High Resolution Audio Isn't Coming Soon From Apple

Great piece. I was too focused on thinking Apple would offer high rez simply as a way for customers to purchase their music once again.

Personally I expect a "music" announcement / press conference from Apple sometime in the Autumn or early Winter once Beats purchase is complete.

Until then anything is just speculation...

Personally I expect a "music" announcement / press conference from Apple sometime in the Autumn or early Winter once Beats purchase is complete.

 

Until then anything is just speculation...

Isn't your expectation of a music announcement just speculation?

Pretty convincing argument Chris. What I don't see is what you think Apple WILL do.

 

As regards the Beats purchase, it is been reported and lauded in some of the press that Beats is streaming at 320kps and that it is the best sounding streaming service available (Beats Music crushes its competition with superior sound and a modern UI - TechRepublic) so it only makes sense that once Beats ties into iTunes (ala Pandora) for purchases (which contrary to popular belief is not dead yet) those purchases would be at a higher quality (but not 24/96 or higher) to entice customers to buy them.

 

I don't see Apple simply letting iTunes fade away and basically having Beats serve as it's major music service. Where is the revenue stream there? How do they negotiate with recording companies and artists with that business model? No, I see a tight integration with iTunes and Beats being the way forward for Apple.

 

With the direction of the lightening connector serving as a headphone (or component) connector that is capable of 24/48 it doesn't feel like a stretch that iTunes would be offered in that format with Beats staying at it's current 320kps. The PONO's and HD Tracks of music downloads would then keep covering the high end side of music sales which in truth has very little interest to the large majority of the music buying public.

 

So, I agree with your final assessment that Apple won't be offering high res music anytime soon but I also don't imagine them sitting on their hands as far as music distribution. Their purchase of Beats and the tighter ties with Jimmy Iovine, who has such deep ties with the music industry, certainly doesn't look like a white flag or signs of them letting such a huge cash cow such as iTunes simply wither away. If anything it feels like they are doubling down on making music one of their key areas of interest and I would be surprised if iTunes and their music offerings don't move to a higher resolution offering. I'm guessing 16/44 or 24/48 and the price stays the same.

Hi realhifi - I kind of weaved my thoughts about what Apple WILL do with my thoughts about why they won't release high resolution. I can see your point. I believe Apple is moving to an all streaming lossy platform. I don't even think Apple will tie Beats into iTunes very much. The revenue stream comes from everyone paying $10 per month as opposed to $5 per month for a few tracks. Apple has hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts and I'm willing to bet a vast majority don't spend $10 per month. If Apple can get more people to subscribe for $10 than they previously got to spend $5 per month the company wins and so do users with a better service. My numbers are just guesses of course. Plus, a steady stream of subscriber revenue that automatically charges the user each month is much better than the user purchasing a couple tracks here and there. Apple will be able to sell this service much better than any other streaming company. Apple has a way of selling products even when people don't know they need / want the product.

I posted some further comments about the above article on my website:

 

Kirkville | Why Apple Won’t Be Selling High-Resolution Music Files Any Time Soon

 

Kirk

Hi Kirk - I'm always interested in contrary, yet respectful, opinions (although we agree on the final outcome). Thanks for the link.

Yes, and the App Store has a limit as well. I think this is more to protect users from burning up their data than to protect the phone companies. If a user accidentally taps to download a few big podcasts, not knowing their size, and burns up their data limit, they'd be upset with Apple, and it would cost them money. I found a podcast recently that had an episode in AIFF, for about 450 MB. I don't see this often, and this was clearly a mistake by the podcast provider, but it does happen.

 

There have been limits like this for a while, and they were increased about a year ago. For apps, it's 100 MB. But you can always stream podcasts, rather than download them. There's no limit on that, as far as I know. (I've never tried with big podcasts, because my phone plan only gives me 500 MB.)

 

Kirk

Hi Kirk - I think people unknowingly burning up their data plans would be pissed at the wireless carrier, rather than Apple, because the wireless carrier is the company that sends the bill. I don't think the wireless carriers have good enough networks to support high resolution downloads or even lossless CD quality downloads at the level Apple could sign up.

