News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

April 3, 2007

music

Whoopsie: Wired News article on EMI-Apple deal invalidated by one tiny point

Posted Apr. 3, ’07, 9:03 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Music

Jobs and NicoliPoor Eliot van Buskirk and Rob Beschizza. The duo wrote an extensive—almost 1000 word—piece for Wired on how EMI’s deal with Apple “struck a major blow” against Microsoft vis-a-vis music encoding formats.

Many onlookers had assumed that the company would go with the widely supported MP3 format. The decision to use AAC represents a crack in the wall that has separated services and devices that use Microsoft’s WMA from those that use AAC.
Buskirk and Beschizza acknowledge that AAC is an open format and an industry standard, and that most digital music players can handle AAC with a firmware upgrade. They appear to have done their homework on the technology aspect…but they appeared to have missed these teensy-weensy little details from a Gizmodo chat with EMI Senior VP Jeanne Meyer:
•EMI is cool with any other music store doing DRM-free tracks. This is not an iTunes exclusive.

•Those stores can put songs in any format they want. The iTunes premium price and AAC 256 kbps format are Apple’s Marketing decision.

Much as I would like to see Apple striking a major blow against Microsoft, it’s likely that PlaysForSure partners and the Zune Marketplace will be providing high-quality WMA downloads sometime soon. Of course, EMI has also said that subscription services will have to retain DRM, which is really only going to end up digging those vendors further down the hole they’ve been wallowing in for some time now. Owning music: it’s the way of the future.

[via MacSurfer]


11 Comments

brian said:

while the article does make a fundamental mistake in stating that EMI chose to use AAC, i think the gist of its prediction could still hold true.

if i was creative or san disk or some other company selling digital audio players, i would quickly add AAC support via a firmware update (if possible; i'm not sure that it is). why? because it would allow my players to work with the most popular online music store there is, itunes. it has the biggest catalogue, the biggest marketshare, etc.

sure, the wma support would still remain on most players, but if the itunes store continues to dominate the industry as the market grows, then AAC will still become the default standard.

after all, if that's the format the best content comes in (itunes exclusives, live from the apple store, special EPs, etc), the demand from consumers that their players support AAC would be overwhelming. even if firmware updates aren't possible, i'm sure the newer models would add AAC support. little harm done, but plenty could be gained.

April 3, 2007 9:53 AM
Doug Adams said:

Yuh. Subscription services. Rent-to-never-own. See ya!

April 3, 2007 10:03 AM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

I think you're totally right that player manufacturers are going to be building AAC compatibility into their devices in a heartbeat.

At the same time, I doubt the WMA is about to go away. Microsoft still has plenty of clout outside of the music industry (and even in the music industry, to an extent). I'd imagine MS is scrambling to strike their own EMI deal at this very moment, and we'll see DRM-free content in WMA format on their stores within weeks of it appearing on iTunes. And if I'm wrong? Well, MS has nowhere to go but down.

April 3, 2007 10:07 AM
Ian said:

But if WMA persists, is that not a proprietary format precluding Mac and Linux users today (at least without extra cost)?

Would I want my music in a format controlled by a convicted monopolist or an open format maintained by a standards body in which Apple is a minor partner?

I think it is a nail in the coffin for WMA. Any store selling WMA material would be crazy NOT to sell AAC to appeal to iPod owners. They COULD choose MP3, but that would mean worse quality or larger files than the competition. And any player maker is going to include AAC to allow iPod users to come onboard. It is a victory for MPEG-4 AAC. Let's hope H.264 is next in line.

April 3, 2007 10:31 AM
Mark U. said:

There's going to be some interesting back-and-forth in the marketplace between Apple and Microsoft if other labels join the no-DRM bandwagon. MS's Zune supports both WMA and AAC, while the iPod of course supports only the latter. I wonder if we'll eventually see Microsoft promoting -- if obliquely -- the Zune's ability to work with content purchased from iTunes? And once DRM-free music takes hold, the technical difference between Zune Marketplace and the WMA Playsforsure stores disappears -- making Zune a much more interoperable device than the iPod. If MS starts banging that drum, does Apple respond, and what is that response?

April 3, 2007 10:57 AM
Jack said:

As I see it, WMA is dead if DRM for music really does die. If it didn't it would be DRM.

April 3, 2007 12:17 PM
leodavinci said:

"...The iTunes premium price and AAC 256 kbps format are Apple’s Marketing decision."

Count me dubious about the pricing angle.

Wasn't it EMI that tried earlier this year to make arrangements to sell nonDRM tracks at higher-prices?

And then withdrew before anything was established?

April 3, 2007 12:55 PM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

The operative word there "the iTunes premium price." EMI sets wholesale prices on the music, which are clearly higher on the DRM-free tracks than the DRM-ed music. But the exact price point is up to Apple. So, for example, you might see Yahoo selling DRM-free tracks for $1.40 or $1.20. The $1.30 point is where Apple has positioned it. I'd suspect, as with the $0.99 price, they're not making much of a profit off the cost.

April 3, 2007 1:00 PM
Philippe Azimadeh said:

It's not right: Apple does all the work convincing record companies to offer DRM-free music and every other company benefits?

April 3, 2007 2:46 PM
exnihilo said:

EVERYONE benefits, including Apple. But it is surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an EXCLUSIVE deal with EMI.

April 3, 2007 7:06 PM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

Seems to me an exclusive DRM-free deal would be kind of pointless. It's certainly in EMI's best interest to have it available from as many vendors as possible, and I think Apple's happy enough to be the first. They'll have leadtime of a few weeks, at least.

April 3, 2007 9:15 PM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: