DRM Reduces Battery Life 296
gr8_phk writes "An interesting article
over at C|Net claims that playing DRMed music can reduce battery life up to 25 percent. Yet another reason to stick with plain old MP3 files." From the article: "Those who belong to subscription services such as Napster or Rhapsody have it worse. Music rented from these services arrive in the WMA DRM 10 format, and it takes extra processing power to ensure that the licenses making the tracks work are still valid and match up to the device itself. Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them."
More reasons DRM sucks.. (Score:5, Funny)
More on these exciting discoveries at 11 (TM).
DRM has gone... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM has gone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM has gone... (Score:2)
Re:DRM has gone... (Score:2)
Actually there is an easier way you can use a program called tuneabite which plays the file in Itunes (or WMP) at 4x its normal speed while recording it and making a
Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no fan of DRM, but this appears to be FUD. They should have used a WMA with DRM and a WMA without DRM, both of the same bitrate. That would be a proper comparison.
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing MP3 to WMA in general isn't useful tho (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it might be interesting to see the difference in drain between equal bitrate MP3s and WMAs, however you then have to factor in quality. While WMA certianly doesn't offer the "CD quality at 64kbps" MS likes to say, it does offer better sound than MP3 at a given bitrate.
As the GPP said: A real comparison for DRM is to take an equal bit rate WMA file of the same version, and have one with DRM and one without, and then test them. That's the only way to test it's actual battery impact. If you let confounding factors creep in, then the test is worthless.
Re:Comparing MP3 to WMA in general isn't useful th (Score:2)
"If you buy your music legally, your batteries are going to die sooner."
It doesn't really matter if this is due to decoding the encryption or the fact that you can't reencode at a lower bitrate; the point stands either way.
Re:Comparing MP3 to WMA in general isn't useful th (Score:2)
Re:Comparing MP3 to WMA in general isn't useful th (Score:2)
The point is nothing, the point is this study is worthless. Trying to create some kind of false generlization to legal vs illegal music downloads is just as big a flaw in logic.
iPods don't decode "in cpu", they have an ASIC (Score:3, Informative)
The iPod doesn't use a CPU to decode anything it plays; it's all done by an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) which handles the mp3, AAC, WAV, Apple-lossless, etc decompression.
I suspect that the power used to decode equal-bitrate MP3 and AAC files is imperceptible...
Re:Comparing MP3 to WMA in general isn't useful th (Score:2, Funny)
All my foes are spelling or grammar Nazis.
And I think you lack the understanding of what it means to be a Nazi. They didn't just go around correcting people. It was a little worse than that.
All my foes are spelling, grammar, or Nazi Nazis.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
I still buy the occasional CD and have never bought DRM music online - but isn't it possible to choose the bitrate at some stores?
If so, it would have made more sense IMO to take one song from both sides in bitrate 128k for example, AND one in 192k and do the comparison for both sets.
Even if the test is 100% valid, doing it this way will at least raise que
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Like I said before - leaving factors like this one in a test is just asking for reactions about the validity of the test. If you're comparing the maximum speed of two cars, one homebuilt (kitcar) the other a factory model, are you going to use models where one has almost twice the horsepower of the other?
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Store the disk with those originals in a safe place, then go make backups of those stored songs by downloading non-DRMed versions from the P2P service of your choice.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Screw that.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Personally, I believe that customers have a right to acquire backups of any music that they have legally purchased at any time without having to buy it again and to hell with what the RIAA has to say about it as long as you can prove that you have an original purchased recording of said piece. And there are plenty of inexpensive sources to
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
You must be a DRM supporter. We don't cotton ta that 'round these parts. Are you on the payroll of a record company?
I also suspect you may weigh the same as a duck.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
DRM suxx0rs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DRM suxx0rs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DRM suxx0rs (Score:2)
Re:DRM suxx0rs (Score:2)
Re:DRM suxx0rs (Score:2)
If yes, it is the codec and not the DRM.
If no, it is the DRM and not the codec.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
'More advanced compression algorithms use more power[1]' doesn't work quite so well as a headline though, does it?