I certainly didn't see Beats pushing Spotify from the throne but Apple may have the potential to shift the customer base.

Of course many tech sites post attention grabbing headlines on their sites... without making it clear what they are posting is an opinion piece not fact.

High resolution in iTunes Music Store ≠ lossless streaming. There is a valid argument that Beats streaming MAY be an opportunity to upsell high resolution audio.

I haven't seen that valid argument, but I'd be interested to read it.

At the end of the day I think the record labels want to make money more than they want to have control. Have you never heard of the argument it's better to have 25% of a £1,000,000,000 business than 100% of a £1,000,000 business?

Control and money are linked. The labels want both because they have neither right now. They will take much more profit while they can, then offer high resolution to companies like Apple. This would negate the argument about having "25% of a £1,000,000,000 business" if the labels believe they can have 100% first, then have the 25% later. If you can, I suggest inquiring with the labels and people who make these types of decisions.

Come off it Chris ... this is pure speculation!

My entire article is speculation based on my own research. Everybody who comments about anything Apple is speculating. If you need an objective facts-only based article I suggest skipping anything labeled Editorial.

Which is why they will sell this as higher quality audio or iTunes Plus Plus; rather than selling it as 24/96 audio downloads.

Come off it Chris Eloise ... this is pure speculation! :~)

True enough. But I thing this was an argument used as to why Apple will never release a phone.

Ah, Ok. I guess.

The default on a Mac is 24/96 though (IIRC).

I don't follow your logic. The default doesn't matter if the library is full of mixed sample rate content. Only one sample rate will be played correctly.

Sorry Chris ... you have some interesting points and I'm not sure I disagree with you overall ... but you have really no more than all those "headline chasing tech sites" you talk about in your first paragraph. A "preeminent source for computer audio" ... NO ... random speculation!

 

Eloise

Again, this is an editorial piece in which I state, "What follows is my opinion, not citing any other site, third party, or anonymous source close to Apple. Some of us have opinions and aren't afraid to share them without hiding behind the veil of "this just in from one of my sources." I could be absolutely wrong, absolutely right, or somewhere in the middle with my reasoning. I know for sure I'll be right or wrong with my conclusion that high resolution audio isn't coming soon from Apple."

It seems really tough for you to agree with me. Could you have backed into an agreement any more than with the statement, "you have some interesting points and I'm not sure I disagree with you overall." Stating, "I'm not sure I disagree with you" is an interesting way to put it. Do you have an opinion on this or are you really on the fence as your statement implies?

As always, thanks for your comments, even if you are my biggest critic :~)

I certainly didn't see Beats pushing Spotify from the throne but Apple may have the potential to shift the customer base.

Spotify isn't in the best position right now. Its investors want their return on investment. The time has come and gone for a huge Spotify sale that would make all the investors financially happy.

My expectations of Apple were shaped by Jobs famously refusing to go to a blu ray standard, calling blu ray "a bag of hurt." Now Jobs is gone and Apple TV is finally available in 1080 but still no blu ray drives (but they don't have drives either).

If there is any hope that Apple will go to CD quality (my thought on what Apple would call high res audio...not my definition of high res audio), then it will be with a new set of leadership that is trying to make their mark. They would create their own hype for the lossless audio rather than address consumer demand.

Do I think that will happen any time soon? No......

I believe Apple is moving to an all streaming lossy platform. I don't even think Apple will tie Beats into iTunes very much. The revenue stream comes from everyone paying $10 per month as opposed to $5 per month for a few tracks. Apple has hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts and I'm willing to bet a vast majority don't spend $10 per month. If Apple can get more people to subscribe for $10 than they previously got to spend $5 per month the company wins and so do users with a better service.

Not offering albums anymore and only having basically a radio service (via streaming) is not going to happen with Apple. The uproar from lables and artists would be deafening.

