Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    High Resolution Audio Isn't Coming Soon From Apple

    thumb.png

    Any day now Apple will flip the switch and offer high resolution downloads. That's what many people have said over the years since Apple first began requesting high resolution material from record labels and artists. The reasons given for this high resolution switch flipping have been countless and reported incestuously (yes, this is the correct word I want to use). Some tech sites will do anything for an attention-grabbing headline, even if it means citing another site who cited a blogger with no credibility. Pretty soon these sites may even cite themselves accidentally by using links that go through a number of URL shortening services. 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. I'll even go one step further and opine that Apple won't release high resolution downloads for purchase or even a lossless CD quality streaming subscription service in the next three to five years.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

     

     

    The World's Most Valuable Company Can't Do Everything

     

     

    Apple has so much cash in its reserves it could likely attempt to do what ever it wants. As everyone knows attempting to do something is far from delivering a finished product. Apple could attempt to offer high resolution downloads for purchase or subscription streaming without putting a dent in its quarterly financial results. However, here are my seven reasons why the high resolution speculation has been incorrect and why high resolution downloads won't happen in the next three to five years, if ever.

     

     

     

    One. Wireless Carriers Don't Want High Resolution Downloads (Or Lossless CD Quality Streaming)

     

    Apple has a tight relationship with US wireless carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. These wireless carriers would be irate if Apple offered a service that increased the use of bandwidth by a factor of roughly ten for high resolution music downloads or streaming. Even if consumers were willing to pay for much more total throughput per month, the carriers' networks can't handle the increased data for high resolution downloads or even lossless CD quality streaming for as many customers as Apple could enroll. As an AT&T Wireless customer with an unlimited data plan (no longer offered) I receive text messages from AT&T when I've used 5GB of throughput each month saying my download speed will be throttled because I'm in the top 5% of wireless data users. This quasi-data cap is easy to hit when downloading lossless CD quality music let alone high resolution. Other companies such as WiMP and Qobuz can offer this streaming because there is no tight tie to a wireless carrier. Online retailers such as HDtracks can easily offer high resolution downloads because 99% of its customers download music from a home computer using wired Internet access, and the volume isn't nearly as large as Netflix who has recently paid off Internet service providers to stop limiting traffic to its customers. In addition, synchronizing iPhones with computers, if Apple high resolution downloads were offered and purchased via a wired computer, is yesterday's news. The vast majority of iPhone customers never connect the device to a computer, not even for updates, backup, or any other reason. Also, Apple is all about the user experience and seamless integration. There is no way the company would only enable high resolution downloads via WiFi or a wired home computer. Plus, Apple's main customers are iPhone users, as evidenced by the fact that it has sold 500 million iPhones, 200 million iPads, and its Macintosh install base is only 80 million.

     

     

    Two. Record Labels Want Control And Revenue Again

     

    Ever since Apple persuaded the record labels to allow it to sell music for $0.99 per lossy track and roughly $10 per lossy album, the labels gave up control and revenue. Apple has essentially owned the music business. Record labels have one last shot at retaining control and increasing revenue from purchased content. This shot comes from sales of high resolution music. The record labels aren't going to let Apple flip the high resolution switch until they have wrung every penny out of high resolution sales through non-iTunes avenues. If Apple were to offer high resolution downloads it would likely price them near $10-$12 per album and $2 per track. Apple wouldn't shock its customers with majorly increased prices. This low priced and per track purchasing scenario would be déjà vu for the labels. Rather than allowing Apple to sell this content per track and at such a reduced price, the labels are going through online retailers such as HDtracks, Qobuz, and HiResAudio. Prices from these retailers are much closer to $20 or more. It's likely the customers purchasing high resolution right now would have purchased this music from iTunes had it been available for almost half price. Thus, the labels are wringing out every penny while they can. The PonoMusic Store will also be a major bonus for the record labels. I believe the labels will benefit more from high resolution sales through PonoMusic than any other outlet. There is a very harmonious and tight relationship between PonoMusic and the labels.

