Tue Apr 3, 2007 3:01AM EDT
See Comments (14)
Hey, don't let me interrupt the love-fest for EMI, Apple, Steve Jobs, and the recent announcement that soon you'll be able to pay 30 percent more for digital music files than you are today. Yippee! By now you've read the news: By May, Apple will be rolling out tracks sold by EMI (one of the big four record labels) in DRM-free format. That is, they won't have the crippling encryption that prevents them from being copied to another PC or played on a device other than the iPod. (That's the good news.) For that privilege you'll only have to pay an extra 30 cents per track: $1.29 instead of good-old 99 cents per track. Other studios will probably follow in short order.
Sure, there's the additional benefit that tracks are encoded at 256kbps, but the files will still be sold in AAC format (which is poorly supported in the industry, except by Apple, of course), though very few people will be able to tell the difference in quality vs. a 128kbps AAC or MP3 file (not to mention a 192kbps MP3).
So why am I not ecstatic? I've been digesting this for a while and finally can put it on paper: It all comes down to that pesky 30 cents extra you now get to pay. Given the choice, no one is going to buy the DRM-crippled version of a song any more. Everyone will pay for the unrestricted one that won't suddenly stop working if you change computers. It's human nature to go for the "premium" version. The 99-cent track will vanish in a matter of months. Soon we'll all forget that music once cost less than a dollar. $1.29 will be the new standard.
Now is 30 cents a petty thing to complain about? Sure, but if you buy 100 songs a year, that's basically $30 more you're paying for absolutely nothing in return: That's three months of Napster service. Two or three CDs. Thirty more songs at a buck a pop. Raising prices by 30 percent in any other business would be met with an outcry.
The music studios have been trying to raise prices on digital music for years, and finally they've found a way to sucker you into going down that road. Most people will do it gladly, happily paying what amounts to a 30 percent piracy tax because they no longer have to waste a blank CD in stripping DRM from their iTunes songs. Apple's near monopoly in digital music ensures people basically have no choice in the matter.
Oh, you think this'll mean the RIAA (funded by EMI and its pals) will stop suing invalids, toddlers, and the deceased? On the contrary, this will actually fund those coffers even further. Remember that Apple has sold over 2 billion songs to date: That's an extra $600 million (most of which goes to the music label), had all those tracks been DRM-free. The "premium quality" news is designed to trick you into going along with the plan and failing to see that this is really just blood money.
If you're still not convinced, imagine what your reaction would be if Apple suddenly raised the price on the iPod by 30 percent but would now be DRM-free, while offering the same capacity. You'd be screaming all the way to a competing player, and rightly so.
Cut the price to 99 cents for the "premium tracks" and sell the DRM'd ones for 79 cents and I'll climb aboard, Steve.
For more, here's Ben's take on the issue.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
a song encoded at double the bit-rate and drm free for only 30 cents more. Since when was $1.29 too much to pay for music? Are you comparing it to free illegal downloads? That price still sounds like a bargain for a legitimate purchase.
Sorry, but I don't see the problem. Obviously, they feel the price worth the product and are projecting a certain revenue stream from it. If it turns out people aren't paying the extra 30 cents and sales drop guess what? They will probably drop the price. Let's say it is highly successful then guess what, they will probably increase the price a bit until the market won't bear the price. It's called Economics 101. An artificial cap of 0.99 on a song not based on market supply/demand will just end up killing it altogether. This isn't essential life items we are talking about. It's an entertainment choice as something that is, in reality, a luxury item. There is no deity-given right --or requirement--for everyone to own an iPod. It's a choice in entertainment. If it doesn't work out someone else will come along with another, better idea. That's how things have always worked. Jeez, quit whining already.
I think Apple/EMI's move to sell DRM-less tracks (even at the premium) is simply a market readjustment. It reflects the popular will that no-one wants DRM but the labels. I applaud Apple's move because it recognizes the fact that the current DRM system cannot survive while appeasing the record company's greed. Like all compromises it's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully Apple, with it's dominant position, can further force the record companies to recognize their folly and bring the prices back down to 99 cents in a year or two.
completely agree. i love how this guy thinks even if it may seem bullheaded its still the truth. however nobody can predict the future and him saying that the $1.39 will outdue the $.99 may not be true.
Apple said they will still be selling the DRM songs for $0.99 so it will all be YOUR choice.
Just FYI - your songs don't "suddenly stop working if you change computers" with iTunes. It's a two-click process to unregister one computer or to register a new one, something that most people with a mouse seem to be able to handle. I, for one, like the fact that there's now a choice; the only other alternatives seem to be either Windows-encoded (surely you don't think that's BETTER than iTunes, right?) or illegal downloads (for acquiring music online). If you don't like DRM, you can always purchase the CD and encode it at whatever sample rate you prefer; this is true for both Apple as well as any other music player on the market.
I agree with the author. Apple has monopolized the digital music market and been abusing this monopoly. The only market they can't monopolize is the PC market. And I hope they never will. I am a Window's guy and will always be one. People have to realize, that everything that Apple makes is never up to what it is claimed to be (i.e. my latest Powerbook Pro - not as fast as they say. And it freezes more often than my Sony. Not to say of its compatibility). All of this explains their ad campaign where PC is so inferior to Mac. But anyway, I want that for once an Apple rip-off be rejected by the majority of consumers.
not is mac only inferior, it's really expensive. an iMAC base model $2,200.....a PC with close to the same specs $750....?
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by de_5_a27 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:42PM EDT Report Abuse
You're glossing over one of the most important parts of the announcement, that album prices remain the same. This actually is more beneficial for the concumer and the record industry. Customers can choose between DRM or non-DRM singles, or buy the whole album with out DRM. Since albums were the bread and butter of the music industry for much of its history, this could lead to more record companies removing DRM with the goal of getting consumers to buy the album instead of just a single. And at least Apple is giving you a choice, let me know when Napster does that.