John Naughton: Why Apple wants freedom to cost a little bit more | Business | The Observer — An excellent essay on the recent DRM maneuvers by Apple. So good in fact that I wish I had thought of it let alone written it. Nice work Naughton.
First, let us do a spot of linguistic cleansing. The acronym DRM has been mentioned a lot this week. It stands for digital rights management, which is a euphemism of Orwellian proportions. It is, in fact, a method by which record companies, movie studios and other publishers of electronic content impose restrictions on what consumers may do with the products they buy.
There are two possible explanations for the bundling decision. One is the straightforward marketing rationale that bundling makes the proposition even more attractive to consumers: two enticing enhancements for the price of one! The other explanation is more, er, Machiavellian. As Felten puts it: Apple has taken heat from European authorities for using DRM to lock customers in to the iTunes/iPod product line; the Euro authorities would like Apple to open its system. If DRM-free tracks cost thirty cents extra [as they will in the US], Apple would in effect be selling freedom from lock-in for thirty cents a song not something Apple wants to do while trying to convince the authorities that lock-in isn’t a real problem. By bundling the lock-in freedom with something else (higher fidelity) Apple might obscure the fact that it is charging a premium for lock-in-free music.
I think he’s right. As my mother used to say, no smokescreens without fire.
OK, I’ve been thinking about this and I might understand it now.
If they go to the time, trouble and expense of crippling their product and insulting you, they charge less for you to buy it.
If they just release the product and don’t do anything nasty to it, they charge more for you to buy it.
Nope. I still don’t understand.
or maybe it’s an enticement to the record companies.
They’ve been trying to get prices raised with no success so far.
Argggh! That episode of the Twilight Zone really creeped me out as a kid. Somehow this rendition is even creepier.
Then again…
There will be people who don’t mind the DRM (and haven’t minded it) and people who will rush to pay to be free from it. But somewhere in the grey middle will be people who might/could go either way. To bundle the higher quality with the higher price encourages fence-sitters to fall toward the anti-DRM side of things. If they love the idea of no DRM, but wouldn’t pay more for it, this is the sort of thing that would push them toward it. The more people from this middle-ground market that end up in the anti-DRM camp, the bigger case can be made for more people going DRM-free.
I’m not saying it is the explanation, but the Steve has been pushing for no DRM hard and encouraging the success of no-DRM over DRM is not that tricky a proposition.
It is as much hedging bets on no-DRM as anything.
It’s capitalism 101, kiddies, as anyone who reads the serious British press (what little there is) would know. That includes “opinion” types like Naughton who should read his own paper.
EMI – and the others who are probably lining up – have always wanted variable pricing from iTunes. Their offer to Apple was “you can sell this DRM-free; but, we want more for it”. Apple sweetened it for the consumer by doubling the bit rate.
The consensus in the trade is that most, if not all, that 30¢ is going to EMI. Doesn’t bother Apple. More traffic is more income.
He-he, is that JCD in this cartoon?
http://tinyurl.com/2ktwt4
Naughton’s article is interesting, but his example of a paperback book versus a tune purchased via the internet misses a fundamental premise point: Inherent duplication. You can give the book away, but scanning, reproducing, binding and assembling it are required to duplicate it. Pressing a button is all that is needed for the tune.
So what? DRM, that’s what. Licensing instead of copy “ownership.” If they could code all scanners with software that refused copyrighted books, they’d do that, too.
If they could find a way to make one and only one copy of a tune transmit and play, then get transferred intact to another machine while vaporizing the first copy, they’d do that, too. And then the book and tune examples would be parallel.
What’s needed is a way for me to satisfy selling my tune license to someone else, by securely vaporizing my current copy. And there’s the challenge.
-iNova
Oh, and one more thing…..If you opt for the DRM-free music, you get it at the ‘higher quality’ bitrate of 256 kbs. This means you can fit HALF as many tracks on your iPOD [or Sansa, I suppose.]
Some part of that 30¢ has to pay for the increased bandwidth necessitated by the larger files…
– – – – – – – –
#9 – gary
I don’t see why you put higher quality in scarequotes, it is higher quality.
If you’re worried about how many tracks you can fit on your player, then just reencode everything at 56kb/s. I mean, if 256 isn’t higher quality, then 56 isn’t lower, right? 😀
I think the Twilight Zone with William Shatner is good, the OTHER episode he appeared on.
#12, I was thinking the same thing. He played with Elizabeth Montgomery about the only survivors after a war. In my opinion, the better of the two appearances and the one I remember better.
BTW, I am not a TZ expert so if I am wrong, I apologize.
One thing Naughton did not mention is that the DRM-free Albums will be selling for the same price as the DRM’d version.
In light of the recent news that CD and iTunes Album sales are declining, this makes the deal look a lot more nuanced than Mr Naughton is willing to comprehend.
More factors went into this decision than just, “People want us to remove DRM? Fine, let’s use this as a pretext to raise prices.”
13. There was a third. The one where they go into a small town diner and Shatner is obsessed witht the fortune telling devil head thingy in the diner booth. But I think the one shown in the pic (the gremlin on the wing) is the best.
pedro, pedro, pedro…
You’re past due to have your meds adjusted, once again.
“#10 no better example of a mac apologist.”
Who’s apologizing for what? Pointing out facts ≠ apologizing.
“Paying for the higher bandwidth, gimme a frigging break!”
Ah, pedro, ma man, do you actually think that the same numbers of files X more bytes per file ≠ more bandwidth consumed? And since it takes more bandwidth, who do you think is paying the bill for it, hmm?
“And mp3 is mp3, period!”
Crikey™! Are you now afflicted with Alzheimer’s? This is a dead issue, it’s a given that AAC encoding has been proven by ABX testing to be audibly superior to any flavor of MP3, for any given bitrate. Old news.
And you really haven’t been paying attention. MP3 is MP3. AAC is MP4.
Make that Dr’s appointment, don’t put it off!
The only time the buyer will pay more for DRM-freee music is when he buys a DRM-free single. DRM-free albums will cost the same as albums with DRM. It appears that Naughton was too lazy to do even basic research.