Apple cuts copy protection and prices on iTunes

That tends to degrade the sound quality, not to mention all the trouble you have to go through.  Apple is a day late and a dollar short as the old timey saying goes.  I've given up on iTunes and replaced my iPod with a Samsung P2.  I try my music on Rhapsody and buy it at Amazon.  It's not perfect but it's a much better arrangement than iTunes.

Apple is a day late and a dollar short as the old timey saying goes.

Eh, for *you* maybe. They still have something over 80% of the market, though. 

I was just considering upgrading my existing iTunes collection to DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks and figured -- why bother? I'm not inconvenienced by it now, haven't been before, so I'll just enjoy the music without restrictions from here on out.

I try my music on Rhapsody and buy it at Amazon.  It's not perfect but it's a much better arrangement than iTunes.

The reason I didn't leave iTunes even though Amazon offered DRM free music for (in some cases) cheaper, is because I can't imagine a better arrangement than the iPod/iPhone/iTunes ecosystem, which is about as seamless as it gets.

Now that Amazon doesn't even have a price/quality/DRM edge, it's an even better arrangement.

The reason I didn't leave iTunes even though Amazon offered DRM free music for (in some cases) cheaper, is because I can't imagine a better arrangement than the iPod/iPhone/iTunes ecosystem, which is about as seamless as it gets.

You don't have to *leave* iTunes regardless. I buy music from the Amazon MP3 store and eMusic...all DRM free (and eMusic has always been at 256kbps quality,) as well has some tracks from the iTMS. They all play perfectly happy together. And it's pretty seemless, too, as the downloads from eMusic and Amazon are automatically added to my iTunes library.

Ditto, Brian Ford.

The only MP3 player I've ever owned was an iPod, so there was never any concern for me. As far as PCs go, I only have my MacBook and a PC (which barely gets used). Still no troubles.

The ability to stay within my music player, buy music, and put the new songs on my iPod in an instant was far more convenient than anything else I've experienced in the music field.  Plus, burning DRM-free songs into iTunes from my CDs. Easy peasy.

You're right Brian.  It's my own preference, but you have to admit that Apple is behind the curve here.  They still have the best player hands down, but I just got sick of listening to Apple brand music.  If it wasn't for the competition they would never have changed a thing either.  Can't put you apple music on your cell phone?  No problem get an iPhone.  I paid hundreds of dollars for their music and when my second iPod crapped out on me I realised I would need to continue to fork over my hard earned cash to listen to music that I already paid for.  Maybe that's OK for 80% of you, but it kind of pisses me off.

At least with Rhapsody, you don't have the illusion of thinking you own the music.  If it's worth owning I'll buy it.  But hey, I'm a bargain hunter.  If ITMS can offer DRM free music cheaper, I'll buy it.  And if they offer a subscription service by the time my Samsung  craps out I'd love to get another iPod.

It's my own preference, but you have to admit that Apple is behind the curve here.

As far as DRM? Yeah, I think they got screwed by being too popular. It's not as though they didn't make attempts to go DRM-free, and they in fact accomplished that with EMI before the other labels decided they better do something about it and give Amazon a sweetheart deal while withholding the same deal from Apple.

If it wasn't for the competition they would never have changed a thing either.

I'm not sure if that's necessarily true. Apple has a history of making major changes to popular products just because they can. With that said, competition breeds change in *all* companies, Apple is no different.

I paid hundreds of dollars for their music and when my second iPod crapped out on me I realised I would need to continue to fork over my hard earned cash to listen to music that I already paid for.

I don't really see it that way. I think they offer a lot of methods for listening to the music beyond their iPod line.

Maybe that's OK for 80% of you, but it kind of pisses me off.

Until recently, that's been pretty much the same with any music service you went with. It's not as though DRM-free music (from the majors) has been the norm in most companies besides Apple. 

And if they offer a subscription service by the time my Samsung  craps out I'd love to get another iPod.

Subscription services, in my mind, are the biggest rip off ever created by the music industry. Talk about a service that forces you to continue spending money to listen to music. Pay this much a month, for life, or lose all the music you've "purchased" with *no way* to play it on any device of any kind, ever again? 

