Steve Job's MacWorld keynote address was today. This is the speech where he rolls out new products; last year, it was the iPhone. Rumors had this year's speech announcing movie rentals on iTunes, an updated Apple TV, a new ultra-light laptop, and possibly an updated iPhone. So when I got up this morning and started reading the liveblogging of the event, I wasn't too surprised to read about movie rentals on iTunes, an updated Apple TV, a new ultra-light laptop, and an update to the iPhone's software. The video of the speech isn't up yet, so I haven't taken in every detail, but about the only surprise for me in those announcements was that every major studio is on board with the movie rental store, with new arrivals due one month after the DVD release (and presumably several months after the pirated digital release). Prices weren't too out of line, $2.99 for back catalog, $3.99 for new releases, and an extra dollar for HD releases. Cheaper than Xbox Live Marketplace, especially for HD content (I refuse to rent a movie for $6), but I'll probably stick with Netflix (even though I often go two or three weeks without watching a Netflix movie, which makes the monthly fee difficult to justify, until a month comes where I go nuts with movie watching). But the fact that all the major studios are involved suggests they may finally be serious about pursuing new digital distribution models (an iTunes subscription model for movies would be very interesting to see).

So anyways, the announcements were made, it looked like things were wrapping up, and I was a bit disappointed by the lack of surprises. Certainly nothing to compete with last year's iPhone announcement. That's when the announced the closing musical entertainment, Randy Newman. I was half-convinced Steve Jobs was just fucking with me: "Not surprised, huh? How's this for surprising?" Or was the speech simply tailored to every observer, and Randy Newman is whom Steve Jobs knew could sell me a $1500 laptop? In any case, I was glad to see him there. I was especially surprised that he sang his latest single, "A Few Words in Defense of Our Country," which hardly strikes one as an effective jingle. But I was very excited, and this assures that I will be downloading the video of the speech when Apple puts it up. And it was nice that non-Newman fans were exposed to a side of him besides his Pixar stuff. He did sing "You Got a Friend in Me," but prefaced it with his Toy Story shtick that he uses in concert. Certainly made an impression on Gizmodo's livebloggers:

Jason Chen:
Aaaand it’s over. Holy crap. Who knew Randy Newman, the guy who makes the songs your kids play over and over and over again, would sing such crazy crap about our government?
10:41 am ON Jan 15 2008

Jason Chen:
The first song’s over, but now Randy Newman’s just riffing about random stuff. The next song is from Toy Story. Randy says he wrote another song to go with the love scene between Buzz and Woody, but the scene was cut. This guy is blowing our minds right now.
10:39 am ON Jan 15 2008

Jason Chen:
“It pisses me off a little that the Supreme Court is going to outlive me.” What the crap is he singing about? We have no idea. We think he’s gone nuts.
10:36 am ON Jan 15 2008

Jason Chen:
Randy’s singing a song about America, the president, and comparing them to Hitler and Stalin. USA! USA! USA!!!!!
10:34 am ON Jan 15 2008

I would point out that our present leadership is compared favorably to Hitler and Stalin (faint praise, of course). Anyway, always nice for audiences to be exposed to the full scope of Newman's talent (though I think "The World Isn't Fair" might have spoken to more of the audience).

I'm downloading the new iPhone firmware as I write this (just managed to connect to the update server after many, many tries); perhaps I will write about the new features (and my general satisfaction with the phone) in the near future.

UPDATE: Video is up. Newman did a fine job. I mentioned his Toy Story routine; he didn't do that here, just made a one-off joke about Buzz and Woody's love scene.

So, today was the big day for us iPod fanboys, as Apple announced their new iPod lines. I refrained from joining in the rumor-mongering, but what I was hoping for was an iPod with at least 120GB of storage, and iPhone-like touch-screen capabilities. And Apple came out with both features, but unfortunately not in the same iPod. For $349, you can buy an "iPod Classic" with 160GB capacity. I figure that's more room than I'll be needing anytime soon, but that's what I thought when I bought the 80GB iPod, and that one's nearly full. In addition to the extra capacity, the iPod Classic features a revised operating system (based on OS X, no doubt), but that doesn't interest me much; I've never found Cover Flow all that exciting, and it is especially irrelevant to how I listen to music on the go.

What I was excited about was getting the non-phone capabilities of the iPhone, and that is now possible. The iPod Touch looks absolutely amazing, but at 16GB of storage in the largest model, it's useless to me. Reading the various live-blogging coverage of the press event, I realized, when the iPod Touch followed iPod Classic, it was going to have less capacity; reports that the iPod Touch would use flash memory instead of a hard drive must be correct, and no way Apple can economically provide 160GB of storage in flash format. So I was starting to think if I could get by with 40 or 60 GB of storage; my music collection, without podcasts and video, is only 57 GB, and to be honest, I only listen to a relatively small portion of that on my iPod, sticking to a few familiar playlists. But I just can't see 16GB working for me at all. Which is a shame, because other than that, the iPod Touch is exactly what I was hoping for (though a radio tuner would have been nice).