     

     

    Three. Beats

     

    Apple purchased Beats for its streaming service. Period. Apple is now a streaming company. Period. Apple has needed a lossy streaming service for years. As Steve Jobs said, "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." Tim Cook should have heeded this advice and started a streaming service earlier, even though it would have cannibalized the iTunes purchasing business. iTunes Radio was a terrible attempt at boosting sales of purchased music. It failed and most people should have known it would fail. The Beats purchase is all about streaming. Apple is going to let its purchase model die a slow death as it attempts to migrate users to Beats. It's a no-brainer for users. Pay $10 per month for 25 million albums or $10 for a single album or $10 for six to ten tracks. Apple will have no trouble migrating users. Apple is a streaming company now. High resolution music doesn't make sense for its business model when considering its move to streaming and its aforementioned relationships with wireless carriers. Apple didn't buy Beats for the hardware. Apple could have created its own headphones by outsourcing the audio design to a great company like Sennheiser and having Jonny Ive design the look and feel of the devices. Apple has talked to well known engineers from high-end audio companies and dangled job opportunities in front of these engineers as well. Apple could have its own headphones and components easily. Apple didn't buy Beats for Jimmy Iovine or Andre Young (Dr. Dre). Dr. Dre doesn't even have a role at Apple. He isn't a company guy who is used to working for somebody. In fact, he said he'd do "as much as it takes" for Apple. Talk about a noncommittal answer and unenforceable agreement. Apple could have hired these guys for far less than $3 Billion dollars. It would also have made more sense for Jimmy and Dre to accept a huge signing bonus and the paycheck from Apple to work for the company, and continued to shop Beats around for a different $3 Billion dollar deal if the two wanted to sell. Or, just hang on to the company and collect from Apple and Beats. Maybe nobody else would have paid $3 Billion for Beats and the other companies rumored to be in the Beats sale discussions wouldn't have been interested without Jimmy and Dre. I don't know the answer to this one. In addition to this Apple purchased Beats for streaming because Beats gives it much needed Cloud credibility. Like it or not, Apple is a failure with its Cloud services and needs credibility. Remember Mobile Me? Steve Jobs admitted this was a failure. Think iCloud is the answer? After three years iCloud Document synchronization still doesn't work. Apple history shows they don't get the Cloud. In fact its Cloud based services thus far run on Microsoft Azure? Thus, Apple purchased Beats for the streaming service and this doesn't lend itself to offering high resolution music downloads or even CD quality streams.

    Note: It's entirely possible Apple purchased Beats to use up $3 Billion dollars. The company's shareholders have been clamoring for years about Apple returning money to them and using some of its huge cash reserve. The Beats acquisition could have been one way to take $3 Billion dollars off the shareholder discussion table. I believe this is a great additional reason for the Beats purchase rather than the sole reason. Apple has to do something with Beats. Apple can't just let it linger because it wanted to spend some money.

     

     

    Four. Apple Has The High Resolution Content Only Because It Can

     

    Apple has asked labels and artists for high resolution content, for its mastered for iTunes program, for several years. The company may have had an idea for high resolution offerings when it started collecting this content. However, I believe it's more likely Apple views it as simply better to have high resolution material in case you want it some day, even if there are no plans to use it. Thus, Apple doesn't have its massive internal library of high resolution content in order to flip the high resolution switch and begin offering this music to customers. A high resolution master in the hand, is worth two still at the record label.

     

     

    Five. Apple Isn't A Specs Company

     

    HTC recently released its new HTC One (M8) mobile phone and has been touting the ability to play 24 bit / 192 kHz music on the device. Apple doesn't care. Apple isn't a specs based company like all the companies selling Android devices. Apple has too many other selling points to worry about specs. Plus, specs aren't related to emotions. Apple sells by appealing to emotions much more than other tech companies. Beautiful looking devices, a genius bar, it just works, sleek looking iOS and OS X, etc… That is what Apple is all about, not touting chip specs as a major selling point. Apple doesn't even have specific model names for its computers other than something like Mac Book Pro retina mid 2012. Even though I'm typing on a Mac Book Pro version 10,1, most consumers will never know their Macs have such a number. How does this relate to high resolution downloads not coming soon? Apple won't increase music resolution to play the specs game if most of its customers don't care. Even if the iPhone 6 supports high resolution playback, this won't be an indication of anything other than Apple did it because Apple can or the chip the iPhone 6 will use likely doesn't come in a standard resolution version.

