[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angler31337 I can think of lots of positive aspects of DRM from the consumer's point of view. For one thing, effective implementation of DRM should dramatically reduce prices for the general public.

Nothing ever decreases prices for the general public. They always say that and it never materializes.

 

[Kameleon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angler31337 For one thing, effective implementation of DRM should dramatically reduce prices for the general public.

Hahahahahahaha. You really think record companies are going to drop CD prices? No, they'll just come up with other reasons to increase them.

edit: dammit, beaten like a ginger stepchild

 

[angler31337]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanY Nothing ever decreases prices for the general public. They always say that and it never materializes.

I (and my wallet) know exactly what you mean, but empirically it isn't really true. If you adjust for purchasing power (e.g. inflation), then one will often see a decrease in "real" prices resulting from this or that. As an aside, the people who say prices will be lower for many consumers under DRM are economists, not producers.

-Angler

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angler31337 For one thing, effective implementation of DRM should dramatically reduce prices for the general public.

The music industry isn't about to lower prices if and when they ever implement a DRM scheme that actually works. They're in business to make a profit. If they can put a serious dent in content piracy then all that "extra" money will go right to the bottom line in their annual report to shareholders, NOT into the pocket of the consumer. One of the things that's contributed to music piracy is the high price of CDs, yet they haven't seen fit to try and combat the problem by lowering their cost. Instead they choose to spend millions and millions of dollars prosecuting individual citizens for file sharing and developing DRM methodologies that DO impact the legal user who just wants to buy a CD, then rip and encode it for use on their DAP.

 

[angler31337]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel The music industry isn't about to lower prices if and when they ever implement a DRM scheme that actually works. They're in business to make a profit. If they can put a serious dent in content piracy then all that "extra" money will go right to the bottom line in their annual report to shareholders, NOT into the pocket of the consumer. One of the things that's contributed to music piracy is the high price of CDs, yet they haven't seen fit to try and combat the problem by lowering their cost. Instead they choose to spend millions and millions of dollars prosecuting individual citizens for file sharing and developing DRM methodologies that DO impact the legal user who just wants to buy a CD, then rip and encode it for use on their DAP.

That seems a reasonable way of looking at things, but there are a couple finer points that I think you may have missed. For one thing, you need to ask yourself whether the high price of CDs led to increased piracy, or whether piracy reduced industry profits and so compelled an increase in the price of CDs (or both). As an aside, note that the legal expenses of the music industry are fairly trivial compared vis-a-vis its earnings.

Now, think about it this way. Suppose the price of a CD is $15 (just hypothetics here). As a consumer in the know, you realize that if you pay $15 for the CD, your can listen to it, rip it, encode it, share it, etc... so its value to you is, say, $25. Now suppose that I am technologically inept: all I can do is listen to the CD, so I value it at $10. Under current technology, you buy the CD and I don't.

Enter DRM. Now there are two types of CDs available to consumers: (a) a CD "with rights" which costs $23 and (b) a CD "without rights" which costs $7. The “without rights” CD can only be listened to in CD players, whereas the CD “with rights” can be ripped, etc. Now, it should be obvious that suddenly a lot more people are purchasing music; I buy the "without rights" CD, and you buy the CD "with rights." Finally, note that while you earn less gain on each purchase ($2 as against $10), I earn much more ($3 as against $0). Since I represent the general public more than you do, we see that consumers as a whole are made better off by DRM. This is how price discrimination helps many consumers.

For more on the benefits of DRM, I suggest looking into literature by the non-profit group Public Knowledge.

-Angler

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angler31337 Enter DRM. Now there are two types of CDs available to consumers: (a) a CD "with rights" which costs $23 and (b) a CD "without rights" which costs $7. The “without rights” CD can only be listened to in CD players, whereas the CD “with rights” can be ripped, etc. Now, it should be obvious that suddenly a lot more people are purchasing music; I buy the "without rights" CD, and you buy the CD "with rights." Finally, note that while you earn less gain on each purchase ($2 as against $10), I earn much more ($3 as against $0). Since I represent the general public more than you do, we see that consumers as a whole are made better off by DRM. This is how price discrimination helps many consumers.

This is the difference between academic theory and reality.

