Previous Next Latest

iTunes Plus: Worth The Fuss?

5/30/07, 6:47 pm EST

UPDATE: Some tech bloggers have noticed that DRM-free tracks downloaded from iTunes Plus are encoded with the buyer’s user name — just like the old DRM tracks — which would allow Apple to track down people who upload the songs to file-sharing sites. You can still copy the new tracks onto any device, burn them onto a CD, use them for any personal use — which was the point of stripping DRM, right? And if you really want to, the tracks’ user info can easily be stripped by coverting them to mp3 — which someone should tell Bob Lefsetz before he has a stroke.

This morning, Apple launched iTunes Plus, a new version of the music-download service that sells higher-quality tracks without copy protection for the premium price of $1.29. So far, only EMI and a few small indie labels have made a deal with Apple to sell songs without DRM (digital rights management), but since the EMI’s catalog includes Pink Floyd, Frank Sinatra, The Rolling Stones, and Coldplay, it’s a good start. (The Beatles and Radiohead are also on EMI, but neither has agreed to sell music on iTunes). So, how is it?
Well, despite an apoplectic rant from noted industry crank Bob Lefsetz, it works pretty well. To access the DRM-free tunes, you’ll need to download iTunes version 7.2. On the “Store” homepage, click on iTunes Plus to see what’s available. I tried Pink Floyd’s “Money,” which seemed appropriate given the oversized price. When you go to download a track, you will be asked to “enable” iTunes Plus. What may not be clear is that once you enable iTunes Plus, it will display the $1.29 version when one is available, instead of the 99-cent, copy-protected version. You can always disable and enable iTunes Plus, but yes, it’s a bit of a drag that you can’t see both versions at once. Hopefully Apple will clear that up in future updates; otherwise, buying “Money” was a seamless encounter. Steve Jobs recently said he expected more than half of iTunes’ songs to be available on iTunes Plus by the end of the year, which would require at least one other major label to agree to sell non-DRM music. Publicly, the other labels swear they’re commited to DRM, but Jobs may know something we don’t. Quite a few things, most likely.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

dmgjwhise qslwan | 9/8/2007, 8:44 am EST

qfwkte ciyg octy qxgobc rmopdvjb bkfjyzc hbfld

enzmtrx | 8/15/2007, 10:34 am EST

What’s wrong with 128kbps??? sound quality is high - better than MP3, WMA, ATRAC etc… its portable - can you imagine the server traffic if everything was at 256kbps? DRM well it gets in the way if you want to use something other than an Apple device but i guess thats what you signed your life to Apple for right?

People these days expect WAY too much for their money

And i swear that these blind tests against different bit rates are made up - the noises you can or can’t hear THEIR IN YER HEAD go to a doctor or sumat (Audiophiles make me larf, i think it is sad people like to spent their time listening to music just to criticise it - music should be a joy/fun

captain | 6/5/2007, 11:58 pm EST

To those of you who have just stated that it’s cheaper to buy a CD, rip it, and then sell the CD: you do realise this is stealing the music, right? Of course stealing is cheaper than buying it.

Scenic Anemia | 5/31/2007, 5:03 pm EST

“All interested parties should read the article on arstechnica.com, talking about the fact that while there may be no DRM on the new, higher bit-rate songs, each song is still (as before) embedded with the buyer’s account info, making the job of tracking distribution of shared music VERY easy.”

Dave–you should read the article you are commenting on which mentions this very fact in the first paragraph.

2 old 2 care | 5/31/2007, 5:00 pm EST

Whats this IPOD thingy you are talkin about. my 78’s are keen..

Steve | 5/31/2007, 1:59 pm EST

You should be able to get a whole album for not much more than $1.29. No manufacturing, distribution, or retail costs AT ALL, so why is the price almost the same as Best Buy? Fuck Apple.

OH, and the DRM-Free thing? Bullshit…Lefsetz may be kind of a crank but he’s right about how full of shit EMI and Apple are, embedding your information into the file.

The labels are idiots for being so stubborn, and people will be even stupider for falling for it.

Toons | 5/31/2007, 1:26 pm EST

Bob Lefsetz is a fucking asshole. iTunes Plus works perfectly for me and I can’t imagine getting as upset as he is over thirty cents for a high-quality DRM-free song he chose to purchase.

Rex Staddler | 5/31/2007, 12:40 pm EST

My life is pure hell! Please, someone help me!

stagefronttickets | 5/31/2007, 11:43 am EST

I don’t care how great a quality recorded music is. Nothing beats a live show!
www.stagefronttickets.c om

jungleland | 5/31/2007, 10:41 am EST

The Russian sites don’t work anymore (credit card transactions are banned) so I have to use i-tunes from time to time. If you are an ipod user, why would you care about the DRM? I think this is to attract people with other mp3 players.

I-tunes is decent. It works well, the quality is ok (still think I can rip a better mp4 than I can buy).

What I don’t get is the increase in price - $1.29 is too much for a mp4 of a single song. Until the I-tunes verion is less than the CD I can’t see too much growth.

I can buy the CD used, rip it and sell it back - cost of $3-$4. I can also go to the library or my friends CD collection for the same (inferior)mp4.

Will | 5/31/2007, 9:33 am EST

Right on apple, i just dislike microsoft…

Steal Dragon | 5/31/2007, 8:26 am EST

iTunes and the rest of the record industry had better take notice of cheaper and “free” ways to get your music because that is what is killing them. Charging $1.29 for what still amounts to MP4 is way too much. I’ll go buy the cd, rip it to a lossless format, and then sell the cd and still come out better than what I would get with iTunes. Love my iPod though, just won’t purchase music from them. Russian sites rule, thanks for that article by the way RS!!

Dave | 5/31/2007, 8:11 am EST

All interested parties should read the article on arstechnica.com, talking about the fact that while there may be no DRM on the new, higher bit-rate songs, each song is still (as before) embedded with the buyer’s account info, making the job of tracking distribution of shared music VERY easy.

jmetptn | 5/31/2007, 2:32 am EST

i know that i can just shut up and go to walmarts song library and get em for 49 cents a pop but i *love* iTunes. Sure, I can get music for nothing. The pain in the ass factor tells my story. The errors and the waiting for abour seventeen days ARE NOT WORTH IT. I CAN GET CHRISTINA AGUILERAS DOUBLE ALBUM FOR

jmetptn | 5/31/2007, 2:32 am EST

i know that i can just shut up and go to walmarts song library and get em for 49 cents a pop but i *love* iTunes. Sure, I can get music for nothing. The pain in the ass factor tells my story. The errors and the waiting for abour seventeen days ARE NOT WORTH IT. I CAN GET CHRISTINA AGUILERAS DOUBLE ALBUM FOR

Jordan | 5/30/2007, 10:13 pm EST

I noticed no difference in terms of sound quality… definately not worth another 30% of the purchase price… iTunes should ALREADY be DRM-free…

Andrew | 5/30/2007, 8:30 pm EST

DRM free music is still priced too high. They need to get the price down to like 60 cents for the masses to really jump on board.

deep dickens | 5/30/2007, 7:49 pm EST

Dude, souds like a bargain to me. I would totally pay $1.29 to download “Shine On You Crazy Diamond pt. 1″

sign me up!

deep dickens | 5/30/2007, 7:49 pm EST

Dude, souds like a bargain to me. I would totally pay $1.29 to download “Shine On You Crazy Diamond pt. 1″

sign me up!

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement