Tech IT Easy

April 3, 2007

DRM: what’s next ?

Filed under: Apple, innovation, media — Steve Danino @ 01:49

“Message from Jeremy: To all Tech IT Easy readers, who could obviously not necessarily remember the initial announcement, I have invited my friend Steve to help me try to provide you, dear readership, with everyday better technology insights. Steve’s mission statement is that there’s no mission statement: what matters most here is to raise the right issues on underlying market trends, bringing to light new software, Internet services and consumer electronic devices. Steve, the floor is yours…”

OK, so there’s a big deal going on right now about digital music. A few hours ago, Apple and EMI held a joint conference in London. And here’s the good news :

 Apple’s music store, iTMS, is going to sell DRM-free music within a few weeks. Basically, all of EMI’s repertoire will be available in high quality on iTMS - files will be priced slightly higher, while albums will still cost the same 9.99€.

Although it doesn’t really come as a surprise (EMI has long stood against DRMs, and previously experimented selling DRM free music), this is still a big move from one of the leading music industry player. This is the first time that DRM-free files are sent on iTMS, world’s first online music retailer. This is the first time that a major announce a full availability of its catalogue in such format.  On top of this, EMI is said to be willing to purchase another music powerhouse: Warner Music.

 So the question now is:  what’s next ? Here’s my call :

1) The other majors will have no choice but follow EMI. I predict a huge success for these “premium” music files, not only because they are encoded with a 256K bitrate (something that classical music lovers really enjoy), but also because you can now use them on any kind of MP3 device, and not just on Apple’s highly successful iPods.

  • This is bad news for Apple who might also sell less iPods since the bundling of mp3 players and music store was instrumental in the success of these devices; 
  • This is good news for iTMS since iPods are facing a growing competition (including the Zune from…What’s that company again ? Jeremy, help me there :-) );
  • This is excellent news for iTunes, a fantastic software that definitely appealed even to Windows users (despite its numerous bugs), but which is still unable to work with any non-Apple mp3 player for high quality files (only conventional MP3s can be transferred: no AAC, mp4, or WMA there). We could reasonably guess that iTunes “market share” – it is a free player – will soar in the forthcoming months. Apple will surely leverage this by pushing forward Quicktime, included in iTunes, and the iTMS. Remember that the store already sells videos and TV series. Apple is desperately trying to extend its catalogue. And since TV series are both highly demanded and fairly priced (in comparison with music files), the iTMS might generate in a near future far more cash than it did previously.

All in all, here’s my understanding of all this: Apple might be anticipating the slowdown of iPods sales, by a sharp increase in revenue streams from the iTunes Store. Besides, Apple would grab a better share of the promising online video market if iTunes is the default mp3 player in all PCs – and this means that Steve Jobs will try anything to get its offer more attractive for customers. Including destroying one of the pillar of online music business: DRMs.

13 Comments »

  1. Personally, I think there must be something to the picture we’re not seeing. iPods are typically Apple’s cash-cow in the music-business, and iTunes is (or was) a mechanism for people to buy more of their hardware, hardly breaking even.

    My guess is that EMI made a deal giving Apple more cash/song. I’m not sure if 256k is such a big sell, except to the fanatic, but I know that the ability to play it on more players (that support AAC!) is, and will attract many of my friends.

    As far as a bigger marketshare for iTunes goes, this of course depends on how the other record companies respond and whether they will introduce DRM-free music in more stores. From their perspective it would make sense, not wanting to give Apple even more bargaining-power than it already has. And that would be a no-win for Apple, except if it can leverage the whole thing with more iPod-sales (and why would people buy those now?).

    Again, I’m not seeing the full picture here, nor can I clearly detect a logic in iTunes going DRM-free, appart from legal pressures (EU is still suing for 300+ million!) and consumer-demand of course.

    Comment by Vincent van Wylick — April 3, 2007 @ 13:38

  2. 1) Good point.

    2) Vincent, I do not think European Union has really a strong case for suing Apple.

    Comment by Steve Danino — April 3, 2007 @ 16:02

  3. Vincent, how many people bought iPods just so they could be used with iTunes Store -bought songs? I think people still buy iPods for the exact same reasons they have bought them now. Many won’t even notice the whole no-EMI-DRM-thingie. Didn’t iPods become popular even before there was iTunes for Windows?

    If I go and ask an average iPod owner what DRM means, I’m not probably going to get a correct answer. I think this is a good point to be remembered when talking about this. Few gave a shit about iTunes DRM even before this. Wasn’t the average, what, like one or two iTunes-bought songs per sold iPod?

    I think the 256k thing is more about “creating value” (for that extra 30 cents) and adoption of high-speed internet connections.

    I think David Weiss said it best in his blog, http://davidweiss.blogspot.com/2007/04/apple-confidence-vs-protectionism.html
    “It’s just that Apple’s sustainable competitive advantage is their deep trust in the inherent value of their products and the experiences they provide. Almost no one has that these days.”

    While opening up iTunes probably won’t make Apple any more profit, there are other advantages. Just ask yourself, who will now buy songs from Zune Marketplace? Think about it, you can buy songs for Zune from Apple iTunes Store. Think of the irony, I know at Apple they do.

    The EU case against Apple about DRM was not strong, and I don’t think EU really got far with that one. What EU is after against Apple is the differential pricing and availability of songs inside EU.

