The website www.appleinsider.com revealed on April 12 that it had discovered filings with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) showing that record label Apple Corps had granted computer manufacturer Apple, Inc. far more than the right to use the word "Apple" in conjunction with music in February's trademark settlement.
At the time, the terms of the settlement were undisclosed, but on April 5, an agreement was filed with the USPTO, according to appleinsider, conceding to the computer maker virtually unlimited use of not only the word "Apple," but images of apples and other Apple Corps logos and imagery. This is seen by many observers as a necessary step towards Apple, Inc.'s ability to carry the Beatles catalog on its iTunes Store. Appleinsider went so far as to call the move "one of the final steps in the gradual shift away from [Apple Corps'] once-secure role as the Beatles' favored guardian."
The April 5 USPTO filing occurred during the same week that Apple, Inc. and EMI announced that EMI's catalog would be offered in 256kbps AAC downloads without DRM at a premium charge. That move has generated continuing commentary ever since—some deserved, some unmerited.
Some critics have complained that Apple's choice of AAC was an attempt to monopolize the personal digital player market, charging that not every PDP supports the format. There may be a scant few players that don't—I think I have one or two six-year-old Intel flash-drive models collecting dust in my gizmo drawer—but the twin realities are that AAC without DRM is essentially MPEG4 and that Apple already owns 70% of the portable market. Other companies need to accept the big dog's standard, Apple doesn't need to add theirs. Microsoft's Zune supports AAC, so does Rio—heck, even Sony does, and for years it aggressively resisted mentioning that its players supported formats other than its proprietary ATRAC compression system.
(John Atkinson and I attended a Sony line show several years ago, where a Sony executive "confided" to us that the company's portables played MP3s. "But it doesn't say that anywhere on the package," John objected. "We don't want to confuse consumers," the exec explained.)
Music industry gadfly Bob Lefsetz (http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/) was irate at what he perceived to be a hit to Steve Jobs' credibility because it introduced variable pricing to the iTunes Store, which Jobs has opposed for years. Lefsetz doesn't see the higher bit-rate and lack of DRM as added value. Why, he asked, if it was so bad, didn't Jobs object to 128kbps before? "So you're giving me less than I can get with the CD, but somehow I should be thrilled? Sounds like used car salesman speak, doesn't it?"
Slate.com's Christopher Beam questioned whether doubling the bit-rate from 128 to 256kbps was even audible. Maybe it is, he conceded, but it's not twice as good. What's fascinating about Beam's article is that he never actually listens to any songs recorded at different bit-rates and reports on what he heard.
That's where PC World's April 2 article has it all over Beam's. It follows the classic writing class dictum of "show, don't tell" by posting two files—one by Mozart and one by REM—in both bit-rates. Eric Dahl says he thinks the difference in quality "is worth it," but he also allows you to make up your mind.
Dang—I wish I'd thought of that!