No thanks. I hope (and suspect) that Apple will never implement a subscription music service.

Subscription services, in my mind, are the biggest rip off ever created by the music industry. Talk about a service that forces you to continue spending money to listen to music. Pay this much a month, for life, or lose all the music you've "purchased" with *no way* to play it on any device of any kind, ever again?

I agree with everything you just said...but not all subscriptions services operate that way. eMusic, for example, is technically a subscription service. You pay a monthly charge for music, as apposed to a la carte. The difference is, you own the music (DRM-free) and it will never disappear if you cancel. The only difference in the various monthly plans is how many downloads you get per month.

Subscription services, in my mind, are the biggest rip off ever created by the music industry. Talk about a service that forces you to continue spending money to listen to music. Pay this much a month, for life, or lose all the music you've "purchased" with *no way* to play it on any device of any kind, ever again?

Like I said, with a subscription service, you have no illusion that you actually own the music.  But you know I can go download the latest Radio Head album, listen to the whole thing a few times before I decide that I want to buy it.  With itunes you get a 30 second sample to help you decide to "buy" it.

But as you pointed out, that's my own preference.  I like to explore new music online.  I think most people find music on the radio, or from friends.  Most people probably know what they want before they download it.  For me, it's worth the price to rent before you buy.

And by the way.  30 cents to "upgrade" to a non-DRM version?  That's exactly the type of opportunism that has turned me away from Apple.  You have to pay them to un-@!$%# up your @!$%# that they @!$%#ed up in the first place.  Don't you feel just a little bit victimised by that?

But as you pointed out, that's my own preference.  I like to explore new music online.

I can do that for free, without a subscription service from any number of services like, say, Pandora, without paying a monthly charge.

All of that aside, if something works for you, that's what you should do.

And by the way.  30 cents to "upgrade" to a non-DRM version?  That's exactly the type of opportunism that has turned me away from Apple.

The bandwidth bill has to be paid somehow, and these files are much larger than the original download. For my part, I don't plan on upgrading my existing songs, because the DRM has never once been an issue for me.

Don't you feel just a little bit victimised by that?

Not particularly, no. I would if I was the type of person who felt that agreeing to pay for something that I knew full well was wrapped in DRM means I get something else for free later, when technology marches on. 

I was happy when Apple provided a great and easy way to get the music I wanted in the way I wanted it without a hassle or risk, and now I'm happy that they've improved. I have the option of keeping the stuff I agreed to in the first place in the format I bought it in, at no cost to me.

Don't you feel just a little bit victimised by that?

Maybe this is a function of age, but I know a lot of people would have been extremely happy to upgrade their music collections from cassette to CD for 30 cents on the dollar, rather than pay full price for a CD of music they already owned.

Maybe this is a function of age, but I know a lot of people would have been extremely happy to upgrade their music collections from cassette to CD for 30 cents on the dollar, rather than pay full price for a CD of music they already owned.

Yeah alright. Rationalise as much as you want. You're still paying twice.

You're still paying twice.

I'm not. And, if I were going to upgrade, doubling the quality of the song would be worth the 30 cents.

But, again, I don't see a need to upgrade, so I won't be paying anything and will instead enjoy the songs I'll buy in the future.

I'm not sure how it's a "rationalization"; it's just an observation.  Do you dispute that when people moved from cassette to CD that they would have been happy to have an offer that allowed them to pay 30 cents on the dollar to upgrade their music collection?

It doesn't matter, it's not a comparable situation.  There's a difference in physical media in the one case.  With their music files apple doesn't even need to send you a new file.  All they need to do is provide a utility to strip the drm.  You are making excuses for Apple's greed.

All they need to do is provide a utility to strip the drm.

That simply isn't true. The new files are much higher quality. 

Songs with DRM are encoded at 128 kilobits per second (kb/s). Songs from EMI and many indie labels are available without DRM and encoded at the higher-quality rate of 256 kb/s.

Now, every song that is in the iTunes Plus format is encoded at 256 kb/s.

