Itunes without DRM: can I get an amen? EDIT: It's HERE

[Double Trouble]

Removing the DRM is a good first step. $1.29 is still too expensive, if you purchase most of the songs on an album you're going to pay more than you would for the album, but you don't get the CD, the case, the art, lyrics etc.

Since there are no distribution costs, no media costs, manufacturing, printing etc, they should sell the DRM free tracks for $0.20 or so. They won't of course, because there are plenty of idiots paying $0.99 for DRM riddled junk anyway.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: lupi
.99 was too much for what you were getting. Prices going up, meh. I'll still wait till someplace has the CD on sale for a couple bucks and rip it myself.

Prices aren't going up, the original offerings with DRM will still be available for $.99. The DRMless, higher bitrate songs are a new offering in addition.

Cliffs:
New product, new price, old product, same old price.

 

[prontospyder]

:thumbsup:

 

[CPA]

I can get a dong for $1.29? Awesome

Oh, and it's not their entire library. EMI will not include The Beatles library in this deal.

 

[GTaudiophile]

It is a move in the right direction, and I applaud Apple, but they were already making a profit of $.99/song. The hike wasn't necessary.

 

[magomago]

congrats to apple for getting drmed-free songs...

but 1.30$ per SONG?!?!?!

Lordy....

 

[austin316]

I currently encode my mp3s to 196VBR. Is that too low?

I have modest equipment and I'm not a audiophile.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
It is a move in the right direction, and I applaud Apple, but they were already making a profit of $.99/song. The hike wasn't necessary.

Profit of 99 cents per song? They are paying for the rights to the music, the bandwidth, the server space, the credit card fees.

 

[So]

Amen brother!

 

[Mellman]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
jist of it:

$.99/song for DRM'd @ 128kbps AAC
$1.29/dong for non-DRM'd @ 256kbps AAC

LOL

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: austin316
I currently encode my mp3s to 196VBR. Is that too low?

I have modest equipment and I'm not a audiophile.

Short answer, you're fine.

Long answer: How much hard drive space to you have?

 

[Kadarin]

No DRM infestation is good, but $1.29/song is bad. Sorry, I will not be buying at that price.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

So basically the consensus here is that this is a good thing? Why is it a good thing?

 

[Mellman]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
So basically the consensus here is that this is a good thing? Why is it a good thing?

Higher quality + no DRM == awesome

More money != awesome...

I feel like itunes and music download services in general could benefit greatly by increasing demand for their product by operating at a lower price point. Would their sales double at $0.50/song? I dunno, but i know i'd be much more likely to buy full albums at ~$5/pop instead of $10+/pop

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
No DRM infestation is good, but $1.29/song is bad. Sorry, I will not be buying at that price.

Album prices are still the same.

So many people are being SO unrealistic in every disscussion I've been a apart of.




p.s....sorry bout the typo

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
No DRM infestation is good, but $1.29/song is bad. Sorry, I will not be buying at that price.

Agreed. This is just a prelude to a general price increase. Over the next year the other labels will jump on board, and at MacWorld 2008 El Jobso will state that the whole DRM-free thing has gone so well that they're discontinuing "standard" music, and now $1.29 is the default. At the very least $.99 songs should be DRM-free, and in the very best case they should also be a higher bitrate as the price of bandwidth continues to fall(it's been what, 5 years since the iTMS was launched?). Maintaining album prices shows this can be done, it's just a money-grab.

 

[ElFenix]

yeah, because EMI was going to let them sell DRM free songs for the same price as the DRMed songs. :roll:
$0.29 of that $0.30 price increase is going to EMI, for sure.

 

[tydas]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
It is a move in the right direction, and I applaud Apple, but they were already making a profit of $.99/song. The hike wasn't necessary.

If you read business news Apple makes little profit on song sales..most of thier profits come from selling ipods..

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
No DRM infestation is good, but $1.29/song is bad. Sorry, I will not be buying at that price.

Agreed. This is just a prelude to a general price increase. Over the next year the other labels will jump on board, and at MacWorld 2008 El Jobso will state that the whole DRM-free thing has gone so well that they're discontinuing "standard" music, and now $1.29 is the default. At the very least $.99 songs should be DRM-free, and in the very best case they should also be a higher bitrate as the price of bandwidth continues to fall(it's been what, 5 years since the iTMS was launched?). Maintaining album prices shows this can be done, it's just a money-grab.

Well duh. Business is business.

The point is, now you will be able to choose a little more. All these songs and videos will now be playable and editable in everything including linux Hell, a linux itunes client would kick ass too

You can't treat this like it isn't business. That's why they aren't pitching lossless. It's a waste of money/bandwidth/space since 99% of their base won't know the difference and will get ticked off at the d/l times.

The key is they give you more choice, the Record companies get their revenue-increase in exchange for drm-free tracks at no-cost to them, and we get good-quality drm-free music. Everyone comes away with something.

