Slashdot Log In
DRM Reduces Battery Life
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 17, 2006 04:14 PM
from the sucks-in-multiple-ways dept.
from the sucks-in-multiple-ways dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More reasons DRM sucks.. (Score:5, Funny)
More on these exciting discoveries at 11 (TM).
DRM has gone... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DRM has gone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
DRM suxx0rs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DRM suxx0rs (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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
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:3, Funny)
And Shrinkage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And Shrinkage (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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:4, Funny)
Buy yours today!
Parent
Re:A Link != A Casual Link (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Well, not really (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Parent
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.)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
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.
in China.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Parent
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)
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
Parent
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: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.
Parent
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?
Re:Nobody mentioned OGG (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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