    Note: Apple certainly offered the upgrade to iTunes content several years ago, moving music from 128 kbps to iTunes Plus 256 kbps. This step wasn't about specs. It was about sound quality audible by a large percentage of Apple users. But due to the size of high resolution music and all the aforementioned reasons, there won't be an iTunes HD upgrade path.

     

     

    Six. Not Enough Apple Customers Care

     

    High resolution music takes longer to download, that's a fact. Switching from 4 MB downloads to 100 MB downloads will impact the user experience for something about which iTunes users don't care enough. The same can be said for lossless CD quality streaming. There can be a delay compared to lossy MP3 quality streaming. High resolution and CD quality lossless streaming is coming to the US already and Apple won't join in because its customers don't care. Its customers won't wait the extra few seconds to load the content. Apple customers may like quality, but the majority doesn’t like taking a step backward in convenience and usability.

     

     

    Seven. iTunes Doesn't Support Native Automatic Sample Rate Switching

     

    The shrinking percentage of mainstream Apple customers who still use iTunes on the desktop, rather than iOS device, wouldn't be happy to learn they purchased high resolution content, but it's being resampled to a different rate because iTunes was locked in to something like 44.1 kHz. Yes, Apple could enable auto sample rate switching, but that would go against its reasons for not offering this feature. Macs need to play all kinds of audio at all times. Apple won't give iTunes exclusive access to USB DAC audio output because it causes confusion with end users when no sound comes out from a different application. Without exclusive access the sample rate could be changed by any app playing any sound at any time. It doesn't appear that Apple wants to make a change to enable auto sample rate switching. This could / would have been done long ago. Resampling everything is just a simple way to do things for Apple.

     

     

    Conclusion

     

    Apple isn't going to flip the high resolution download switch. There are too many reasons why Apple won't offer these downloads, including but not limited to, wireless carrier push back, record label desire for control and revenue once again, and my belief that the Beats acquisition is all about streaming and so is Apple. Sure, some of my seven reasons are weaker than others, but nonetheless there is some validity to each of them. There are also counterpoints to be made to each of my reasons. As a lover of music and sound quality I hope I'm incorrect. However, I stand by my conclusion that Apple won't release high resolution downloads for purchase or even a lossless CD quality streaming subscription service in the next three to five years.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png

     

     

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Chris,

     

    Here's something that negates your opinion that the mobile carriers are against high-resolution streaming:

     

    T-Mobile gives Subscribers Free Music Streaming for iTunes Radio, More - The Mac Observer

     

    T-Mobile is offering to its clients to not count the data they use when streaming music. My guess is that this will become a common loss-leader for mobile phone operators. Given that only a tiny handful of people would ever want to stream high-res music, it's clear that it's not going to bother carriers.

     

    Kirk

    T-Mobile will do almost anything to get customers now. It's has been close to death and acquisition many times including right now with sprint.

     

    Doesnt sway my opinion :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Chris,

     

    Even with Sprint's alliance with HDtracks, it doesn't appear that they are allowing customers to download hi-res tracks directly to their phones.

     

    To access the sampler, users simply download the music to their computer, plug in their USB cord and drag-and-drop the high-definition music onto their device.

     

    HDtracks Joins With Sprint to Offer an Eight-song Music Download in Pristine, High-resolution Sound Quality | Sprint Newsroom

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's not streaming, but I think (stress think because I haven't figured it out yet) that, using the AK240 connected to an iPhone as a wifi hotspot, I can buy hires music from the HDTracks store.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    The thought of a "new" iPod is an intriguing prospect. Make it cool, able to play 24 bit music, herald it as the latest in portable music listening, pair it with Beats headphones, give it wifi so you could purchase right to it. At the same time refresh the iTunes Store with 24 bit music and make a real splash with commercials, ads, etc. aimed at a young audience. The iPod, along with iTunes, turned Apple around. Making it into a big deal with both new hardware AND better sounding music would reintroduce Apple as the coolest kids in the class again. What are the latest iPods capicity, 160GB? That is a lot of high res files. The iPod still has a page on Apple's website all by it's lonesome making me believe it's not dead yet.

     

    This would be a logical extension of the Beats purchase, along with observing the rest of the industry over the past couple of years. Reinvent iTunes / iPod.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    This would be a logical extension of the Beats purchase, along with observing the rest of the industry over the past couple of years. Reinvent iTunes / iPod.