It is true.  You can do it yourself using 3rd party software, but you are technically breaking the law.  The higher bit rate is not required to unlock your tunes.

You are making excuses for Apple's greed.

And you're making an assumption that the requirement for a charge and to only offer 256 kbps alternatives is Apple's and not the record companies', when you couldn't possibly know that.

You also decide to ignore for no reason that the 30 cents per track is actually getting me something of value: increased bitrate.  At least, it's of value to me since I generally don't like tracks ripped at 128 kbps.  

If it's not of value to you or if it's not worth 30 cents per track to you, then bully for you, but you don't have to be a dick about it.  Any economic transaction is an individual decision on the part of a person to decide if what's being offered is worthwhile for the price.  You don't have to drive a BMW, you don't have buy organic food, and you don't have to upgrade to business class when you fly.  Swell for you.  Other people derive sufficient value from those services to justify the expense.

The same is exactly true of the move from cassette to CD--it's not like people's cassettes all stopped working on day one the CD was available.  Whether or not people moved to CD depended a lot on whether or not each individual decided the added expense of repurchasing their music library (in whole or in part) was worth the improved sound quality.

You can do it yourself using 3rd party software, but you are technically breaking the law.  

You can do it - but the software *cannot* improve the encoding of the song, and the argument you're ignoring is that the 30 cents buys increased quality *as well as* DRM-free content.

I don't intend to be a dick. I started off stating that for me, this move was too little too late. Next thing I know I'm defending my position.  I just can't help but think that you and Brian are defending an untenable position in saying that apple is justified in charging you 30 cents a song to fix something they intentionally broke.

It's perfectly reasonable to offer to increase the bit rate of your music for 30 cents a song.  I wouldn't pay for it, but that's a perfectly legitimate offer.  I'm not ignoring that, but that's not going to help me play my music on my mobile phone.  It's a package deal though, so if I want to legally fix my music I have to pay to do it and upgrade my bit rate.  It's kind of like having to buy an extra controller and 3 games I don't want in order for EB Games to sell me a Wii.  It stinks, but as long as there are people out there willing to put up with those shenanigans, they will continue to do it.

But sorry for being a dick.  My intention was to attack your argument, and not you personally, but I can see I was a little abrasive with my rhetoric.

But sorry for being a dick.

I'm sorry if I did anything to make you feel as though you needed to defend your music purchase habits.  That wasn't my intent.  I only wanted to observe that, given past media upgrade paths, paying 30 cents on the dollar for in increase in quality sure beats the cassette to CD transition (or the VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray transitions, for that matter).

But, again, you keep trying to push this all off on Apple, when it's pretty well acknowledged that Apple was required to apply DRM their to music in the first place at the insistence of the record companies, and only had to keep DRM on the number of tracks they did for as long as they did because of those same record companies.  I mean I'm all for pursuing non-DRM alternatives (I actually buy about 80% of my music via either Amazon or eMusic.com), but from what I've read it's the record companies who deserve the lion's share of the blame here.

That's their story, but anybody can see that it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.  Applying their own brand of DRM to their files and only allowing them to be used on iPod is much more profitable than opening their service to other players.  I mean I think a couple of countries in Europe sued Apple succesfully over that.

I mean I think a couple of countries in Europe sued Apple succesfully over that.

I don't think that's actually true at all. As far as I can remember, anyway.

That's their story, but anybody can see that it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

There was a period where I'd agree that DRM was beneficial to Apple. I don't think that lasted all that long though, and I firmly believe that the driving force behind it was the industry, who were at the height of the "@!$%#ting their pants" phase when it came to fearing the implications of digital music. 

It's not really their story, it's hi-story.  Remember that this was soon after the record companies had successfully shut down Napster--their legal challenges had largely been validated, and every company in the business was falling over themselves to offer DRM deals to the companies.  Apple actually pushed for the least restrictive set of DRM policies of any set then available, which allowed all kinds of things you couldn't get from other servies: like copies playable on multiple computers, the ability to burn a CD of your playlist, and other things.