    Comment by kari — April 5, 2007 @ 11:47

  4. Kari, I really believe that installing iTunes in millions of PC is a formidable starting point for Apple.

    They can use this to push forward Quicktime, which might have otherwise disappeared; sell videos and TV series through the iTunes Store; and, why not, add one day some kind of advertising (or sponsored links) just a MSN does through Messenger, yet another application that is prone to be left open all the time on your PC.

    Comment by Steve Danino — April 7, 2007 @ 02:36

  5. Quicktime wasn’t going anywhere, it’s fight for survival was mainly fought about five years ago. There was a pretty good article about that on RoughlyDrafted.com. It’s the usual story with Microsoft trying all dirty tricks in the book. But you’re right, iTunes gave Quicktime a new opportunity.

    iTunes already has advertisements, it’s that little iTunes MiniStore-window everyone has closed. When they did that in … 6.whatever? there was a huge uproar and they quickly emphasised that it can be disabled.

    Blatant advertising cheapens the product. That’s why Opera removed their banner ads in 8.5. And that’s also why everyone hates Real Player.

    Comment by kari — April 11, 2007 @ 10:54

  6. True, Kari. Yet ads are indeed swarming in MSN Live Messenger, which doesn’t prevent it to lead the race for Instant Messaging software, at least in Europe.

    Comment by Steve Danino — April 11, 2007 @ 11:00

  7. A little bit of self-praise: DRMs are effectively dying !

    SonyBMG finally dismissed them, so did Napster today…

    Comment by Steve Danino — January 8, 2008 @ 18:44

  8. Here’s how Sony’s No-DRM scheme works. Fact is that the No-DRM policy from all record-companies is patchy at best and different policies apply to different stores and different countries.

    The reason why pretty much all serious record-companies have been fighting DRM-free music, is because no one knows what will happen after music is DRM-free. Are people going to buy more online? Maybe. Are they gonna copy more? Definitely.

    We’ll still be talking about DRM, aka how to protect art in the digital age for a long time to come.

    Comment by Vincent van Wylick — January 9, 2008 @ 01:22

  9. The fact is, the next generation of DVDs could store up to 1To of data, in a couple of years.

    So I can very well figure out some smart ass selling off-record a DVD containing ALL the worthy music created by mankind in a couple of years. And after all, 90% of this music is actually in the public domain.
    The majors might have to focus on concerts, sales to radio and TV, and the star-system if they want to survive.

    Comment by Steve Danino — January 9, 2008 @ 10:46

  10. Steve, that is never going to happen legally, and you know it. And the way copyright is evolving, nothing produced in the last 20+ years will be public domain for several lifetimes to come, maybe even never.

    What you’re echoing, concerts, etc. (what is the star-system?), works well for a sub-group of artists, but certainly not all. Just like artists going record-company-free works well for big-name artists, but not necessarily for the small ones.

    Record-companies are like the VCs for the music-industry, they serve a role and, while they can certainly be blamed to have exploited it, or to not be new-world enough, they need to stay in some form or other, if only as a funding-source for new artists.

    Putting everything on a DVD, “freeing” music, etc. leaves fairly little of the pie to artists and the parties that are involved in creating the music. So, not only isn’t it going to happen, it shouldn’t happen.

    That, or invent an economic system where people get paid no matter what. I suggest communism.

    This also not just a matter of protecting the last generation of the music-industry, but encouraging future artists to come forth also. If they don’t get paid, I don’t see that happening.

    Comment by Vincent van Wylick — January 9, 2008 @ 12:23

  11. I was thinking about classical music and jazz mostly, Vincent… even Elvis Presley is in the public domain.

    The question of whay’s legal or not isn’t the most relevant. What we should consider rather is what is possible. And one must admit that for now, online piracy (with a minimum of risk) is perfectly possible. It is in this respect that the music industry should evolve. I agree that morally this is something one might condemn, but let’s face it: majors will no longer earn their livings by selling CDs in their current format. They will have to change somehow their business, because DRMs are just not working – they are merely a pain in the ass as they were conceived, but then even a more desirable system compatible with all devices and on all platforms would be badly welcomed by users.

    Here are the options that come to my mind:

    - switch from singles (which used to be extremely popular in Europe, at an outrageous price) to albums with bonuses, booklets, video clips, etc…
    - focus on sales to TV/radio (who respects the copyright)
    - sell ringtones for cell phones
    - develop music sales online – which implies building up a better store than iTunes if no decent alternative appears (Amazon could be a solution)
    - take part in concerts, albeit for a small part of the artists
    - pushing forward and creating hype around some events (such as the Star Academy), and get a larger share of revenues incurred from these home-made artists

    In a nutshell, let’s say that the music industry should evolve. CD sales will just decline forever elsewhere, both because of legal (classical+jazz+oldies = roughly 20% of the market if I remember well) and illegal (piracy) factors.

    Comment by Steve Danino — January 9, 2008 @ 12:50

  12. Vincent,

    You’re bang on. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to address in my last 2 posts in Heavy Mental and I fully agree with the VC role of the record companies.

    Not only Radiohead but Nine Inch Nails also are distributing his music for free on the internet. I’ve just read that Madonna and Jamiroquai also are contemplating this possibility.

    Comment by ceciiil — January 9, 2008 @ 12:57

  13. [...] Vincent le poste sur TechItEasy : Record-companies are like the VCs for the music-industry, they serve a role and, [...]

    Pingback by In Rainbows « Heavy Mental — January 11, 2008 @ 10:21


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.