By linking arms with Jimmy Iovine Apple has chosen to work WITH artists and lables rather than against. The streaming paradigm as currently being offered by Spotify and Beats may not even be around long if the numbers ( lack of profit, no money for artists, lack of subscribers) are any indication. I still think the streaming paradigm has two directions,

1) Radio station format where the user can somewhat steer the content. Simple but little control for customer.

2) Higher quality, more user control but steerage into a purchase model. Artists are not going to simply want their music to just be on a "radio" station no matter how that radio format is presented. That's why you can't hear the Beatles on any streaming service and why you won't. Keep noticing what artists and albums keep leaving the streaming service's and see where this is heading.

I truly believe this is as much of a driving force behind PONO as is sound quality. It's about artists getting paid. If they don't sell albums they don't make what's due them. They aren't getting nearly enough from streaming services.

I also don't think the $10 a month we are seeing as a cost will stay that way. It will have to be in the $15 to $20 a month range just to keep things rolling not even considering how much the artist is making per stream.

Spotify, Pandora and the profits problem for streaming music | Technology | theguardian.com

Spotify Profits - Business Insider

This just came in my inbox:

Linked to this:

Not offering albums anymore and only having basically a radio service (via streaming) is not going to happen with Apple. The uproar from lables and artists would be deafening.

By linking arms with Jimmy Iovine Apple has chosen to work WITH artists and lables rather than against. The streaming paradigm as currently being offered by Spotify and Beats may not even be around long if the numbers ( lack of profit, no money for artists, lack of subscribers) are any indication. I still think the streaming paradigm has two directions,

 

1) Radio station format where the user can somewhat steer the content. Simple but little control for customer.

 

2) Higher quality, more user control but steerage into a purchase model. Artists are not going to simply want their music to just be on a "radio" station no matter how that radio format is presented. That's why you can't hear the Beatles on any streaming service and why you won't. Keep noticing what artists and albums keep leaving the streaming service's and see where this is heading.

 

I truly believe this is as much of a driving force behind PONO as is sound quality. It's about artists getting paid. If they don't sell albums they don't make what's due them. They aren't getting nearly enough from streaming services.

 

I also don't think the $10 a month we are seeing as a cost will stay that way. It will have to be in the $15 to $20 a month range just to keep things rolling not even considering how much the artist is making per stream.

 

Spotify, Pandora and the profits problem for streaming music | Technology | theguardian.com

Spotify Profits - Business Insider

Hi David - Thanks for the point of view. I don't think Apple or the labels have a choice. Consumers want streaming. The hands of time can't be turned back.

Streaming is the only method of the future. Someone will figure out how to make it profitable. Once Apple starts pushing Beats, the subscriber numbers will shoot up. The money for artists may never return to what it once was. There's a very small period in the history of music where music artists made a lot of money. I bet Beethoven didn't bequeath a giant pile of cash to his beneficiaries.

The Beatles music isn't available for streaming because The Beatles have more money than God. Other artists who don't make their content available via streaming are fighting a losing battle just to attempt to prove a point. Thom York didn't even understand how much money he made from Spotify when he pulled his content. If it's not available for streaming via a service or YouTube, people simply won't listen. The number of people purchasing music from an actual desktop or laptop computer is very small compared to mobile devices.

This just came in my inbox:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13197[/ATTACH]

 

Linked to this:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13198[/ATTACH]

$14.99 to purchase this single album.

I'm streaming it lossless via WiMP right now for one monthly fee. I'm also streaming all the other releases that came out today and many of the 25 million tracks available for lossless streaming.

P.S. I see you're on your iPad. Would you download this album to your iPad? Probably not. Many people access music via mobile device now. Streaming is the only way.

$14.99 to purchase this single album.

 

I'm streaming it lossless via WiMP right now for one monthly fee. I'm also streaming all the other releases that came out today and many of the 25 million tracks available for lossless streaming.

 

P.S. I see you're on your iPad. Would you download this album to your iPad? Probably not. Many people access music via mobile device now. Streaming is the only way.

