BusinessWeek argues that the Apple/EMI DRM-free tunes deal is a huge boost for AAC as a standard. Is it that simple?
Arik Hesseldahl’s “Byte of the Apple” column, Apple Stokes a Digital Music Standards War starts out by clarifying some issues about what formats are used by various players and stores (in case anyone wasn’t clear: iPods play MP3 and AAC and some others that don’t matter, the iTunes Store sells DRM’ed AAC, most other stores sell DRM’ed WMA, all other players play MP3, most play WMA, and some play AAC). Hesseldahl goes on to say:
Having stripped the iPod-only restrictions, at least from the EMI catalog, on iTunes means there is even less shackling an iTunes customer to the iPod than before, which may help Apple fight off the antitrust complaints of European regulators. But the real target is Microsoft. What we now have is a good old-fashioned standards war heating up, and it is pitting the old foes Apple and Microsoft against each other once again. Saying Apple has the upper hand is giving Microsoft more credit than it deserves.
He then goes on to describe how Microsoft screwed over its PlaysForSure partners by a) not playing for sure (e.g., Amazon Unbox’s partial support), and b) competing with the PlaysForSure partners by rolling out the Zune. All of which hurts the WMA format.
But is WMA’s loss necessarily good for AAC? Put another way, are their other dogs in this fight?
Let’s go back to Apple land. Imagine if all the labels go the EMI route and offer DRM-free songs that play on the iPod. To do that, they’ll have to offer MP3’s or AAC’s. This effectively decouples iTunes from the iPod, because you could presumably buy your MP3’s or AAC’s from any number of vendors: discounters like Wal-Mart, subscription services like eMusic (which already sells iPod-compatible MP3), the labels themselves, or perhaps most interestingly, the artists themselves. It’s hard to see the point of the iTunes Store in this world, save for Apple’s graceful handling of the user experience, which many users will probably be loath to give up.
But there are other players, and not all of them support AAC. Hesseldahl presumably thinks the DRM-free AAC’s and the momentum of the iTunes Store will be a strong incentive for all players to support AAC, and that may come to pass. By the same token, future iPods could technically support WMA, but nobody’s asking for it, and Apple would probably never do it. But moreover, in a world of competitive online music stores, there’s no reason to think that vendors wouldn’t just sell you your songs in the format of your choice: MP3, AAC, or WMA. The latter two have technical advantages, specifically, at the same bitrates, they sound better than MP3. But so what? For maximal compatibility, vendors could just offer higher-bitrate MP3’s. Even on the device, storage keeps getting cheaper, so slightly bloated files probably aren’t a deal-killer.
Aside: OK, this being O’Reilly, someone will surely stop me here and insist that everything be in Ogg Vorbis, because it’s unpatented. I suspect that in the eyes of the media industry, that’s a bug, not a feature. If Vorbis took off, it might be as much a bullshit patent target as all the other popular codecs (e.g., AT&T’s presumably bogus claim against MPEG-4). Do I think Vorbis infringes on any patents? I doubt it. Given the common patterns and similarities in media codecs, do I think a sleazy lawyer could convince a non-technical jury that Vorbis infringes? Hell yes. And is Vorbis backed up with money and lawyers? No. That’s why I prefer the MPEG-related patent-encumbered codecs: they’re good, they’re generally used by good companies who put some money behind them, they’re backed by grown-up standards bodies and licensing organizations, and as ESR wrote in World Domination 201, “MP3 and H.264 may be the only major codecs whose controlling entities don’t have obvious interests beyond maximizing their patent royalties” (ESR is contrasting this to the example of, say, Microsoft using WM* as a means of locking users into Microsoft technologies).
Back to formats: in a world of DRM-free formats, there’s no reason the various online music stores couldn’t use a variety of formats, and probably would support WMA in order to support devices that support it and not AAC. Better yet, they could make everyone happy with MP3, as eMusic currently does. Current iTunes users will still demand AAC in their devices, and that will probably help AAC somewhat, but will AAC ever be as ubiquitous as MP3? Probably not. So while Hesseldahl’s argument may be right in WMA being hurt somewhat and AAC boosted, I think he overlooks MP3 also being boosted in the long run.
