MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

"In a move that would mark the end of a digital music era... "

I think they got this wrong.

Isn't this the event that marks the *beginning* of the digital music era??

End of the DRM era, long live the King!

After Micro$oft spent five years building their new OS around DRM, all the recording companies drop it.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment and their cohorts are still pond scum.

Jan 04, 08 - 10:44 am Comment from: TowerTone

so does this mean you don't have to pay for DRM anymore? It's free?

I'm gonna get me a boatload of that stuff....

Jan 04, 08 - 10:44 am Comment from: DLMeyer

"... other labels are hoping to create another Apple competitor in Amazon, which is willing to give the recording industry greater pricing flexibility."
There IS no flexibility in pricing. There are four basic tiers, except when something is "on sale": supermarket remix, generic "name", specialty, and "super-star". Within these "markets", prices are fairly stable across the industry. Or is this - four prices (plus "sale") - what they mean by "flexibility"?
Dave

Jan 04, 08 - 10:46 am Comment from: Ampar

"Just ask Microsoft, which has made meager headway with its Zune music player and online music store."

You could but I suspect that Ballmer spends most of his days with his fingers in his ears while yelling, "LALALALALA . .I . .CAN'T HEAR YOU." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

By excluding iTS from selling their DRM-free music, could it be argued that the record companies are engaging in collusion?

Jan 04, 08 - 11:02 am Comment from: qka

"In a move that would mark the end of a digital music era... "
I think they got this wrong.
Isn't this the event that marks the *beginning* of the digital music era??

The end of one era is the beginning of the next. That is what we are seeing.

Jan 04, 08 - 11:03 am Comment from: gzero

The major labels still don't realize that at this point it doesn't really matter what they do: Apple wins. The iPod / iTunes combo is doing bang-up business. Looking at the latest statistics, demand in the MP3 player market - which Apple still dominates after 6+ years - is leveling off as more people listen to music on their cell phones. The only MP3 player that didn't see a leveling off or drop was the iPod. That means that even if Amazon took a substantial chunk of the iTS business, it's sales will still go to mostly iPod users. Not to mention the number of non-iPod owners who buy protected and non protected tracks from the iTS.

Now with the ability to buy tracks directly to the iPhone and the iPod Touch, and the rumored ability to buy directly via Apple TV coming soon, the notion that the labels are somehow hurting Apple by giving tracks to Amazon first just got that much more silly.

Jan 04, 08 - 11:05 am Comment from: gzero

" ...it's sales will still go to mostly iPod users. "

I meant come from iPod users.

I really do not care less where I buy my music- Amazon or Apple. If Amazon can deliver a non-DRM AAC (not mp3) file at a decent sample rate, I'll buy it.

Apple sells music to support the iPod- not so much to make money selling music. The RIAA/MPAA still seem to be clueless about this. Nothing but their own greed is preventing them from selling non-DRM content that can be used on iTunes/iPod/iPhone/Apple TV.

Jan 04, 08 - 11:26 am Comment from: Zeke

And every DRM-free MP3 track sold on Amazon can be loaded into iTunes and transferred onto an iPod, Touch, or iPhone. This would have been Apple's fondest wish 5 years ago. They couldn't get it then because the record companies demanded DRM, thus iTunes was born. The only reason to keep itunes around now is to keep the pressure on and keep every body else honest.

Just wonderin'--if music labels are going to sell DRM-free music then why even bother with amazon, apple, etc? It doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense--if you don't need a "store" to apply DRM coating to your tracks, why deal with a store at all?

Why not sell your tracks directly to consumers, and pocket the vig the store is getting?

@ Opj:

Because they don't get technology. Seriously.

If Sony joins Universal and Warner in denying ITMS DRM-free tracks, I think there is a pretty good case for collusion -- they are attempting to rig a market. So far, Apple has played it cool, but these guys have got to be worrying about the day that Steve unleashes the attorneys. This isn't the the little, weak Apple of old. Apple is many times the size of all of these music dinosaurs put together, and could buy any of them for cash. Or for an amount less than a rounding error in its quarterly financial statement, Apple could unleash a legal attack that would drive more than one of them to bankruptcy.

@OpJ

The Stores sell it (or shall I say) CAN SELL it because of the PERMISSION they recieved from the MUSIC industry owners.

They have legal rights to the music.

Now, SONY does have an online store - no?

So if that is where you are going well - guess they will sell DRM free music too there... NOT paying royalties to Apple or Microsoft for the DRM seal.

I'll buy the DRM-free songs only when they hit iTunes and not before. I'm not going to Amazon, or Microsoft, or anyone else. So for right now, EMI is the only one getting my business.