[1] Even more when y
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Because Apple is DRM market leader ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Apple is the market leader with respect to digital audio content delivery, playback, and DRM. I realize it's new and confusing to not be the underdog, but this is the price for being the top dog.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And Shrinkage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And Shrinkage (Score:4, Funny)
A Link != A Casual Link (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't seem to have tested for that question. If it is the newer formats rather than the DRM, the question arises, "Would you accept a shorter battery life for higher fidelity and/or better compressed files?"
Re:A Link != A Casual Link (Score:2)
I would prefer a battery that lasted for 77,000 hours and total silence.
Re:A Link != A Casual Link (Score:4, Funny)
Buy yours today!
Re:A Link != A Casual Link (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Link != A Casual Link (Score:2)
Thank you Mr. Bogie for your passionate restating of the original post. It was very... um... passionate.
Well, not really (Score:3, Insightful)
different formats? Hello? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:different formats? Hello? (Score:2)
Re:different formats? Hello? (Score:2)
If there's two choices for a song, 1) regular CD, or 2) DRMed WMA, with choice 1, you could rip it to Ogg, which can achieve similar sound quality with lower bitrates. So in that case it'd be perfectly valid to compare differing bitrates. With choice 2, you simply have no choice about what bitrate, what codec, etc. the song comes in.
Bullshit (Score:2, Redundant)
As much as I hate DRM, this whole comparison & conclusion is bullshit. They compare DRM'd WMA and AAC to MP3. From what I've noticed from using my underclocked pda, MP3 is much less processor intensive then (warezed, DRM-free) WMAs at the same bitrate. Even if you don't believe me (and I can't be bothered to look for sources), this is still a possibility they didn't address.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
If I just want to listen to a song, I don't care what codec it's in. So if my choices are an MP3 and a DRMed WMA, and they sound the same, then it seems like this is a perfectly valid comparison.
The headline might be a little misleading, however, but the point is that because having DRM requires the use of WMA (or AAC), which is a less efficient codec, it's perfectly valid to co
Re:Bullshit....NOT (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD player
solution (Score:2)
Solution: downsample to reduce the bitrate! (Score:2)
Unfortunately ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Until that perception is corrected, DRM is a fact of life.
So how do we correct this perception? Maybe by being responsible consumers and not "sharing" all digital media with the planet without permission. If the artist, composer or whatever releases it with "redistribute freely", then by all means, post it, share it, copy it. But, if it is released with "no redistribution allowed" then nobody shares it, copies it, etc.
If that were to start happening market forces could then (perhaps) influence the licensing of music, video and other digital media. I do not see this happening anytime soon or even in my lifetime. Therefore, DRM is a live-or-die proposition to content owners. They can either protect it or sell one copy.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Give scientists and artists another way to profit from their efforts. Hard for the little guy to do anything more with a total monopoly than sell out for a fraction of its value to big organizations that still can't realize the full value because of all the protective measures and restrictions they feel compelled to use to protect their investment.
Someday, I hope that for intellectual property we will have something akin to the road system. Free the highway of the information age the same way US Interstates freed the motorist from the tyranny of the little town that would never admit so but actually kind of liked it that their stop lights were poorly timed so nobody could get thru without several long waits at red lights. And before that, the highway numbering system put an end to communities deliberately misdirecting travellers their way. Good for local business, you understand, and safer for the children. There's the occasional tollway here and there but mostly there's no constant hassle about paying tolls every few miles. Saved massively on overhead by not having to pay people to man tollbooths, track time or distance spent on the tollroad with little pieces of paper or maintain accounts for RFID tags that the motorists must carry, and not delaying the motorists, etc. One reason why the Interstate system was built was so the states wouldn't make a mess by putting in dozens of different toll systems of their own, with tollroads to nowhere that didn't meet up at state borders. Rather ironic that the same technology that makes copyright unworkable could remove many of the reasons against a totally toll based road system.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:2)
Not so sure about that. When everyone markets these things - they call them MP3 players. Folks trying to pitch them as ACC, WMA, or any other format don't do well. They are trying to sneak the DRM in as 'oh, you want to buy music? Here are your options'... I would not touch Apple if it could not play MP3. Pretty sure it would be a dead end if they tried to sell one like that. I buy CD's just because it is the only way for me to get high quality
Argh (Score:5, Insightful)
The codec is the problem. It takes more power to decode WMA (DRM or not) than it does to decode MP3. Ditto for AAC. The codecs are more computationally intensive and are decoded by general purpose CPU's in many players while MP3 is most often decoded with dedicated ASIC's. Even if all decodes are done in dedicated hardware, the MP3 codec is still likely going to be the most power efficient.
