I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Originally when iTunes Plus arrived, the tracks were $1.29, so you paid the .30 difference to upgrade. Now that they are .99 cents, does kinda suck that you still have to pay the .30.
How about this, I just bought two CD's over the weekend, and now have to pay again to upgrade the album. Oh well, I am getting a better quality track, so who cares. Still cheaper than Best Buy.
Yeah sorta. My plan will be to pay to update the songs I really care about and then hack the others to DRM free. No worries here really in fact now that Apple is moving to DRM free they have no incentive to break DRM strippers in future iTunes updates.
Good luck with that. You can only upgrade the entire library, not individual songs.
I think Apple were always right about the variable pricing and the music companies were always wrong. Having a single price always gave me the confidence to make casual purchases knowing I was paying a fixed price. Now, every time I see some music at the higher, premium price, I will feel a little cheated and this will create a little speed-bump before I hit the BUY button. I think the music industry are their own worst enemies and don't know their industry. That's why they gave it away to pirates in the first place and Steve Jobs saved their lazy asses by showing you can sell electronically and legally and people will still pay.
You may be correct. I'd like to know who gets the extra $.30.
Apple said that they operate the iTunes store at just a little above break even, and they get 0.30 on each song sold, so that is the reason that they have to charge $.30 for the re-download (because otherwise they would be out that $.30). The 30 cents is not extra profit, it pays for the costs of the download.
Also, I find it interesting that Apple compromised on tiered pricing. It's not a total surrender, but it's a compromise from Apple's die-hard one price only stance.
Yeah, but it was probably inevitable. However, I think it's a good compromise. The 0.69. 0.99, and 1.29 are set tiers; and I presume there would need to be some negotiations invovled to be able to change them. At least the labels don't have free reign to set whatever prices they want. If that had been the case, you know they wouldn't have stopped at $1.29 as the top price tier!
I'm not at home right now to check, does anyone know if you can upgrade the free songs that Apple gives away every week? I've got quite a few of those, but in the past with EMI songs I couldn't pay the 0.30 to upgrade one when it became available as iTunes Plus. You had to pay the full price. Not a huge deal since it was free to begin with, but just curious.
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
I understand where you are coming from but it was your decision to buy lots of music with DRM on it. Also you are getting something for the money, you are getting all your music in higher quality files.
Look at it this way. If when you bought your music for $.99 you could pay a few cents more per track and be guaranteed a download of a DRM free file later, you probably would have gone for it. Then you would be here crowing to everyone about how you were going to get an all new music library for free.
I agree it's a bit of a bummer, but it's not really unexpected, and it really depends on how you look at it as to whether it depresses you or not.
Does the end of DRM mean that we'll be able to sync one iPod with several computers?
Great question. I would be tickled pink if this comes true. When I'm sitting at my desk at work I'm forced to have to reach behind me to get to my iPhone and change tracks.
Does the end of DRM mean that we'll be able to sync one iPod with several computers?
No, you are still not supposed to steal other music just because the DRM is removed. If they are your own computers and the same library is on each one, the iPod won't know the difference. But you can't go to your friend's house, plug in, and steal all his music and him take yours.
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Yes.
It sucks that if you bought a song last year, last month or last week it now costs you 30¢ more if you want it to be higher quality & DRM free. I understand that Apple can't just let people re-download the songs for free, but the 30¢ fee is a little obnoxious, especially since you can ONLY upgrade ALL your eligible songs at once. Rather than pick and choose the songs you would really want to upgrade and lay off the ones that you'd rather not, you have to upgrade them all in one lump.
The other day the cost to upgrade my library would have been $29. Today it's $55. And as time goes on and they rotate out all the other songs I've bought it would wind up costing me around $250. That's ridiculous. I'd love to upgrade some of the things I've bought off of iTunes, bit by bit. But not with that pricetag...
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Sucker. Stop whining. You should have bought the CD, ripped it, then given it away to friends or charity like everybody else.
I understand where you are coming from but it was your decision to buy lots of music with DRM on it. Also you are getting something for the money, you are getting all your music in higher quality files.
Look at it this way. If when you bought your music for $.99 you could pay a few cents more per track and be guaranteed a download of a DRM free file later, you probably would have gone for it. Then you would be here crowing to everyone about how you were going to get an all new music library for free.
I agree it's a bit of a bummer, but it's not really unexpected, and it really depends on how you look at it as to whether it depresses you or not.
In the great scheme of things, I think it is the $.30 more per track that irks me. That's a 30% premium for the privilege of having legally purchased my music rather than pirating it like so many others have. There is no possible way that it is costing Apple or the music industry an additional $.30 each to provide me that track. If it did, they wouldn't be selling it to everyone who purchases it today for $.99. Honestly, I feel like we are being taken advantage of, that we are paying for the losses they believe they have taken that have occured because of their (the music industries...) ridiculuous policies. They refuse to accept that the music world has changed, that we aren't interested in purchasing albums full of songs that we don't want versus the individual tracks that we do and that, given the oppportunity and convenience, (most?) people will legally buy music rather than pirate it if they feel like they are treated fairly. This is an instance where I don't feel like we are being treated fairly... DRM-free = good; $.30 cents/track = much less good
Does anyone know if upgrading to DRM-Free music will then allow others to access those songs in itunes via Simpliy Media? That is all I'm really wondering...