Point being the Mastered for iTunes in prominent location on the splash page for the album in iTunes. I see where WiMP recommends 320kps for mobile streaming and full resolution for at home listening which makes sense but also makes sense for folks to purchase albums at home rather than on their mobile devices. What is current cost per month for WiMP?

I honestly think there will be artists that will hold out things from streaming services if the money isn't there for them. Much as you have to purchase the whole album to receive some cuts from iTunes and other services now. Hold out some cuts that you can only get if you purchase the record.

Point being the Mastered for iTunes in prominent location on the splash page for the album in iTunes. I see where WiMP recommends 320kps for mobile streaming and full resolution for at home listening which makes sense but also makes sense for folks to purchase albums at home rather than on their mobile devices. What is current cost per month for WiMP?

 

I honestly think there will be artists that will hold out things from streaming services if the money isn't there for them. Much as you have to purchase the whole album to receive some cuts from iTunes and other services now. Hold out some cuts that you can only get if you purchase the record.

WiMP is roughly $30 per month for the lossless streaming service and roughly $15 for the lossy streaming service.

I hear you about artists wanting compensation and I hope they are all compensated handsomely again (eventually). However, I don't believe money is a motivator for artists to create music. Music is what they do. If they need to record to a MacBook and upload their music to the web that's what they'll do.

 

P.S. I see you're on your iPad. Would you download this album to your iPad? Probably not. Many people access music via mobile device now. Streaming is the only way.

I honestly don't use my mobile devices for music playback or streaming. I use them for control though. Any streaming I do is through my Mac Mini and then AirPlayed to the house system or simply through Sonos which has control for all the services right in their interface. If I am listening to lower resolution then it's pretty much through the Sonos right into my system.

For sure I do purchases through my main system though and if iTunes ever offers albums at cd quality or up I will buy them from there and have it downloaded to the main Mac Mini.

Good article here: Digital Music Sales Decrease For First Time in 2013 | Billboard

What is telling in the article is that despite downturn there is one heck of a lot of music still being sold today!

My expectations of Apple were shaped by Jobs famously refusing to go to a blu ray standard, calling blu ray "a bag of hurt." Now Jobs is gone and Apple TV is finally available in 1080 but still no blu ray drives (but they don't have drives either).

.

Blu-Ray is, indeed, a bag of hurt; Jobs was right to say that. The licensing is prohibitively expensive and complex. Windows doesn't offer native Blu-Ray support either, for the same reason. I think it's about $2 per computer to license the ability to play Blu-Rays.

The 1080 Apple TV came out more than two years ago, FWIW.

Hi realhifi - I kind of weaved my thoughts about what Apple WILL do with my thoughts about why they won't release high resolution. I can see your point. I believe Apple is moving to an all streaming lossy platform. I don't even think Apple will tie Beats into iTunes very much. The revenue stream comes from everyone paying $10 per month as opposed to $5 per month for a few tracks. Apple has hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts and I'm willing to bet a vast majority don't spend $10 per month. If Apple can get more people to subscribe for $10 than they previously got to spend $5 per month the company wins and so do users with a better service. My numbers are just guesses of course. Plus, a steady stream of subscriber revenue that automatically charges the user each month is much better than the user purchasing a couple tracks here and there. Apple will be able to sell this service much better than any other streaming company. Apple has a way of selling products even when people don't know they need / want the product.

iTunes users spend an average of $12 per year on music:

iTunes users spend a lot on apps and music, not so much on ebooks (chart) — Tech News and Analysis

However, this is around the world, including a lot of countries with a lot of people where the cost of living is much lower than in the major western countries.

But, if you can get 1/10 of those users to spend $10 a month, that's a lot of money indeed.

Kirk

iTunes users spend an average of $12 per year on music:

 

iTunes users spend a lot on apps and music, not so much on ebooks (chart) — Tech News and Analysis

 

However, this is around the world, including a lot of countries with a lot of people where the cost of living is much lower than in the major western countries.