    The iPod is done. People used to use them everywhere. I haven't seen one in the wild for a couple years. It's all about iPhone and iPad now.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    The iPod is done. People used to use them everywhere. I haven't seen one in the wild for a couple years. It's all about iPhone and iPad now.

     

    Or put the same tech in the iPhone - I'd prefer that.

     

    But I'll point out in my own extended family, *every single* kid (8 of them) has an iPod, and none of them has an iPhone. My partner also prefers his 160gb iPod to his low capacity iPhone, and actually carries both with him at all times.

     

    To me, that isn't "dead" . . . but I do wish they'd put out an audiophile edition iPhone with all the bells and whistles :)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Chris,

     

    I think this is a very well-reasoned and well-written piece.

    So many good points, particularly with regard to bandwidth. The service providers just don't have it (yet?) and high res uses a lot of it.

     

    Of course, the existing download services, as well as at least one still to come, seek to get around this by subjecting the files to so-called "lossless" compression and a lot of folks find the results to their liking. I'd prefer to see sufficient bandwidth for raw PCM (like.aif and .wav) but it would seem that is still a ways off in the future.

     

    It is also true that the potential audience covers the whole range from not caring about fidelity (most probably have not even been exposed to the idea, much less the experience), to "high res is too much and offers no benefit" or even sillier, "sounds worse", to "high res (24/192) is not enough".

     

    All in all, nicely written. Thank you.

     

    Best regards,

    Barry

    Soundkeeper Recordings

    The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

    Barry Diament Audio

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    The iPod is done. People used to use them everywhere. I haven't seen one in the wild for a couple years. It's all about iPhone and iPad now.

     

    I suppose. Although if it was high res capable? Which would you want if they were equal in sound quality?

     

    image.jpg

     

    image.jpg

     

    Seeing as the iPod is 160GB as opposed to 128GB for the PONO.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    +1

     

    Chris... Can you implement a "like this post" / "agree with this post" simple clock system to avoid annoying "+1" posts like I've just made?

    I suppose. Although if it was high res capable? Which would you want if they were equal in sound quality?

     

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13260[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13261[/ATTACH]

     

    Seeing as the iPod is 160GB as opposed to 128GB for the PONO.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    I suppose. Although if it was high res capable? Which would you want if they were equal in sound quality?

     

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13260[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13261[/ATTACH]

     

    Seeing as the iPod is 160GB as opposed to 128GB for the PONO.

    I'd go for the PonoPlayer because it was designed by Charlie Hanson of Ayre Acoustics.

     

    But, your question is about vapor ware that doesn't exist. If if if...

     

    I see what you're alluding to, but for Apple the iPod is dead because its other mobile platforms have taken over.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Chris, I think beanbag is suggesting that, in the third sentence of your article, the word "incestuously" should read "incessantly"? He may also be suggesting, as others have, that the same thing that is being critiqued in the opening sentences is going on here. I would disagree with either point.

     

    As for myself, I drank the recent rumor koolaid about hi-res iTunes. Usually I completely ignore Apple rumors and consider energy invested in them to be a waste of my time, but wishful thinking got the better of me. Your article, as you say, is opinion, not rumor. But it does help me return to blissfully ignoring iTunes and to look forward to the official North American launch of Qobuz redbook streaming. Thanks for taking the time to reflect on this here.

     

    Perhaps this is an incorrect comparison, but in terms of visual media it seems that consumers care about picture quality. It helps sell a variety of devices. And it clearly (no pun intended) makes a positive difference. For me audio quality is equally a no-brainer. What am I missing? How well do sound bars sell? For some, a soundbar is a way of downsizing a home theater set-up,and something of an audio comprimise, but for others it is a way to avoid crappy tv speakers. And I know some non-audiophiles that clearly prefer their earbuds to the built-in speakers of any of their mobile devices. So maybe this will be a matter of gradual increments combined with increased affordability and reliability?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Nice write up Chris and good points.. I also feel Apple will not go down this rabbit hole into hi-rez, my reasoning is Apple is currently playing catchup to Samsung and is currently losing market share to Samsung in the cell phone market. Samsung widens lead in worldwide smartphone marketshare, smaller OEMs rising

     

    So Apple's big next push to keep up with Samsung is the iWatch which should be out in October to compete with the Samsung Galaxy Gear smartwatch. Offering some kind of hi-rez audio to those iphone users that seem to enjoy their ear buds and mobile device with the current day iTunes if feel is not where Apple has to go if it wants to recover lost marketshare while it makes some attempt to keep up with Samsung.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    umm, hello? Anybody notice the third sentence? INCESSANTLY!