As consumers began to express increased concerns over DRM, Apple negotiated to remove DRM from EMI's tracks.  Then Steve Jobs, almost two years ago, wrote an open letter regarding DRM expressing his desire to get rid of it in iTunes. Two. years. ago.

It's pretty easy to see who was holding up whom here.  All we have to do is look at availability.

Is it the case that Apple wouldn't sell DRM-free music in the iTunes Music Store?  No, of course not, because they started offering EMI music DRM free a long time ago, and the music from many independent distributors.

Is it the case that the record companies wouldn't offer DRM-free music at all?  No, because they eventually offered it to Amazon. (Although, notably, quite a bit of time after Apple offered DRM-free music in iTMS.)

So who controls what in respect to the intersection of music companies and Apple?  The music companies obviously control the distribution rights and the negotiated terms under which Apple can sell their music (including DRM or no DRM).  Apple controls access.  But Apple had already granted access to the store to DRM-free music.  In other words, they had supported DRM-free music both in their public statements and in their actions.  That leaves, as simple elimination, the likelihood that the music companies held up distribution because of negotiated terms.

Brian, I couldn't find any rulings regarding the lawsuits, but they have been filed in France, Norway, the US and a couple of other countries. 

Spiffie, the EMI deal happened after Jobs' open letter.  That tactic was actually what started to push me away from itunes.  It's not the fact that they were DRM free, but that you had to pay extra for it.  Of course that was with an increased bit rate, but I already explained why I think that's a dirty trick.

Now as to who's fault it was that Apple couldn't get their music DRM free,  I don't care.  They didn't so I moved on.

Brian, I couldn't find any rulings regarding the lawsuits, but they have been filed in France, Norway, the US and a couple of other countries. 

Right. I'm aware that some have been filed, but I'm pretty sure they've mostly not resulted in any action taken on Apple's part.

It's not the fact that they were DRM free, but that you had to pay extra for it.  Of course that was with an increased bit rate, but I already explained why I think that's a dirty trick.

But, again, the "increased rate" was almost certainly an EMI thing. They wanted something -- at the time -- to offset the perceived risk of Piracy. The price went back down to $.99 within months, so it's clear that Apple didn't push for the price, or why would they have lowered it so quickly?

They didn't so I moved on.

And, again, I don't think either Spiffie or I feel you made the wrong choice or that there's anything wrong with your choice, I (at least) just feel as though you're misrepresenting some of the history as part of your explanation for why you moved on.

Spiffie, the EMI deal happened after Jobs' open letter.

Even better, because then it was always Apple's push to get rid of DRM.

Spiffie, let's not ignore those lawsuits which mostly happened before Job's letter.  But I'm just speculating about his motivation now.

And Brian, maybe I am, it's not such a big deal that I would journal about it, and have all my facts straight.  I thought they had lost a lawsuit but I think it was a law that was passed in France that I was thinking of.  Regardless the fact that these lawsuits exist at all shows you that other people aren't real happy about Apple's tactics.  So I'm not making up my grievances.

But hey, this dead horse is black an blue.  I'll let you all have the last word.

Try tricking out a MacPro. I stopped at $21,000, and I could have added more. I still didn't have an xSan connected to it, so it might have ended up disk-bound.

This, in fact, states just the opposite.

In what fashion? Music labels gave up on DRM over a year ago. What they wanted was variable price points - and what do they have, variable price points.

Oh, c'mon.

That's a pretty narrow view.

For 5 years, Apple kept them at 99 cents and built up a 5 year lead and somewhere around 80% of the market (if I'm not mistaken, they're beating out Wal Mart in distribution) and when the music industry *finally* gets variable pricing, it's per song (I've not seen news of album pricing going up) and more songs went *down* in price than went up. And, prices went down 30 cents.

So, if this is losing, I'm sure Apple is weeping all the way to the bank.

If it is a narrow view it is one than has been play since at least 2005.  Apple has been resistent to multiple price points because they make the majority of their money selling iPods not music.  To that extent the single price point has been in their favor because they can use it as a selling point for the iPod - no concearn on what you have to pay for a song - it is 99 cents.