In the great scheme of things, I think it is the $.30 more per track that irks me. That's a 30% premium for the privilege of having legally purchased my music rather than pirating it like so many others have. There is no possible way that it is costing Apple or the music industry an additional $.30 each to provide me that track. If it did, they wouldn't be selling it to everyone who purchases it today for $.99. Honestly, I feel like we are being taken advantage of, that we are paying for the losses they believe they have taken that have occured because of their (the music industries...) ridiculuous policies. They refuse to accept that the music world has changed, that we aren't interested in purchasing albums full of songs that we don't want versus the individual tracks that we do and that, given the oppportunity and convenience, (most?) people will legally buy music rather than pirate it if they feel like they are treated fairly. This is an instance where I don't feel like we are being treated fairly... DRM-free = good; $.30 cents/track = much less good
To be fair, don't you download a new track with double the bitrate? So there are costs associated with hosting these new files and you are getting a better quality product then you initially paid for.
Does anyone know if upgrading to DRM-Free music will then allow others to access those songs in itunes via Simpliy Media? That is all I'm really wondering...
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
So goes the march of progress. Don't cry over spilled iTunes purchases.
We have 4 music labels(4ML) that originally benefited from iTunes sales. With the grab for more money, the 4ML withheld catalogs from iTunes(while requiring them to DRM the tracks) and pursued other sales venues with the withheld catalogs. That sounds unethical, if not slightly monopolistic. After all, they began this all via iTunes so why punish them for being successful?
So, the 4ML make a deal with Amazon and WalMart to not only sell music tracks not available to iTunes at a lower rate(0.89 for some, .99 for the rest) AND ok them being in MP3 format? Will their prices go up to the same $1.29 that iTunes is required to charge?
Hopefully, the 'Covert to MP3' option will still be enabled for those Plus tracks. It would be nice if iTunes would sell MP3 tracks, but I don't mind having a convert option as long as I don't have to burn to a CD just to import it back. So there's a light at the end of that tunnel.
10 millions tracks available in one place? Quite impressive!
Ability to convert to MP3? Even MORE impressive!
As for the 4ML, I hear a sucking wind sound....
Maybe Apple should consider its own in-house music label.
Comments
Also, I love the huge number of statements by Steve Jobs coming out today. He may not be presenting
in person, but the message I'm getting is "He's still running the show!"
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Originally when iTunes Plus arrived, the tracks were $1.29, so you paid the .30 difference to upgrade. Now that they are .99 cents, does kinda suck that you still have to pay the .30.
How about this, I just bought two CD's over the weekend, and now have to pay again to upgrade the album. Oh well, I am getting a better quality track, so who cares. Still cheaper than Best Buy.
Yeah sorta. My plan will be to pay to update the songs I really care about and then hack the others to DRM free. No worries here really in fact now that Apple is moving to DRM free they have no incentive to break DRM strippers in future iTunes updates.
Good luck with that. You can only upgrade the entire library, not individual songs.
You may be correct. I'd like to know who gets the extra $.30.
Apple said that they operate the iTunes store at just a little above break even, and they get 0.30 on each song sold, so that is the reason that they have to charge $.30 for the re-download (because otherwise they would be out that $.30). The 30 cents is not extra profit, it pays for the costs of the download.
Also, I find it interesting that Apple compromised on tiered pricing. It's not a total surrender, but it's a compromise from Apple's die-hard one price only stance.
Yeah, but it was probably inevitable. However, I think it's a good compromise. The 0.69. 0.99, and 1.29 are set tiers; and I presume there would need to be some negotiations invovled to be able to change them. At least the labels don't have free reign to set whatever prices they want. If that had been the case, you know they wouldn't have stopped at $1.29 as the top price tier!
I'm not at home right now to check, does anyone know if you can upgrade the free songs that Apple gives away every week? I've got quite a few of those, but in the past with EMI songs I couldn't pay the 0.30 to upgrade one when it became available as iTunes Plus. You had to pay the full price. Not a huge deal since it was free to begin with, but just curious.
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
I understand where you are coming from but it was your decision to buy lots of music with DRM on it. Also you are getting something for the money, you are getting all your music in higher quality files.
Look at it this way. If when you bought your music for $.99 you could pay a few cents more per track and be guaranteed a download of a DRM free file later, you probably would have gone for it. Then you would be here crowing to everyone about how you were going to get an all new music library for free.
I agree it's a bit of a bummer, but it's not really unexpected, and it really depends on how you look at it as to whether it depresses you or not.
Does the end of DRM mean that we'll be able to sync one iPod with several computers?
Great question. I would be tickled pink if this comes true. When I'm sitting at my desk at work I'm forced to have to reach behind me to get to my iPhone and change tracks.
Does the end of DRM mean that we'll be able to sync one iPod with several computers?
No, you are still not supposed to steal other music just because the DRM is removed. If they are your own computers and the same library is on each one, the iPod won't know the difference. But you can't go to your friend's house, plug in, and steal all his music and him take yours.
