DRM Free iTunes

Perhaps the Bose speakers are actually a good example for my point; MOST iPod owners will not buy them.

I still doubt MOST people would care. YOU might, but if you ask most people they're probably happy with the quality they get from the music store now.

I thought it was 192 vs. 256, not double, but I could be wrong on that. In any event, 30% is a pretty big difference and it adds up to a lot more songs you could buy in the long run if you go the cheap route.

i think you're right that most people won't buy itunes plus for the lack of drm. i think you're wrong that that means most people won't buy it: it's twice the bitrate! most people will buy it for the higher quality, same reason people buy those fancy bose speakers for their ipods.

So, I guess I agree with you on that, I just feel that most people will choose the cheaper option because most won't care about the DRM; that's all I was saying on that point.

Windows, for whatever reason, offers a higher quality experience for many desktop users. If you want iTunes, video games, Joost, software you get with a textbook, all the fancy devices, and so on to all *just work*, it's a better choice. But I don't think that really matters. The fact is that each operating systems is different enough from the next that there's a ton of factors to weigh when choosing one.

Paying extra for getting music sans DRM involves a super basic trade off analysis.

Although it may not seem like it, I have actually been trying to cut down on the length of the comments lately.

The problem with shorter points is that they are often misunderstood (since they lack context and background), and then the discussion either gets much longer because you have to go back and forth to clarify, or you just have to give up and accept that your real point will not be understood.

I generally try to give just enough detail, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings / misinterpretations, but perhaps I overestimate how what that level should be. Then again, my comments end up being not understood anyway (possibly even because they are too long and most people skim them), but I can't think of a better way that is still sufficient.

As for this particular discussion, you can boil my current position down to two bullet points:

* I recognize that Apple has taken several steps towards offering DRM free content - steps which I previously believed that they would never take. So, on those points I was wrong

* Apple still has no plans (as far as I know) to allow content owners to sell songs without DRM without forcing them to also take a 30% markup. I feel this is in violation of the position Steve claimed to have regarding DRM. Hopefully this will change as well.

There, that wasn't so bad...

You're really holding on to that last thread aren't you? I was going to take all your points of contention against iTunes state of DRM Free music and start crossing them off but I'll have you do that instead. :) Now if you take me serious, since I am half serious anyways, please make them focus points not paragraphs. Paragraphs distract from the focus point and you're distractions are misleading and preventing you from stating you're assumptions of certain key points are wrong.

Nate: By the large difference in quality, are you suggesting that Windows is preferred over open operating systems because it is higher quality? I don't think you would, but if not, then I think it just clarifies my point that people (or "the market") don't always base their demand strictly on the features of the product in question, nor in its openness. It's closer to say that they base it on their perception of its value, but (like I said) for most people that just comes down to the difference in cost between two alternatives that are otherwise equal in the eyes of most consumers. At least that's my theory as it relates to online music purchases on the iTunes store. I'm definitely no expert, and I'd be interested to see some stats (if they are published) that show the general public preferring the DRM free versions.

Nathan: Hopefully I won't have to repeat this too many more times to get the point across, but I don't think there is any "shoe eating" in order, since I think I made it pretty clear (and Dan quoted above) that I would be happy if my theories about what Apple will or will not do turn out to be wrong, and they ended up doing what I thought they should.

Based on your last comment, it still sounds to me like they are not planning to offer content owners (independent or otherwise) the ability to sell their music through the iTunes store DRM free at the same price as music that is DRM restricted, even if the content owners would like to do so. IF and WHEN that happens, like I said before, I will happily be proven wrong.

Either that or just accuse them of only doing it because they were forced to not because they really wanted to. :) Just kidding.

okay, i just heard back from the distributor. their entire catalog will be offered in itunes plus. it'll take some time because they have to resend everything, but it will be done. is it shoe eating time yet?

i'm checking with my distributor and will let you know if itunes plus is available to me as an "independent" artist. although i will still request that they drm the shit out of our music. :-)

i already do pay slightly more to buy my music in a drm-free, higher-quality format: compact discs. i don't even have an itunes account.

But your comparing operating systems that have large differences in quality. With this music deal the only difference is there is added value.

One of the fundamental free software principles is to not restrict what you can do with the stuff you buy (or obtain freely), but the primary purpose of the illustration was to counter your assertion that the market will favor (and create more demand for) the non-DRM versions; just saying that's not necessarily true even though you'd think it would be.

While Dan is in many ways extraordinary, I'd bet he's a pretty average iTunes customer.

I'm trying to figure out how a comparison to free software make sense but I'm pretty sure it's not much.

I didn't say I was always right. "Often" is probably a better word... :)

Nate, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with that, but I don't know whether any of us involved in this discussion are valid representative samples of the general public when it comes to this matter, because I think we all value the freedom that DRM restricts.

Whether most of the general public values (or even knows about) that freedom or not, and further whether they value it to the point of paying 30% more money to obtain it is what I would question.

Perhaps there is a larger demand than I perceive [ yet again - "I could be wrong" :) ], but with ipods having the huge market lead in portable media players, the only difference most average consumers will see in the short term between the DRM files and the unrestricted ones will be that they cost them 30% more money.

Of course, it would be logical to assume that there would be a greater demand for the "more free" format, but I think (especially in the software industry) that logic obviously does not tend to necessarily work out in terms of driving the market demand. For example, you might think that the predominant operating system would be one from the "free software" camp, for many reasons, one of which might be the cost, but in reality consumers (at least so far) tend to prefer the familiar product from Microsoft, even though it is more restrictive and costs them more money.

Yes, I just bought the new Linkin Park off iTunes after looking for it at the higher rate. Also, I bought the album after I downloaded it off bittorent and listened to it for two weeks.

Dan and Nathan, are you willing to pay thirty extra cents for non-DRM music?

Nate: When will you realize Jared is always right, except that "one small aspect".

Although I'm not sure (and actually doubt) that the demand for non-DRM'd music is greater (I think most people don't care, unfortunately), if this was their reason for the extra charge, it would contradict Steve's previous statements, which is basically what I was trying to say,

Dan, I'm glad my speculation being proven incorrect gives you joy. I don't think any of my reasoning was proven faulty, and I think I've made it clear all along when I'm assuming things about the motivations behind Apple's actions, etc.

You may have noted in my comments above that there are still huge holes in Steve's story, the same ones I've pointed out many times before, but if you'd rather revel in my being wrong about one small aspect of the story rather than address those, feel free - it's a rare pleasure, so I understand the excitement. :)

But you said they're charging more to discourage sales. I guess so people will prefer the music with DRM music facilitates vendor lock in. But I think they're probably charging more for the music without DRM because the demand is greater and they can without hurting sales. I thinks there a difference there.

I'm happy that you're proven wrong too.