In the end, you get more choices:

Either:

-get the entire album at the store for a hypothetical ~$7-15 or for $9.99 on itunes
-get one song just for listening purposes (macs have always been able to use them for editing) for $.99 on itunes with an option to upgrade to drm-free...
- get a drm-free semi-equivalent of the same for $1.30 which will probably be audibly indistinguishable from the uncompressed 44.1khz/16/1411kbps version to 99% of the general public (their cash cow)


...and remember that AAC is more efficient than mp3, so as the blind test proved, most people will find it acceptable*


*asshats taht want to pirate regardless not being most people

 

[Goosemaster]

repost

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
No DRM infestation is good, but $1.29/song is bad. Sorry, I will not be buying at that price.

Agreed. This is just a prelude to a general price increase. Over the next year the other labels will jump on board, and at MacWorld 2008 El Jobso will state that the whole DRM-free thing has gone so well that they're discontinuing "standard" music, and now $1.29 is the default. At the very least $.99 songs should be DRM-free, and in the very best case they should also be a higher bitrate as the price of bandwidth continues to fall(it's been what, 5 years since the iTMS was launched?). Maintaining album prices shows this can be done, it's just a money-grab.

Well duh. Business is business.

The point is, now you will be able to choose a little more. All these songs and videos will now be playable and editable in everything including linux Hell, a linux itunes client would kick ass too

You can't treat this like it isn't business. That's why they aren't pitching lossless. It's a waste of money/bandwidth/space since 99% of their base won't know the difference and will get ticked off at the d/l times.

The key is they give you more choice, the Record companies get their revenue-increase in exchange for drm-free tracks at no-cost to them, and we get good-quality drm-free music. Everyone comes away with something.

In the end, you get more choices:

Either:

-get the entire album at the store for a hypothetical ~$7-15 or for $9.99 on itunes
-get one song just for listening purposes (macs have always been able to use them for editing) for $.99 on itunes with an option to upgrade to drm-free...
- get a drm-free semi-equivalent of the same for $1.30 which will probably be audibly indistinguishable from the uncompressed 44.1khz/16/1411kbps version to 99% of the general public (their cash cow)


...and remember that AAC is more efficient than mp3, so as the blind test proved, most people will find it acceptable*


*asshats taht want to pirate regardless not being most people

My point is that all of that should be $.99, paying more than $1 for a single song is unreasonable, and I'm disappointed to see Apple backtracking on this position. Music isn't worth $1.30/song, and yet that's what we'll end up paying soon.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
QTFairUse > extra $.30. :thumbsup:

QTFairUse won't magically make an extra 128 kbps appear

If you really cared about the "quality" of the extra 128 kbps, you probably wouldn't be downloading music that's not lossless anyway. It's so ridiculous that people are saying "oh the extra 128kbps, that's the hotness". Most people won't be able to tell the difference/care anyway.

 

[Staples]

Great move but the pirates who bitched about DRM will now complain about something else to justify their piracy. These are the people we know as idiots and there are tons of them in this forum.

I have been buying songs off iTunes for years and have no problems with it. I am glad I will be able to upgrade rather than having to rebuy them at their higher price.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
No DRM infestation is good, but $1.29/song is bad. Sorry, I will not be buying at that price.

Agreed. This is just a prelude to a general price increase. Over the next year the other labels will jump on board, and at MacWorld 2008 El Jobso will state that the whole DRM-free thing has gone so well that they're discontinuing "standard" music, and now $1.29 is the default. At the very least $.99 songs should be DRM-free, and in the very best case they should also be a higher bitrate as the price of bandwidth continues to fall(it's been what, 5 years since the iTMS was launched?). Maintaining album prices shows this can be done, it's just a money-grab.

Well duh. Business is business.

The point is, now you will be able to choose a little more. All these songs and videos will now be playable and editable in everything including linux Hell, a linux itunes client would kick ass too

You can't treat this like it isn't business. That's why they aren't pitching lossless. It's a waste of money/bandwidth/space since 99% of their base won't know the difference and will get ticked off at the d/l times.

The key is they give you more choice, the Record companies get their revenue-increase in exchange for drm-free tracks at no-cost to them, and we get good-quality drm-free music. Everyone comes away with something.

In the end, you get more choices:

Either:

-get the entire album at the store for a hypothetical ~$7-15 or for $9.99 on itunes
-get one song just for listening purposes (macs have always been able to use them for editing) for $.99 on itunes with an option to upgrade to drm-free...
- get a drm-free semi-equivalent of the same for $1.30 which will probably be audibly indistinguishable from the uncompressed 44.1khz/16/1411kbps version to 99% of the general public (their cash cow)


...and remember that AAC is more efficient than mp3, so as the blind test proved, most people will find it acceptable*


*asshats taht want to pirate regardless not being most people

My point is that all of that should be $.99, paying more than $1 for a single song is unreasonable, and I'm disappointed to see Apple backtracking on this position. Music isn't worth $1.30/song, and yet that's what we'll end up paying soon.

who's to say what a song is worth anyway....

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Raduque
I'll buy that for a dollar(29)!

Wow a Robocop reference.