it takes for the rest of the labels to jump on board.
Most of those 30 cents go to the label, so it is more revenue.
Jobs interview on in a minute on CNBC
Alright...so, what did he say? (At work....
http://www.trolano.com/EMI_Pressconference/
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 don't think any other players support AAC, and iTunes still only syncs to iPod, so this still locks the songs into the Apple system. It doesn't offer any more "freedom" to the average user, except to copy the files and give them to friends who also use the Apple system.
What I found interesting is the increase in bitrate. If they had kept the non DRM at 128 kbs, that would have kept pirating fairly low, since most music-sharing communities don't like/allow that low-quality material. Pushing it up to 256k makes it of more interested to a lot of people.
I think it's kind of strange that Apple sticks with such crappy standards in it's music and video encoding - they seem to expect that their users pay a premium for computer hardware but not for audio and video systems, where the glaring lack of quality inherent to iTunes audio and video really becomes obvious...
Also, the extra 30 cents per track is to pay for the extra bandwidth Apple will use to upload songs with are double the size...
That tosses out the conspiracy that Apple needs to lock people into iTunes and iPods.
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.