Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTunes
Universal to sell DRM free songs, but not on iTunes
It is safe to say that most folks aren't big fans of DRM, though Apple's flavor of DRM (FairPlay) is flexible enough that most will never run afoul of it. You might remember Steve's letter to the music industry in which he extolled the virtues of DRM free music. EMI has been the only major record label to adopt this DRM free stance, and much of its catalog is available via iTunes Plus for $1.29 a song (you can still get the DRMed versions for $.99). EMI is about to have some company in the DRM free music biz, pretty soon.The New York Times is reporting that the Universal Music Group is going to be selling part of its catalog sans DRM for the next few months to gauge consumer interest. This is great, but the only catch is that these DRM free songs won't be available via iTunes. Universal, in an effort to lessen Apple's dominance of the digital music market, will be offering up the DRM free music via Amazon, Google, RealNetworks, and Wal-Mart for $.99 a song (a price many accredit Apple to pioneering).
You might recall that Universal recently decided not to renew their contract with Apple to sell music in iTunes, and switched their commitment to a month by month basis. What does all this mean? I am betting that this experiment will succeed, and that Universal will reverse their decision and sell DRM free tracks via iTunes, why not sell your wares on the top online music store?
_thumbnail.jpg "Take a stroll down memory lane")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
joe said 8:55PM on 8-09-2007
Because this way, it will fail because it's not on iTS, and they can say "See, DRM free doesn't work." If they sold them on iTunes, it would be a success, and they couldn't use it as a copout
Reply
koreyel said 8:58PM on 8-09-2007
TUAW:
"why not sell your wares on the top online music store?"
You answered your own question in the preceeding paragraph:
TUAW:
"Universal, in an effort to lessen Apple's dominance of the digital music market"
But then you revert to this contaposition:
"I am betting that this experiment will succeed, and that Universal will reverse their decision and sell DRM free tracks via iTunes,"
Huh?
If the experiment succeeds they won't be coming back.
That's the bad news.
The good news is you are wrong: THE EXPERIMENT WON'T SUCCEED.
Too little too late...
Locking the barn doors after the steed has escaped...
etc.
etc.
Reply
David Grey said 9:17PM on 8-09-2007
I agree with the first two postings.
Hey Scott, don't copy and summarize so much from the New York Times, bro! After reading the source, it seems you're cribbing a bit too much.
Reply
Steve D said 9:37PM on 8-09-2007
I have not followed the whole DRM drama but it seems simple to me...If a artist, label, or company does not want to sell it's music via iTunes. Then most customers are not going to go look for a place to buy the song/album they want. I think they customer is simply going to obtain an illegal copy of the song/album. Now no one gets paid. It's in the best interest of the artists/company to sell via the #1 music store, iTunes.
Reply
required said 9:55PM on 8-09-2007
Un-universal DRM free?
Reply
JimD said 10:00PM on 8-09-2007
I don't know... I think sales of songs on Amazon will be huge. Everyone can use a Web browser - not everyone downloads iTunes. This could end up being very interesting.
I hope it bombs, I like the way Apple has the iTunes Store set up. It's easy to find what I'm looking for. I don't want to have to use some convoluted, ad-infested Web site to buy the music.
Reply
david said 10:25PM on 8-09-2007
Raise your hand if you think Universal's intent is to gauge interest in DRM music. Yeah, I thought so. I guess I'll check out what music is being sold sans DRM and then if I find anything I'm interested I'll contact the artists via their websites to let them know that I've withheld purchase of their music until I can buy it DRM free at iTunes. Yes, it is petty and childish but I'm sick of the music industry's games. It is one of the few ways I can figure out to make myself heard.
Reply
John Kirk said 11:00PM on 8-09-2007
I too think that TUAW has misread the implications of this story. I believe that Universal is trying to break iTunes stranglehold on the digital music industry. By selling DRM free music for the same price as iTunes with DRM, they have effectively provided a superior product at an identical price.
Normally that would be all she wrote. But maybe not this time. What the "iPod killers" always ignore is the convenience of the integrated iTunes/iPod combo. I buy all my music from iTunes because it is easy, convenient and I'm already familiar with iTunes. While I would prefer DRM free music, the point is almost moot to me because Apple's DRM is so liberal that I've new run afoul of it's restrictions.
I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know how this is going to end. But as of now, I'd be putting my money on Apple.
Reply
Scott McNulty said 11:44PM on 8-09-2007
David, I think you're accusing me of plagiarism, which I can assure you I haven't done here. I summarize the article, that's true.
As for me being wrong, my point is that if Universal sells lots of DRM free songs and doesn't see an increase in piracy they will be interested in having their wares in iTunes. I don't think Universal songs in any other online store will really tip the scales in favor of another store (iTunes forever!). :)
Reply
Quix said 1:09AM on 8-10-2007
"Universal, in an effort to lessen Apple's dominance of the digital music market, will be offering up the DRM free music"
In Microsoft's WMA format, no doubt. So Universal turns to Microsoft (!) to lessen *Apple's* dominance??? These are interesting times indeed...
And since WMA won't work on iPods (the "Microsoft Windows" of portable audio as far as market share is concerned), this new Universal scheme will go nowhere.
Reply
David Grey said 1:21AM on 8-10-2007
Dude, I like iTunes like the next guy, but it looks like Apple's gonna have to make a move. Innovation and buzz are created when the average joe can get his r&b and pop singles and move, copy and share their music.