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Yes.
It sucks that if you bought a song last year, last month or last week it now costs you 30¢ more if you want it to be higher quality & DRM free. I understand that Apple can't just let people re-download the songs for free, but the 30¢ fee is a little obnoxious, especially since you can ONLY upgrade ALL your eligible songs at once. Rather than pick and choose the songs you would really want to upgrade and lay off the ones that you'd rather not, you have to upgrade them all in one lump.
The other day the cost to upgrade my library would have been $29. Today it's $55. And as time goes on and they rotate out all the other songs I've bought it would wind up costing me around $250. That's ridiculous. I'd love to upgrade some of the things I've bought off of iTunes, bit by bit. But not with that pricetag...
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Sucker. Stop whining. You should have bought the CD, ripped it, then given it away to friends or charity like everybody else.
I understand where you are coming from but it was your decision to buy lots of music with DRM on it. Also you are getting something for the money, you are getting all your music in higher quality files.
Look at it this way. If when you bought your music for $.99 you could pay a few cents more per track and be guaranteed a download of a DRM free file later, you probably would have gone for it. Then you would be here crowing to everyone about how you were going to get an all new music library for free.
I agree it's a bit of a bummer, but it's not really unexpected, and it really depends on how you look at it as to whether it depresses you or not.
In the great scheme of things, I think it is the $.30 more per track that irks me. That's a 30% premium for the privilege of having legally purchased my music rather than pirating it like so many others have. There is no possible way that it is costing Apple or the music industry an additional $.30 each to provide me that track. If it did, they wouldn't be selling it to everyone who purchases it today for $.99. Honestly, I feel like we are being taken advantage of, that we are paying for the losses they believe they have taken that have occured because of their (the music industries...) ridiculuous policies. They refuse to accept that the music world has changed, that we aren't interested in purchasing albums full of songs that we don't want versus the individual tracks that we do and that, given the oppportunity and convenience, (most?) people will legally buy music rather than pirate it if they feel like they are treated fairly. This is an instance where I don't feel like we are being treated fairly... DRM-free = good; $.30 cents/track = much less good
In the great scheme of things, I think it is the $.30 more per track that irks me. That's a 30% premium for the privilege of having legally purchased my music rather than pirating it like so many others have. There is no possible way that it is costing Apple or the music industry an additional $.30 each to provide me that track. If it did, they wouldn't be selling it to everyone who purchases it today for $.99. Honestly, I feel like we are being taken advantage of, that we are paying for the losses they believe they have taken that have occured because of their (the music industries...) ridiculuous policies. They refuse to accept that the music world has changed, that we aren't interested in purchasing albums full of songs that we don't want versus the individual tracks that we do and that, given the oppportunity and convenience, (most?) people will legally buy music rather than pirate it if they feel like they are treated fairly. This is an instance where I don't feel like we are being treated fairly... DRM-free = good; $.30 cents/track = much less good
To be fair, don't you download a new track with double the bitrate? So there are costs associated with hosting these new files and you are getting a better quality product then you initially paid for.
Does anyone know if upgrading to DRM-Free music will then allow others to access those songs in itunes via Simpliy Media? That is all I'm really wondering...
It sure does. I just tried it out.
I'm somewhat chapped that we have to pay extra for something that those who purchase now get for no additional cost. Over the last several years, I have legally purchased several hundred $s worth of music from iTunes. Now, to make my music DRM-free, I have to pay another $100+ for tracks that, if I bought them today, would cost me nothing additional. I get no new music, just slightly higher quality and no (always undesired...) copy protection. Although I have had the use of those tracks during that time, Apple has had the use of my funds so I think we should be considered even... If anything, I think those who previously purchased should be rewarded for supporting legal music acquisition. I'd be satisfied if that reward was the ability to remove my copy protection at no additional cost.
Anyone else feel the same way?
So goes the march of progress. Don't cry over spilled iTunes purchases.
I wonder if this move will bring AC/DC to iTunes?
Or you could just buy their CDs at Walmart and rip 'em.
We have 4 music labels(4ML) that originally benefited from iTunes sales. With the grab for more money, the 4ML withheld catalogs from iTunes(while requiring them to DRM the tracks) and pursued other sales venues with the withheld catalogs. That sounds unethical, if not slightly monopolistic. After all, they began this all via iTunes so why punish them for being successful?
So, the 4ML make a deal with Amazon and WalMart to not only sell music tracks not available to iTunes at a lower rate(0.89 for some, .99 for the rest) AND ok them being in MP3 format? Will their prices go up to the same $1.29 that iTunes is required to charge?
Hopefully, the 'Covert to MP3' option will still be enabled for those Plus tracks. It would be nice if iTunes would sell MP3 tracks, but I don't mind having a convert option as long as I don't have to burn to a CD just to import it back. So there's a light at the end of that tunnel.
10 millions tracks available in one place? Quite impressive!
Ability to convert to MP3? Even MORE impressive!
As for the 4ML, I hear a sucking wind sound....
Maybe Apple should consider its own in-house music label.