According to a report by Billboard yesterday, Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) plans to expand and lower the price of the iTunes Store's offering of Digital Rights Management-free music downloads. The new tracks to be added will apparently come from "a variety of independent labels," but unlike the $1.29 DRM-free tracks already provided by EMI Music Group, they will be priced at 99 cents. An official announcement for this new plan is expected later this week.(Read more news about iTunes on TUAW, The Unofficial Apple Weblog).
The early report also indicates that the cost of the EMI tracks may also fall to 99 cents, but the exact rationale for the drop is unexplained. Billboard speculates that a new deal between Apple and EMI may be the reason, or that Apple will simply sacrifice a nice profit margin for the higher-quality, unprotected tracks. Such a price drop would keep iTunes in sync with other digital stores, like Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN)'s new MP3 store. The validity of such a move is questioned by Billboard, and any announcement with the new plan is unexpected.
Apple first offered DRM-free tracks from EMI after an agreement was reached between the two companies in April, but it was not an exclusive deal, and the music has since become available on Amazon and other stores at lower prices. An addition to the DRM-free catalog is certainly nice, but since iTunes only offers DRM-free tracks from EMI and independents, Amazon and other stores have the edge in the market. Amazon offers DRM-free tracks from EMI and other major labels, including Universal Music Group (who halted negotiations for a new multi-year deal with Apple in July).
More is less: Apple's iTunes to offer 99-cent DRM-free tracks
Posted Oct 17th 2007 7:31PM by Richard Driver
Filed under: Products and services, Apple Inc (AAPL), Amazon.com (AMZN), Technology
Cramer on BloggingStocks: China's industrial focus helps lots of U.S. names 
Before the bell: Stocks ready to climb on hopes of continued low rates
Why do we have a weak dollar?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-18-2007 @ 10:29AM
Mary said...
In reading this, I felt like I was listening to a political commentary. It sounded like a lot of double-talk to me.
This review speaks of a DMR free music download...yet goes on to say that the price would be lowered to 99 cents. Call me stupid, but I really don't get it. Is it 'free' or does it cost 99 cents per download of a single tune? Why is the word 'free' mentioned if it costs money to download a tune?
Weird!
10-18-2007 @ 10:48AM
Diana said...
Huh?
I agree with the first poster....what the heck are they talking about? Last time I downloaded a tune from Itunes it cost me 0.99!
10-18-2007 @ 10:45AM
Barry_Summerlin said...
Mary -- it's not free from cost, it's free from Digital Rights Management technology, which means you could load these tracks on MP3 players besides the iPod, or burn them to CDs, for example. iTunes previously offered DRM-free tracks for $1.29.
Barry@BloggingStocks
10-18-2007 @ 10:45AM
Richard Driver said...
DRM stands for "Digital Rights Management," which is the technology that prohibits tracks purchased from digital stores to be shared, or pirated. iTunes offered tracks "free" of DRM for $1.29, but has now lowered those tracks to 99 cents. Those tracks are not inhibited (some would say) by the technology and allow the user to "own" and share the music at their disposal.
Richard@BloggingStocks
10-18-2007 @ 10:47AM
James said...
its DRM-free not free cost. Meaning they didn't put the copy protection on the tracks that make you unable to make copies of the music between devices.
10-18-2007 @ 11:36AM
teeks said...
GEEZ - #1 and #4, you guys are thick as planks! The article is crystal clear to people with half a brain. It does NOT say the songs are free, it says the songs are free from DRM, meaning you can do what you want with the songs, i.e, share it, etc. Normally with the .99 cent songs you buy they are protected and you cannot do anything with them except play them for yourself. Obviously, #4, if you've only paid .99 cents for a song, then you've never bought a DRM-free song, so this doesn't even apply to you! Sounds to me like you guys are just greedy and wanted to get something for free and are PO'd cuz now you find out you can't?
10-18-2007 @ 11:39AM
teeks said...
Sorry make that #1 and #5, they suddenly added a new post in between while I was posting mine!
10-18-2007 @ 12:06PM
robertilles said...
I run Inner Dream Records and we use iTunes exclusively to distribute our music. They are the clear front runner and are now finally feeling a little heat. This is good for everyone, competition is healthy.
10-18-2007 @ 1:05PM
myke Frog E said...
This is strange,because U can go to CDBABY.com and get anything U want for 99cents or less from Independent Artist and some Major Artist also. Go to CDBABY.com for all of your music. I have one there also. Search for Myke Cello. Thanks
10-18-2007 @ 1:15PM
Cindy S. said...
Well it's about time, dang it!
10-18-2007 @ 3:00PM
Anthony N. Tomasiello, Jr. said...
I have a question: What about the related topic of the audio quality of the downloads? I have heard that itunes' downloads have a relatively low "bit rate" meaning bits per second and for that reason are not "CD quality" or "near CD quality". The CD sampling rate is, I believe, 44.1 Kz, meaning the music is sampled 44,100 times per second and converted to digital format. How widely do the various MP3 formats (i.e. itunes, Amazon, etc.) vary in their audio quality?
10-18-2007 @ 5:26PM
Kingen said...
aac (apples itune codec) is better sounding (nearer to cd quality than mp3. So if you have a 256 bit rate mp3 file, it may not sound as good as a 128 bit rate aac file.
Hope that helps!
10-26-2007 @ 7:55PM
Isaac venane said...
I would like to know if it is possible to start trading
with 500 dollars?or any idea will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Isaac