In the real world, we've seen that prices of DRMed CDs purchased online (whether bundled or at the current nominal price of $0.99/track) are basically the same as you would pay for a physical CD. Not only that, but if you've been following the news, most of the record companies are trying to negotiate even higher average prices for music purchased online.

 

[Taphil]

oops, wrong thread.

 

[angler31337]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanY This is the difference between academic theory and reality... In the real world...

What little good data I have seen seem to support my argument. The problem with "in the real world" is that media spin, faulty data, and self-selection tend to lead to knee-jerk conclusions. By the way, sorry about hijacking this thread.

-Angler

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angler31337 What little good data I have seen seem to support my argument. The problem with "in the real world" is that media spin, faulty data, and self-selection tend to lead to knee-jerk conclusions. By the way, sorry about hijacking this thread.

Seriously, where can you purchase a standard 12 track album with DRM online for less than you can purchase the same CD at Wal-Mart?

 

[Taphil]

Some people like buying CDs at Tower Records, for $18.99 "on sale."

 

[Istasi]

The Toshiba Gigabeat S is certainly appealing to me. I love the look.

However, the real question about these players is: how do they sound? And do they have a true line-out?

 

[LFC_SL]

Hmmm the S series are intruiging

I'm not about to dismiss these players because of the bs Microsoft give me with Windows XP faults and insistence on IE for updates

 

[chrisfromalbany]

being this is an audio forum. I wont hold my breath on the SQ of this thing. That alone will make me stay away. I want an audio player first. Video player second.

 

[discord]

Does anyone have pictures of these products? The video didn't show too much.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenf Quoting you selectively , this only applies to iTunes DRM'd stuff. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing what they want with non-DRM'd mp3 files, including copying said mp3s off an iPod onto any PC with Anapod/iPod Backup etc. It is only a player/software combo after all. But it is the iTunes bit that makes it a killer player/software combo for the general public. MS/Creative/Anyone have to crack the media management side of it - even with a feature-packed player.

Actually this can also be done on MTP devices, and it is even simpler in UMS devices like the iriver H100 and 300 series.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchjordan Its not like other players dont have merit. Creative makes plenty of good players, of similar quality of Apple, but than again, so do lots of companies, samsung included. But were they fail is, tech sites call them "Ipod Killers", yet they have missed the reason why apple is so far ahead. Apple has set price points, and a high quality software setup, with itunes, you can buy the music from it, and put it on your ipod, in a easy to use fashion. Simple. Plus its not easy to get confused with the range, there 3 specific models, with 2 sizes each. No overlap. Plus there marketing is very well thought out and implemented. Creative has so many players on offer, i dont need to go through all of them, but their price points arnt very well thought out. They just seem to be releasing player after player. Sony keeps changing the name of its software, and is really lacking in features. And none of them seem as together in total support. Its just why i think apple will keep dominating, even if other manufacturers are putting out better quality players. Which truthfully, currently as a total sollution, they don't.

I think the only think apple has that has kept it leader saleswize is apples marketing. I am saying this because others players are superior to it, in many ways. That is not to say that the ipod's are bad players, because they are actually very good players. The problem is the fact that there are players that although slightly better, fail because of their poor marketing in comparison to the marketing for the ipods.

-Most people usually say the ipod's success comes from it's ease of use, and seamless integration with it's software. The philips HDD6330 is easier to use, and has an even more seamless integration with it's software (WMP which is even already installed by default). If you wish to buy music online this player comes with software that installs napster within WMP allowing for more ease of use (in a similar way as iTunes).

-Others say the success comes from the players physical appearance. While this is subjective, I agree most players don't look nearly as nice, however, the philips HDD6330 is again better in this regard. No, wonder it has been named by many (including myself) as the sexiest DAP ever.

-Others say the success comes from the sound quality. The new ipod has a pretty good sound quality, but most people think sound quality is the amount of bass that can be produced. As is known all ipods, but the shuffle suffer from a roll off at the low frequency.

-Some may say the success comes from the features. It is a very underfeatures player.

-Some say it has the perfect balance between functions, and simplicity. The Hdd6330 has more functions, is is also simple.

-The reason I think this player is leader is the combination is because this player is the jack of all trades master of none + it has very good marketing to back it up. The philips is the same, except for it's bad marketing. Other players like the H300 from iRiver, on the other hand are masters in regards to sound quality and features (IMO), but are bad in offering a steep learning curve for the non technical user.