A proper study would have compared identical tracks with identical compression with and without DRM such as an iTunes track played on repeat vs the same track with DRM stripped out played the same way. I'd bet the overhead of the DRM is more on the order of 1-3% here.
It is; however, the DRM that is locking you into using WMA/AAC vs the power-saving MP3 format in the first place, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's the DRM's fault that a player running a more complex codec takes a power hit for doing so.
Re:Argh (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't mean to sound like a DRM apologist, but making irrational and flawed arguments against DRM is no way to fight it. There's lots of more rational approaches, such as explaining to the customer that they are paying for their own lockout devices.
The problem is like that tag on the mattress. You spent who knows how many tax dollars to put that thing there and the privilege you receive for all that money is the inability to cut the thing off. (Yes I do know you actually can remove the tag -- just not before it is sold.)
Re:Argh (Score:2)
Re:Argh (Score:5, Interesting)
So unless you know differently then your suggestion could be *masking* the cost of DRM by doing an invalid comparison. Instead this comparison is between formats that a reasonable person might choose, a known-free format and a known-restricted one. They could have compared ogg vs wma for instance, but comparing wma to drm-wma is actually even worse than mp3 vs wma. I think it's a good comparison, definitely not worth the scorn so many have dumped on it.
Re:Argh (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of parroting, this has shown up several times in the discussion, with only assumptions and no evidence to back it up.
Take a look here: http://www.foobar2000.org/foospeed/ [foobar2000.org]
That's a collection of decoding speed results from various machines using foobar2000. It doesn't include WMA, but AAC and MP3 are on there, and the results are rather consistent in showing that AAC decodes faster than MP3. Not overwhelmingly, but definitely noticeable. Regardless, it disproves the whole "newer codec, therefore must be more complex, therefore must take longer to decode" assumption.
Re:Argh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Argh (Score:4, Informative)
That depends, when you say rational thought, would you consider the scientific method to be rational?
The codec is the problem. It takes more power to decode WMA (DRM or not) than it does to decode MP3. Ditto for AAC
I agree this is probably true. Yet still supports my below points.
A proper study would have compared identical tracks with identical compression with and without DRM such as an iTunes track played on repeat vs the same track with DRM stripped out played the same way.
Incorrect.
In any scientific process you must have a control group. In this case, they picked the most popular format which is the most widely compatible, most used, and has been out the longest: MP3 CBR. Why should the control group be forced to use a proprietary format which is not readilly available for use and is not going to be used in the real world? If you set the control group to be WMA or AAC files in the same bitrate which you download off music stores, you would be covering likely less than 1% of all music being used on portable players (because you won't find many people using non-drm WMA or AAC files on ipods and mp3 players)
You missed the point of the article completely. It doesn't matter if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same. What matters is that when you are listening to an MP3 in the control group (which covers somewhere around 99% of all nonDRM music on portable players), and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes or walmart.com, and the battery life goes to 8%-25% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86/PPC operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
Sure, you could make a control group which uses WMA files and then compare it to the variant group which uses DRM WMA files, but then you would be focusing your study on about
Not because of DRM (Score:5, Informative)
That said, it is one reason I only play mp3s on my portable player. LAME has brought a level of quality to the mp3 format that none thought possible, and it keeps up suprisingly well [rjamorim.com] with "more advanced" codecs. I see no reason to use anything else...it plays everywhere, and uses less battery life.