The ball is entirely in Cupertino's court.
Reply
Greg G said 1:35AM on 8-10-2007
Boycott them =D
Reply
Greg G said 1:37AM on 8-10-2007
(Universal that is).
Reply
Jeff Weitzman said 2:18AM on 8-10-2007
If they sell DRM-free music in MP3 or AAC format, *then* it will be an interesting experiment not in loosening Apple's grip but in market dynamics, because iPod users will be able to participate. If they sell WMA songs, well, who cares? Universal is not going to change the music player market by itself.
If they do choose an iPod compatible format, then all the more reason to buy an iPod--only iPod users can buy all the DRM free music available from ITS or elsewhere. So Apple sells more iPods, and those iPod users buy more music from the Store, because Universal doesn't publish all the good music, does it?
The power of holding overwhelming market share in two connected product markets is truly awesome to behold. (see, e.g. Windows/Office).
Reply
Barry Ward said 2:55AM on 8-10-2007
It is a shame they have decided to go down this route. Again, for me it is the all-in-one package of iTunes that I love- to just click one button and and an album (with all it's tags labelled correctly for me AND album art) will download directly into the same program (on my brand new Macbook) that syncs to my (newish) iPod Nano. Not only that, iTunes in the UK is about to get even more popular now that videos and tv shows are imminently available via the iTunes store.
You mention wma- why would they be wma? drm free could easily be mp3, but then it is such a pain to check the Amazon website every time we want a Universal album just to see if we can get a drm free version, even if they are going to be mp3. I just don't think I'll bother. I'm sticking with iTunes- like the other poster, I prefer the iTunes Plus tracks for better quality, but the drm tracks haven't affected me either.
Reply
Kalessin said 4:44AM on 8-10-2007
All this pathetic posturing shows why record companies are among the most reviled groups of businesses today.
In any Apple Keynote, Steve Jobs makes it seem as though everything Apple does is for their consumers. This, however, is clearly a case of the consumer getting shafted, simply because Apple wouldn't pay Universal a percentage of iPod sales.
It would be nice to think the people on this forum are representative of the marketplace, but they're not. Most consumers are sheep. If they want a track by Eminem, who's signed to Universal, and isn't available on iTunes, they'll go elsewhere. No problem. You can't expect sheep to boycott Universal, when Universal's content isn't available anywhere else.
So Universal will prove that iTunes isn't as powerful as everyone thought it was. The other record companies will follow suit and offer their content elsewhere.
Finally, without iTunes keeping the prices down (if Apple's hype is to be believed) the record companies finally get what they want.
I predict prices for some singles will have doubled by the end of the decade.
Reply
Rutger said 7:16AM on 8-10-2007
kalessin, you are forgetting that the record companies are ALREADY offering their music on other stores than iTunes.
You can buy music from all the major labels on Amazon, Wal-Mart, Google, realnetworks... It's just that NOBODY buys their music there! That's not Apple's fault, that's up to the stores and the labels being in bed with Microsofts shitty WMA format and DRM.
And WHY would Apple give Universal a percentage of iPod sales? iPods sell because they are great music players, not because you can get the major labelss music in the iTMS. Most of the music on iPods comes from "other sources".... If Universal and other labels want to break iTunes' hold of the digital downloads market, they should:
a. Sell all music DRM-free in MP3 or MP4
b. Set reasonable mimimum prices for tracks, EP's/singles and albums
c. Accept that information wants to be free
Of course this will not happen in the near future because most record company executives have theur heads up their *sses and are self-centered greedy bastards who only care about money.
Reply
Matteo said 9:18AM on 8-10-2007
My opinion is that the move by Universal has one easy explanation...
Music labels have lost almost all of their influence with the recent developments in music distribution.
The move by Universal, shifting from iTunes, is intended to brake the online distribution platform into peaces (many small stores, instead of one giant). So that music labels will regain lost power because they can say... Wait a second, either you comply or I am not distributing any of my music through your channel (i.e. you give me the share of revenue I want, make the prices I want, and so on).
Universal is following this strategy:
1) break the online distribution market into many little peaces
2) make deals on a "monthly basis" with as many distributors as possible
3) offer music that is DRM free so that the customer will be able to switch from a distributor to the other flawlessly
4) start to dictate conditions and menace to retire the catalog from stores that do not comply
Customers, in a DRM free world, will be able to switch from a store to the other in minutes, so that if a catalogue disappears from one, they'll simply switch to the other.
Labels are trying to strike back... And regain the power they lost in the last couple of years.
I don't like it... Not a bit, but that's the road they are following...
Even if we don't like it.
Universal is just the first one, all others will follow in trying to brake iTunes "de facto" monopoly.
Reply
stainboy said 9:18AM on 8-10-2007
well, i'm conflicted. i want to support these companies going DRM-free, but i don't want to support them not selling on iTS...because that's they setup i've chosen to use.
i guess what i'll do is purchase some non-DRM tracks through Amazon and/or Google (no way in hell i'm going through Real or WM), to at least send the message that i'd like to see them get rid of DRM.
Reply
Andrew said 9:43AM on 8-10-2007
well, for iphone users the amazon way of shopping would be one possible way of buying songs online. itms can't do this yet, or am i wrong?
this will be highly successfull as long as they keep away from the silly wma formats. uncompressed would be the smartest option anyway. i think excluding itms for the introduction phase makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view. competition usually is pro consumer...
Reply