Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
Yeah, this just seems pointless to me. I mean, logic tells me he's not going to give the format away free to the recording studios. I assume he'll implement a licensing fee structure or something. And why would a recording studio do that when they can simply export to FLAC or what not for free? If Pono sees any kind of traction, what's keeping iTunes from offering a "premium" service where all your downloads are FLAC based and completely crushing Pono. I mean, I guess that may be the success he's looking for, in that lossless audio becomes the norm?
Just seems odd to me.
|
Well the music publishers have been clamoring for years for a viable competitor to iTunes because of how much leverage Apple has over them. If Pono can provide them a different revenue model than iTunes, they will definitely sign up. It doesn't cost them anything to provide digital music.
Apple has their own lossless format (technically lower fidelity than FLAC but virtually unnoticeable to the average ear probably) but do not provide these on iTunes. Apple could start remastering their digital downloads in their own lossless format therefore taking away Pono's market.
Throughout the decades, the audiophile contingent has always been a tiny subset of music listening population and Pono won't really appeal to them unless it is convenient for them to get the music they want through this ecosystem.