     

    *s* maybe it was intentional.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I see what you're alluding to, but for Apple the iPod is dead because its other mobile platforms have taken over.

     

    From 1st quarter figures 2014.

     

    "Sales of the iPod are down 52 percent on the previous year, as people are choosing to buy the iPhone and iPad instead of the iPod."

     

    image.jpg

     

    "Apple still generated close to a billion dollars with sales of the iPod totaling $973 million, they sold 6 million iPods in the last financial quarter.

     

    Apple hasn’t released a new iPod for a while, apart from the iPod Touch, although we could possibly see a new one this year, as it still generates decent revue for the company on an annual basis."

     

    That is 6 million iPods. Not iPod touches. Just iPods. Not bad for something that is "dead".

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    From 1st quarter figures 2014.

     

    "Sales of the iPod are down 52 percent on the previous year, as people are choosing to buy the iPhone and iPad instead of the iPod."

     

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13266[/ATTACH]

     

    "Apple still generated close to a billion dollars with sales of the iPod totaling $973 million, they sold 6 million iPods in the last financial quarter.

     

    Apple hasn’t released a new iPod for a while, apart from the iPod Touch, although we could possibly see a new one this year, as it still generates decent revue for the company on an annual basis."

     

    That is 6 million iPods. Not iPod touches. Just iPods. Not bad for something that is "dead".

     

    That's for sure, I bet a lot of the "DAC"/ speaker/amp manufacturers would love to have a dead business product like the iPod.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    From 1st quarter figures 2014.

     

    "Sales of the iPod are down 52 percent on the previous year, as people are choosing to buy the iPhone and iPad instead of the iPod."

     

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13266[/ATTACH]

     

    "Apple still generated close to a billion dollars with sales of the iPod totaling $973 million, they sold 6 million iPods in the last financial quarter.

     

    Apple hasn’t released a new iPod for a while, apart from the iPod Touch, although we could possibly see a new one this year, as it still generates decent revue for the company on an annual basis."

     

    That is 6 million iPods. Not iPod touches. Just iPods. Not bad for something that is "dead".

     

    Thanks for that info. Frankly I'm surprised at the volume of iPod classics sold. It would be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of those sales.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Thanks for that info. Frankly I'm surprised at the volume of iPod classics sold. It would be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of those sales.

     

    That figure includes the Nano and Shuffle. Be interesting to see breakdown of the iPod numbers though. This is basically their MP3 player lineup although with 160GB storage the Classic could easily hold quite a bit of higher resolution music also.

     

    I'd love to see a hybrid device using the Classic and Touch with that kind of storage capacity. Maybe the size of a Phablet? Make it both a streamer and player with decent storage.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The hard drive on my iPod Classic died this month. The only reason I replaced it was because the rep at the Genius Bar offered me a new one for $129.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    The hard drive on my iPod Classic died this month. The only reason I replaced it was because the rep at the Genius Bar offered me a new one for $129.

     

    Can't beat half price!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As a highly subjective article, this is a fun read. However, as someone who makes records for a living, I can tell you: Apple is going to offer 96k 24bit downloads, at some point in the future, probably when they have a significant catalog . How do I know this? Because I regularly deal with many of the world's top mastering engineers, and they tell me. Also, some of the albums I have worked on in the past were decently successful, and as a result, I have been contacted by artists who are trying to track down their master tapes so that they can remaster the album at 96k, expressly for this purpose. Everyone seems to be trying to keep it kind of quiet, but they aren't really trying very hard.

     

    So, yes, it's fun to talk about the good and bad points of iTunes, or to try and read the tea leaves in your glass, or you could just ask people who are making records. It's not even much of a secret at this point, so I'm kind of surprised to see so much conjecture.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...