I was all prepared to declare my current iPod a useless hunk of junk, and run out to my local merchant and demand two of each model of the new iPods. But now I'm not so sure. I understand where Apple's coming from; they decided to stick to flash memory for the iPod Touch, and large-capacity iPods with flash aren't currently cost-effective, so they're throwing a bone to those of use who demand storage space, and releasing the 160GB iPod Classic, to hold us over until next September, when surely they will have an iPod Touch of that capacity or more to release. And I would certainly not mind having the 160GB iPod. But I don't think I can justify the expense, while my current iPod functions. So here's hoping something terrible happens to my iPod real soon.

Universal to sell DRM-free music. According to this article, Universal's "test" of DRM-free music downloads begins August 21st, and Amazon will be among the vendors selling the files; I guess this means the Amazon music store launches this month.

The one merchant excluded from this new DRM-free product is iTunes. Which seems silly to me. People will go to Amazon or the Universal website if they're looking to buy music by a major artist (advertising will let people know that 50 Cent, for instance, is available DRM-free at Universal's website), but for back-catalog stuff, I don't see people flocking to a new online merchant to buy songs. If something pops into my head, and I want to buy some music, I first check eMusic, then I check iTunes; if I knew the artist recorded on Universal, I would check the Universal site, but who knows on what label an artist records? Thanks to eMusic, I'm more aware of indie labels, but except for a few huge acts, I don't know one major label from another. If people don't find it DRM-free on iTunes (or at all; if I was Apple, I'd consider pulling Universal's catalog, to make them rethink their stance), they'll download it illegally (or, if they're like me, hit up their local library).

To be fair, though, I should thank Universal for keeping the price at 99 cents. Which is actually an odd decision; iTunes Plus has given the labels the variable pricing they've been begging for, sort of, and now the largest label is throwing the gesture right back in Apple's face.

Universal reportedly not renewing its contract with Apple to sell its music in iTunes. Time will tell if this rumor is true, and just what it means if it is true, but I have to wonder what Universal is thinking. Picking a fight with a powerful adversary when their business model is in the toilet should just serve to remind everyone of just how impotent they are. iTunes is responsible for approximately 15% of Universal Music Group's revenues. And iTunes has little incentive not to let Universal walk away, as the profits from iTunes pales in comparison to their profit from the iPod. They want their customers to be happy, and have access to as much music as possible in iTunes, but they also know that if they reach an impasse with Universal, Universal will get the blame.

So, yes, I think this will most likely blow up in Universal's face, depending on how this purported showdown goes down. But I'll keep an open mind. For one, we don't know what will be the length of any short-term purchasing agreement between the two parties. The Wall Street Journal suggests that "short-term" means under one year. So, if they reach a six-month agreement, it may postpone an ugly stand-off long enough that Universal may, down the road, find themselves in a better bargaining position. And perhaps Universal is ready to imminently announce their abandonment of DRM, which they have been rumored to be considering. This would take the sting out of their departure from iTunes for iPod users, who would then be able to buy iPod-compatible files from other sources. Really, removing DRM is such a transparent means of combating Steve Job's influence on digital music distribution, it really baffles me why the labels are so slow to accept that losing DRM is vital for their survival. It would certainly be a smarter move then pouting and threatening to take their toys and go home.

Let me just remind Universal of one thing: People don't mind stealing from you. It's wrong, yes, I truly believe that stealing music is wrong. But I believe that gambling and drinking are wrong, too, and, well, I've been known to partake in a snifter of brandy after an evening of penny-stakes bridge. Or something like that. My point is, many people who buy music think stealing is wrong, but will gladly do so anyways if they can somehow justify it to themselves. The argument that, because Universal stopped selling on iTunes, I'm now justified to steal from them with impunity, is of course faulty. But it's an argument I would nonetheless embrace, and gladly pilfer Universal music with little compunction. So just don't do it, Universal; don't give me an excuse to do bad.

As rumored, the Apple/EMI press conference was to announce that EMI was dropping DRM on iTunes. Good news. Higher-fidelity, DRM-free songs for an extra $0.30/song. I dislike having to pay extra to not receive a crippled product, but the enhanced sound eases the pain a bit (not that I've ever had a problem with the sound quality from the iTunes store). And in an effort to move consumers away from just purchasing singles, the wholesale price of albums will not change; I mostly buy full albums on iTunes, so this means I'll get improved sound quality and no DRM, and it will only cost me $0.30 on the infrequent occasions when I just download select tracks. I'd say this qualifies as good news, and hopefully the other major record labels will follow suit.

I do hope that the move away from DRM doesn't bring the majors to eMusic. I imagine the presence of major studios would drive the cost per song up quite a bit.

EMI and Apple plan to make a major announcement tomorrow. The early rumor was the arrival of the Beatles catalog on iTunes, which would be pretty sweet. But the Wall Street Journal reports (apparently, I got home from work before I heard this, and no longer have access to the Journal archives) that the real announcement is DRM-free music downloads from iTunes. Which makes more sense, considering the promise of a live musical performance at the press conference. Good news, in any case.