Interesting, thought I think of Apples money is in terms of stock value and would need to cash it in -

why would Apple do such a thing?

@Ralph M



I mean, Apple doesn't want to own and manage artists, singers and promote them do they. And then to house their music in a iTunes store that doesn't sound like a good move.
Apple wants people to use the iPod and enjoy music, video, and the quality Apple products are. The content is needed but can be found elsewhere.

They only way Apple would do such a thing is if all these MUSIC clowns used DRM from Microsoft where they dealt in a manner that purposely cut out the iPod use completely. Not playing fairly.
As does Apple whom offers the use of iTunes and iPod on both platforms.

Dwayne

I agree with OpJ.

If they aren't going to use DRM, they could easily set up their own stores and sell everything for whatever price they want. Without DRM, the whole software/hardware/OS set of problems are nonexistent—and they get ALL the profit!


It's amazing they haven't figured this out. Any Middle School webmaster could set it up for them.

they've tried that, customers don't want to give every Tom, Dick and Harry their credit card credentials and login info. SNOCAP was a possible way around this, but so far has failed

also I'm sure, once the iPhone SDK is out, Amazon will develop a custom direct to iPhone store for AmazonMP3. Rhapsody will port to iPhone as well.

I can't see how Apple or consumers can lose here.

Its gonna be Apple vs Nokia vs LG.......Microsoft has been vanquished.

Jan 04, 08 - 12:52 pm Comment from: gzero

@Goople,

Good points. I'm wondering if eMusic will also port it's shop to an iPhone version after February.

@Synthmeister
@OpJ

Most people are not conscious of the labels.

I buy a Jimmy Eat World Album, I go to iTunes and there it is. What your suggesting means I need to find out what label owns the artists rights. I go to that labels site. Oh crap, the CD I wanted is older and under another label. I go to that site. WTF, this label charges $1.99 for their music.

Same thing with consumer goods and Wal-Mart. People want to go to one place and have a stable pricing system.

The whole "Apple doesn't care if you buy your music from Amazon" notion is ridiculous. iTunes may have started as an entity to secure music for the iPod but I'd say it became more than that when it hit, I don't know, 6th or 5th on the list of highest selling music stores in the country.

iTunes has become a very powerful tool for Apple. Not just the software but the store connected to it. To think that Apple doesn't view Amazon as a competitor but only a partner in ridding the world of DRM is preposterous. Steve Jobs wants you buying those tracks from iTunes and you should want whatever he wants.

Jan 04, 08 - 02:51 pm Comment from: mike_in_helsinki

@R2

You got it wrong.

Amazon does not compete with Apple in MP3 players ... they sell Apple's MP3 players. Apple's margins on the ITS are razor thin.

Either way, labels who do not sell via iTS will have to answer to a shareholder meeting. Those CEO's are not going to be able to sustain themselves by thumbing their nose at Apple and wishing their disintermediation will go away.

The value chain has shifted forever. Apple did their home work and are now getting paid for it.

The next move .... Apple becomes a major label onto its own. Book it.

Jan 04, 08 - 02:59 pm Comment from: Brau

When I see all the majors jumping in I am happy but still worry they are doing so while conspiring to limit users in ways that are not so apparent at this point in time. Case in point - the iPod currently has irritating limitations on sharing/importing limiting it to syncing content from one computer only - these existing limitations can be further leveraged upon software/hardware through legislation, meaning they may only allow downloads/playback on *authorized* devices that comply with their DRM schemes even though there's no apparent "DRM" in the digital file itself.

If the labels wanted to successfully sell music directly to consumers, they would need to work together and set up a one-stop store that includes content from all the majors plus smaller/independent labels.

In theory, this is what the RIAA should be good for, but rather than being a force for cooperation in any constructive, meaningful sense, the labels have used it merely as their legal pit bull.

Sad.

Jan 04, 08 - 03:40 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

@Synthmeister

"If they aren't going to use DRM, they could easily set up their own stores and sell everything for whatever price they want."

For whatever price they want? Then all those tracks would end up in P2P with NO PROFIT, and DRM would have to be quickly reinstated. Price has to be VERY reasonable, because as thing stand today, they are competing with FREE.

Jan 04, 08 - 05:13 pm Comment from: ken1w

Just remember, Apple makes its profit from selling hardware (iPods and iPhones in this case). The record labels and Amazon (or any vendor) make their money from selling the content. Apple wants to sell the content for as little as possible, to encourage more people to buy iPods. The record labels and Amazon what to, eventually, sell the content for as much as possible. That's why it is so hard for anyone else to get traction. They'll try to undercut Apple's prices and not make any profit while Apple profits from iPod sales. Consumers will get lower prices on content (from all vendors), as long as Apple prevails.