Re:Not because of DRM (Score:2)
It really does depend on the implementation as much as the technology.
Ah, finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ah, finally... (Score:4, Funny)
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
The problem isn't DRM. It's the DMCA. (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, LET them. The problem is not the DRM. It's the fact that it's illegal to BREAK the DRM. Wouldn't that defeat the point of having DRM, you ask? For many people, yes. For many people, no. DRM would discourage many people from breaking it simply because it's inconvenient. But being allowed to break it when necessary allows many people to make "fair use" of the recordings in ways that the DRM would otherwise prevent.
It's all about balance. If the DRM people want to use technical means to screw us, we should be allowed to use technical means to unscrew outselves. This is no different from us using SPAM filters to fight spammers. We should be able to use anti-DRM programs to fight the recording industry.
Re:The problem isn't DRM. It's the DMCA. (Score:2)
There is no reason that a properly designed DRM system would prevent fair use. iTunes/FairPlay tracks, to use the best example, are intended to have the DRM removed for those fair use purposes where the DRM cannot be preserved -- the only caveat being that you can't do it losslessly. This, I think, is probably the right way to go. Is there some fair use precede
in China.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope the French...... (Score:2)
Misleading Headline: 8% vs 25% (Score:5, Interesting)
The Slashdot headline/summary is a little misleading. The test showed that Apple's FairPlay DRM caused about an 8% battery life penalty. It was the Zen Micro with the WMA DRM that caused a 25% drop in battery life. In this case, (if you HAVE to have DRM'd music), it seems Apple's scheme is the way to go.
Some people have raised the issue that they compared 192kbps WMA files with 128kbps AAC (i.e. iTMS) files. AAC, in general, sounds pretty good at 128kbps. (Geek Disclosure Time): I've run a few double-blind, multi-listener tests, and most people put 128 AAC about equal with 192 MP3 (constant bitrate). I have no idea whether 192 WMA is overkill - if that's what Napster provides, well, I'm assuming that's comparable sound quality.
I'm not an engineer, so I can't say whether or not the bitrate difference could reasonably account for that great a difference in battery drain. I will, however, note that if you choose to use a less-efficient codec, that's your fault.
Not so! (Score:3, Funny)
Of course why not go one step further (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and forget about DRM or the need to pay evil patent royalties to Fraunhoffer/Thomson.
DRM Decryption uses almost no cpu (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing Apples to Sonys (Score:5, Interesting)
But, in the interest of science, I would like to see DRM's real affect on battery life in portable music players. Here is the test I propose:
Purchase a 128kbps AAC/Fairplay track from iTunes.
Purchase the same track as a 192kbps WMA/DRM 10 from Napster.
Rip the same track from CD, and create five versions:
- 44.1kHz wav
- 128kbps mp3
- 192kbps mp3
- 128kbps AAC (clean - no FairPlay)
- 192kbps WMA (clean - no DRM 10)
Now we have seven tracks to test, two with DRM, two identical without DRM, one as a control, and two for bitrate studies. For each track:
- set the volume on max
- turn off the backlight
- plug in a set of standard earbud headphones
- load the track on the player while the player is plugged in
- make sure the track is the only thing on the hard drive
- place the track in its own playlist and set to infinite repeat
- press play at the moment you unplug the power cord
- time how long it takes for the battery to run out
- plug the player back in and charge to full
Ideally, this test should be run several times for each track on the exact same player, in the same order every time, to correct for possible changes in the amount of charge the battery can hold. It might be interesting to run the test on many different players, as well, and see how they fare.
Does anyone at Slashdot own a player that can handle all three formats, and would be willing to conduct the tests?
Re:Comparing Apples to Sonys (Score:4, Interesting)
Why fuck around with a battery?
Plug the rat bastard iPod into a power supply and measure the current drawn. If you have to butcher a USB connector to pull it off, so be it.