 

But, if you can get 1/10 of those users to spend $10 a month, that's a lot of money indeed.

 

Kirk

Thanks for the numbers.

WiMP is roughly $30 per month for the lossless streaming service and roughly $15 for the lossy streaming service.

 

I hear you about artists wanting compensation and I hope they are all compensated handsomely again (eventually). However, I don't believe money is a motivator for artists to create music. Music is what they do. If they need to record to a MacBook and upload their music to the web that's what they'll do.

Gillian Welch has a great song about giving it away on her "Time (The Revelator)" album appropriately titled "Everything is Free".

Certainly it's not a main motivator (for some) but nobody wants to give it away either.

Gillian Welch has a great song about giving it away on her "Time (The Revelator)" album appropriately titled "Everything is Free".

 

Certainly it's not a main motivator (for some) but nobody wants to give it away either.

Agreed.

$14.99 to purchase this single album.

 

I'm streaming it lossless via WiMP right now for one monthly fee. I'm also streaming all the other releases that came out today and many of the 25 million tracks available for lossless streaming.

 

P.S. I see you're on your iPad. Would you download this album to your iPad? Probably not. Many people access music via mobile device now. Streaming is the only way.

For once, $17.99 from HDtracks seems like a bargain. Still going to stream this on Beats a few times to decide whether I want to buy it.

For once, $17.99 from HDtracks seems like a bargain. Still going to stream this on Beats a few times to decide whether I want to buy it.

Good call. I think I'm right behind you.

AIFF, 24/44. Interesting choice of resolution.

Isn't your expectation of a music announcement just speculation?

I speculated Apple will do something sometime. Hardly a speculation.

You complained about everyone else speculating then speculated as much more more than most commentators.

Erm. Except this graphic is not part of the headline and certainly not going to be revealed when you get the inevitable Google hits. How about not throwing stones about how bad it is when blogs speculate... A headline of "My thoughts on why Apple won't be releasing High Resolution" might have been clear.

I wonder if anyone else thought you might actually have some information they hadn't seen elsewhere.

Control and money are linked. The labels want both because they have neither right now. They will take much more profit while they can, then offer high resolution to companies like Apple. This would negate the argument about having "25% of a £1,000,000,000 business" if the labels believe they can have 100% first, then have the 25% later. If you can, I suggest inquiring with the labels and people who make these types of decisions.

Well Amazon are managing to make it pretty clear to Hodder and Warner Brothers who they think have the power... Of course that's a separate matter but shows how things are going.

My entire article is speculation based on my own research. Everybody who comments about anything Apple is speculating. If you need an objective facts-only based article I suggest skipping anything labeled Editorial.

Sadly when viewing on mobile the tag "pointless article without a shred of evidence" isn't displayed.

Come off it Chris Eloise ... this is pure speculation! :~)

Well the tagging is speculation. But the idea that they sell on "this is higher quality" rather than "this meets this specification" is Apple's method of working surely.

I don't follow your logic. The default doesn't matter if the library is full of mixed sample rate content. Only one sample rate will be played correctly.

My point was that dCS felt that iTunes resampling was far from bad. So allowing upsampling CD to 24/96 would be a way to avoid the issues of sample rate switching while allowing the "goodness" of 24/96 native to be heard.

It seems really tough for you to agree with me. Could you have backed into an agreement any more than with the statement, "you have some interesting points and I'm not sure I disagree with you overall." Stating, "I'm not sure I disagree with you" is an interesting way to put it. Do you have an opinion on this or are you really on the fence as your statement implies?

 

As always, thanks for your comments, even if you are my biggest critic :~)

Your conclusion - there is unlikely to be 24/96 from Apple iTunes - I agree with. But the reasons you offer appear to be mostly red herrings.

The problem is; for you to give a proper discussion / reason why iTunes won't sell 24/96 ... you have to question if 24/96 is even audible to a large enough audience to make such a venture viable and then that questions things you support such as Pono.

Perhaps it is all the emporers new clothes!

Eloise