[Macworld]

Post your comments for Sony-BMG to sell DRM-free music downloads via stores here

[aestival]

This sounds great -- Sony must have noticed how much some people love being nickel-and-dimed, and decided to tap into that key segment of the masochist community. Of course, for the remaining 99.9999% of us, there's always the iTunes music store :-)

[note to Sony -- conventional wisdom has it that one of your customers is born every minute, which sounds pretty impressive]

[ibeetle]

aestival said:

Of course, for the remaining 99.9999% of us, there's always the iTunes music store :-)
>
Up until 2 years ago all I needed was my iPod and the iTunes store.
Now I have a PSP, and a Playstation 3. Both of which play and store digital music.
And there is the rub. Do I continue to buy music from Apple and use only my iPod. OR do I buy DRM free music and play it back on everything.
I know Apple does have some DRM free music and there are ways around Apples DRM. But having a single file to download from the net, store on iTunes, and playback on everything would be nice.

[leicaman]

No doubt Apple's store will eventually have all-RAM-free music. All of the major labels - except Sony has gone that way, and Sony has taken the first step. Although they had to do it in a completely stupid way. Go figure.

[mdawson]

Well, Apple has made it clear that they wish to offer DRM-free music through the iTunes Store across-the-board, but that decision rests with the labels and not Apple. I do not why people insist on continuing to erroneously behave or make comments as if Apple has even a fraction of a fraction of a percent point of influence over content. Apple owns the store not the music and it only controls distribution in terms of how music is offered through their store and not music distribution as a whole.
Aside from EMI, every other major label has intentionally withheld DRM-free sales from the iTunes Store because they are wholeheartedly against Apple’s consumer-friendly policies. Even where DRM is concerned, FairPlay is far less restrictive/draconian that any other DRM scheme in use. Apple has even gone as far as to leverage their market position to keep prices at 99 cents despite the labels’ desire to charge consumers more for newer titles. So now, the major labels are in collusion to leave Apple out of new ventures.

[Bruce_Star_Guy]

Swish! Another swing and a miss. That makes it strike three for Sony. (1, DRM on CDs; 2, Sony Connect)

The whole point of buying music online is that it is instant gratification. Sony expects me to go to a store and buy a card, and then go home to download some music? Not to mention it sounds like albums only, no indiviual tracks.

[sundoggy]

Sony obviously will never get it.

From a technology or a marketing standpoint, this is rather stupid. First, the people who want digital music will rarely find themselves in the right place to buy these weird inventions. Second, the people who show up in these stores will often not be the people they do need to find.

And I second everything mdawson said.

The good news is there are growing choices. Well, at least two. Amazon and iTunes.

[ibeetle]

mdawson said:

>Apple has even gone as far as to leverage their market position to keep prices at 99 cents despite the labels? desire to charge consumers more for newer titles.

What I have been trying to figure out is what did Apple or Steve Jobs do to the record industry that was so bad. Did he rape anybodys mother or something?
When Wal-mart or Amazon sells goods for manufacutres at the cheapest possible price, and does everything they can to hold the line on cost everybody wants to throw them a ticker-tape parade. When Apple does it the respose is "Apple must be stopped".
Why is it that Apple must be taken down at all cost? They are not a monopoly they do not have 100% of the digital download market. They are not number one in the the over all music retail business. But the way the record companies are acting we need to be storming Cupertino like angry villagers looking for The Monster.

[ibeetle]

sundoggy said:

Sony obviously will never get it.

From a technology or a marketing standpoint, this is rather stupid. First, the people who want digital music will rarely find themselves in the right place to buy these weird inventions. Second, the people who show up in these stores will often not be the people they do need to find.

I worked in marketing. I can tell you what may seem like a bone head idea at the time may be a big payoff.
Why would a computer company make a $400 digital music player? Why would same computer company get into the cell phone market with a cell phone for $500? Why would a electronics company go up against the likes of Atari, Sega and Nintendo and get into the video game market?
And yet the iPod, iPhone and Playstation (brand) have quite literally changed (in a very, very small part in the grand scheme of things) the world.

[mdawson]

I can understand your point ibeetle, but your analogies are very much flawed. The iPod may have cost more than the numerous other portable digital music players when it was introduced, but its mode of operation was not markedly different from that of other players. If anything, it definitely did not come onto the scene by making the ability to play music more difficult than it was with other players; it in fact had a user interface that was so much better than Windows users were clamoring for it.
The iPhone was again mostly more expensive, but it built momentum based on the fact that it was a product from the same company that created the well-received iPod and now ever more popular Mac. Many people have been willing to overlook the iPhone’s shortcomings for that reason and it is likely that the iPhone will improve significantly over time.
As to the Playstation, Sony may be far from accommodating or consumer-friendly when it comes to selling music, but they are a top-notch consumer-electronics firm. It was far less risky for Sony to enter into the gaming console market than any of the game developers that only produce software. Sony has and at the time had the means to produce the product, some of the content and bring onboard others to expand the list of game titles.
All three of the cases above are far different from introducing a new mode of acquiring music downloads that requires the consumer to jump through hoops. Every other legitimate service simply requires the user to go to the service and purchase the music, product lock-ins for certain services notwithstanding. Sony’s model is the equivalent of having to go to one store to get permission to shop at another.
That model could never work in the brick-and-mortar world and it is likely to fail on the Web. If I have to go to a (physical) store to acquire the MultiPass then I may as well just buy CDs and be done with it. The iPod, iPhone and Playstation did not intorduce blatant inconveniences.

[mdawson]

Well, the music labels would rather have Jobs and company rape their respective female family members than be consumer-friendly. Using market penetration to treat consumers like criminals is fine by the labels. Consumer-friendly policies… not so much. The major labels were found guilty of price fixing in the late-1990s—CDs always have and continue to cost substantially more than they should—and now they have attempted to set the prices at the iTunes Store; a company can determine the price level for selling products to the resellers, but the market price is solely at the reseller’s discretion.
The same goes for DRM. FairPlay is aptly named because as DRM schemes go, it is more reasonable than any other. The labels had not choice but to go along with Apple’s less restrictive DRM when the iTunes Music Store was the only game in town, but now they opt to punish Apple for doing right by the consumer.
The labels have decided that as everyone else seems to be inept at creating an online music service that can truly rival the iTunes Store the way to put Apple in its place is to pull support from Apple; some networks, like NBC, have also deployed this tactic. Such action also sends a message to Amazon and others, “Do as we say or else.” Can you, imagine what would have happened if the labels had tried to do such things to brick-and-mortar record stores 20 years ago?
Collusion is illegal, but it seems that in the current corporate-friendly, “f--- the People” political climate, the labels, networks, etc., will be permitted to get away with this behavior and the iTunes Store may suffer in the long run if Apple insists on putting the consumer first. History is full of examples of people being punished for doing the right thing.