For commercial music vendors, AAC's got to be the format of choice: licensing MP3 will cost you 2% of revenues; AAC not a bean.
>It's hard to see the point of the iTunes Store in this world, save for Apple's graceful handling of >the user experience, which many users will probably be loath to give up.
Bingo. With something like an average of 30 tracks per user, the iTunes store isn't really that significant to the iPod's success. The iTunes software is the key.
>in a world of DRM-free formats, there's no reason the various online music stores couldn't use a >variety of formats, and probably would support WMA in order to support devices that support it >and not AAC.
As the first comment says, the thing in AACs advantage is that it's 'free', and if competition hots up, the margins are going to become important.
The second thing is, even if the cost is nominal, encoding and storing millions of tracks in 3 formats is still a cost. So long as it justifies itself in making money, it will happen. But historically, format wars do tend to settle on one format. Admittedly the cost is marginal compared to stocking VHS and Beta, or cassette, vinyl and CD.
We should also remember that almost all players on the market have upgradable firmware, meaning AAC support could be added to existing players. On the other hand, the likes of Creative don't really have an interest in extending the lifespan of hardware they've already sold.
Ogg Vorbis. The nerds couldnt think of a worse name could they. It was just destined to fail.
"Hesseldahl presumably thinks the DRM-free AAC's and the momentum of the iTunes Store will be a strong incentive for all players to support AAC, and that may come to pass."
I'd say that's the nub of the matter. I suspect many online stores dealing with EMI's catalogue will initially do MP3 but go the whole hog on the bitrate: 320kbps MP3. That's what I expect; and, indeed, that seems to be what the first "store" out the gate is doing. I'm referring to the pop band "The Good, the Bad, and the Queen", who are in EMI's stable, and who are the first to offer DRM-free EMI content - which they're doing off their own site:
http://www.thegoodthebadandthequeen.com/
But in the long run, I think Hesseldahl, as summarized by Chris, is probably right. Many people will be buying content at the iTunes Store, and makers of DAPs will aware of that. As it is, the Zune is capable of playing AAC. One can be sure that MS would rather not support MPEG formats and the reason for that is that it knows many people have ripped their CDs into AAC in iTunes and are not about to abandon their music libraries.
The deal doesn't won't make AAC triumphant overnight, but I've got to think it strengthens it.
While I think it would be foolhardy to assume a standard as ubiquitous as MP3 will go anywhere anytime soon, the iTunes store does cut an extremely dominating figure, some 85% of the market, more dominant than the iPod itself. It is only logical that other music player manufacturers are going to want a piece of that pie now that they can get it. Aside from that, AAC is more technically capable than MP3 and apparently has no licensing fees. Down the road that may end up being a really compelling package, but this is definitely way too early to call.
If the music industry really want to bounce back in a DRM free world they should from now decide to stick with the AAC based on the MPEG4 format of the MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group). MP3 is an old format based on the MPEG2 and the patents are not clear. MPGEG, the name tell already that this is an expert group. WMA is a typical Microft effort to force a lousy and inferior standard thru the throat of innocent user in their never ending effort to dominate the world of computers and PC. WMA should be completly abolished.
The standards war between MP3 and AAC is analagous to GIF vs. jpg. In other words it's basically meaningless. It's trivial to make a player support any kind of file that plays music. It's not like when you sawed an inch off one side of your VHS tape to get it to fit in your Betamax player only to discover that Betamax didn't support VHS tapes with their guts hanging out. Manufacturers will simply make players that support different formats and vendors will simply supply the format that is cheapest, patent unencumbered and has decent quality. This will probably mean AAC but could mean OGG in the long term.
they're all a bunch of money-hungry crooks i say.
the problem is people don't demand better. people buy dirt if u sell it right. how else do you explain the success of the iPod--the wool over the eyes of consumers who r sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for tech companies to give them their Jones of new technology. I personally am boycotting iPods. The money mongers will continue to lease songs (yes LEASE--you don't own a song if you can't do to it as you please, wake up!), while the music industry gets more and more pathetic and people will continue to consume in record quantities. SH(L)EEP