For labels though this isn't such a good thing.  They can't get a higher profit for the top song of the week, and they can't entice people to buy something out of favor with a lower price.  The other problem for them was that Apple could dictate the terms of the agreement since for all intents and purposes since they were the only market in town.

So, the labels did the only thing they could to fight Apple.  They created other markets.  In order to diffentiate those markets from Apple they gave up DRM, thus enticing consumers with an arugably superior and possibly cheaper product.  At the same time they saddled iTunes with DRM music or DRM free at a subsantially higher cost.  With outlets like Amazon, Walmart, Napster, and more (whose market share has been growing) they were creating a pressure on Apple who has finally broke and given them what they wanted.

Now does a victory for the labels on actually mean a loss for Apple?  I'd say it is more a losing the battle to win the war situation.  It is an overall smart business move, perhaps a very forward thinking one.  I speculate that the real reason they gave in on the price points was to protect the iPod (their real source of money).  I think they realize that consumers are beginning to grasp the idea that buying music from iTunes limits where they can play it (specifically Apple devices), that there are alternatives that do not limit you, and that devices exsist that do not limit.  This realization is a threat to the iPod because it is a negative.  So, they give the labels the price points - which no longer serve their purposes anyway and iPods remain in the consumers favor. 

There is of course the fact that the mobile phone/MP3 market is growing and they are currently somewhat limited in that market.  This move opens that market to them.  I suspect this is a secondary consideration, although also a very forward thinking one.

So, yeah - the labels won, that doesn't mean it is bad for Apple though.  Quite frankly they should have done it a year ago.

Apple has been resistent to multiple price points because they make the majority of their money selling iPods not music.

5 years later -- that's not an issue.

1) Apple actually *does* make a profit on selling music, and they're selling more now than ever.

2) Apple's iPod/iPhone would continue to sell without a loss leader. The music store isn't the issue for them it once was, as a loss leader. They won for as long as they needed to, and now they can accept variable pricing without worry.

 I think they realize that consumers are beginning to grasp the idea that buying music from iTunes limits where they can play it (specifically Apple devices), that there are alternatives that do not limit you, and that devices exsist that do not limit.

The numbers don't back that up, yet. I think they're beginning to realize that this *could* happen, in the future, and that they've positioned themselves into a place where DRM-free is the better move than keeping all music at $.99 songs across the board, for mind share.

But, even *with* DRM, they weren't really at a desperation point, yet. Being able to make the choice before you *have* to is a win, in my view. And, they avoided having to make the choice when they really couldn't afford to make it. 

There is of course the fact that the mobile phone/MP3 market is growing and they are currently somewhat limited in that market.

Not really - the songs on iTunes are still AAC format, they just don't have the Fairplay DRM encoding anymore.

So, it opens up any device which allows for AAC songs, but cell phones / smart phones as music players (no matter which formats you include) are still dwarfed by iPods and probably by other dedicated music players as well. And, the one product that they probably care about getting people to put music on -- the iPhone -- accepts the old Fairplay AAC files just as well as it accepts the newer iTunes Plus AAC files and is really starting to move forward in the market, though it's got a ways to go, yet. (And may never see the dominance the iPod has.)

At the same time they saddled iTunes with DRM music or DRM free at a subsantially higher cost.

For a time, it was higher, yes. It didn't take long for the iTunes Plus songs to come down to the $.99 price point, though. And, I think their market share meant this higher cost didn't really hurt them much. I think Amazon would have had to have offered far more substantial savings to really dent the lead, but I don't deny that Amazon has offered the only real contender to date.

I guess I don't see it as a winning or losing situation. Both sides got what they wanted. If anything, this was a draw. And, with Apple positioned as well as they are, and as greedy as we know the labels are -- a draw is practically a win for Apple.

-- the iPhone -- accepts the old Fairplay AAC files just as well as it accepts the newer iTunes Plus AAC files and is really starting to move forward in the market, though it's got a ways to go, yet. (And may never see the dominance the iPod has.)

You're right that it'll never see the dominance the iPod has. The market is too mature...but what Apple has accomplished so far with the iPhone in such a short amount of time is astonishing. Here's one of the better articles I've read on the subject.