If decoding DRM'ed files takes more 'power' then you'll see the difference immediately. If it makes you happy, you can run it for a few loops and take an average, but if your power supply isn't putting out dirty power, it shouldn't matter.
If someone from Slashdot is going to do those tests, that's how they should do it. Lessened battery life is merely a by-product of more current being drawn. So the question isn't really "will this kill my battery," but instead, it's "do DRMed music files require more power."
a reason?? (Score:3, Insightful)
?!?! Was there ever a reason *not* to choose mp3 (or ogg, e.g.)?
More importantly, was there ever a reason to choose WMA+DRM (or WMA even w/o DRM...)?
Will people please stop with the "Mp3 vs. WMA"!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Using idiots to your advantage #13934 (Score:3, Insightful)
Ogg Vorbis uses the most power, FLAC the least (Score:3, Interesting)
However I'd kinda expect Sonys ATRAC, the MiniDisk Compression format, to be the most power saving.
Re:You don't say! (Score:5, Funny)
This is why I play NetHack rather than World of Warcraft.
oh, and because it's free as in beer, too
Re:You don't say! (Score:2)
oh, and because it's free as in beer, too
Free beer? Pasawahan keeps charging _me_ 225 zorkmids for a potion of booze. Probably ought to ditch the Hawaiian shirt, they're always ripping off tourists...
Re:You don't say! (Score:2, Informative)
On the plus side (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a plus side...right? Guys? Hello? *crickets chirping*
I forgot, nobody gives a shit about the artists, so we have to invent cute little experiments where files with non-equivalent bitrates are compared, so we can scream "DRM REDUCES BATTERY LIFE!" in some vain attempt to bash DRM yet again. My bad.
Re:On the plus side (Score:2)
The people who are pushing this are the large record producers - because their precious business model (buy cheap, sell expensive via a limited number of record stores) is going down the toilet fast. The want to control distribution just like they used to... I say fuck 'em - I buy direct from the artists or from distributors with clue. Haven't darkened the door of a record store in over a year now.
Re:On the plus side (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what? every song no the radio can be downloaded off a p2p network right now, and it's been that way for at least 6 years.
Artists are still getting paid, and the music company is still making money.
Don't make the mistake that this can, in any way, help artists. It is a waste of money for the record companies to even try, since it is impossible to completly lock people out of any data stream.
I wonder if the music company charges the artisits for the 'DRM Servicing' of their music?
Nt to mention, many songs are engineered towards what the label wants to here, not what artists want to sound like.
If anyone in this scenerio doesn't care about artists, it's the label.
iTunes has had a billion downloads, clearly if those people were predisposed to get music from the internet for free, they could ahve done so.
Re:Captain Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee Zonk, what do you REALLY feel about DRM. Next there will be articles on how DRM prevents you from storing as many files on your media player (699 vs 700!!!!).
The difference here is >1. If the hit in your hypothetical scenario was 25% (525 tracks vs 700) it would indeed be news, yes?
What is this? (Score:2)
Can someone enlighten me?
Re:Is it just me, or ... (Score:2)
Is it really too much to ask that device manufacturers not be dishonest, and instead provide realistic expected battery life information?
Re:Nobody mentioned OGG (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nobody mentioned OGG (Score:2)
Ogg has no hardware decoder, and to my knowledge, neither do WMA and AAC. So a portable device decoding any of these formats would have to use general-purpose CPU power to decode these formats, rather than idling the CPU and
Re:Al Gore says.... (Score:2)
Wow, he must be pretty stupid to say something like that when he up for re-election [appleinsider.com] on Apple's board of directors.
Re:Not a misleading article (Score:2)
Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue." (Score:2)
Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue." (Score:3, Interesting)
Time and time again, it comes down to the fact that nobody has ever proven that the availalibility of illegal copies of something ever really truly makes a big impact in the sales of the legitimate product. In fact, the contrary seems to be true: that digital "illegal" copies of music, movies, TV shows, whatever seems to be able to drive sales of the product.
Increasingly, this is more about the Content Cartel's control of the pipeline. Digital media