Steve Jobs: Apple would embrace DRM-free music 'in a heartbeat' - Page 2

Pls see re-post below.

Here's an interesting -- and, in a way, sad -- comparison between Jobs and Gates, based on news.google.com (as of 8.10 PM EST, Feb 6, 2006), as a sign of the times:

Jobs' comments: "Apple to Big Music -- Set It Free" 1231 news articles.

Gates' comments: "Gates -- Protect Windows Vista Users with IP" 56 news articles.

(Both comments are of roughly the same vintage).

Similar to iPod v. Zune market share, don't you think! (Given this sort of asymmetry in worldwide share of attention, it's no wonder Gates sounded so ticked off at Apple and Jobs in a recent interview with Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934083/site/newsweek/).

Apple never has and never will make most of their money on the iTunes store. Their money is made on hardware (iPods...and whatever else they can come up with).

IMO 192 VBR AAC would be close enough to lossless while still being relatively small in size. It will be very difficult to bite on the Beatles catalogue if it is only 128. Remaster or no.

My inference from your post, apparently incorrect, is that because iTunes content is locked to the iPod (or Apple consumer hardware offerings) that is the reason that the iPod and iTunes is successful.

Steve's arguing that $22 is not enough of an investment for a someone to be bound to iTunes, and I would agree with him--but I don't think $22 is real-life true. Of iPod owners, most people purchased or have been given multiple iPods since 2001, say 2 or 3 (an iPod + mini, nano or shuffle), so that's $44 to $66 (even $100) "lost" if someone switches to a Zune. Re-ripping to 10 CDs is not that difficult or time consuming to switch to WMA or whatever.

Honestly, I don't think this perceived lock-in is all that strong. People buy iPods because they are the slickest players, have cachet, and work with the best online media store. Losing DRM won't change that. Apple will still be number one--perhaps even gaining share from Zune and Creative owners who are locked-in to their devices. Apple has the advantage because it has the best mousetrap--not because of DRM.

Before Apple started the iTunes Store, Steve Jobs was quoted as saying, DRM was a waste of time - that someone would always find a way around it - it was pointless.

People need to remember, before the iTunes Music Store opened, there wasn't any place Mac users could buy music online, other than a few "indie" sites that sold open MP3 music. The only people who could buy popular, big-label music were those that used Windows. Why? Because, Microsoft directly tied its DRM to its operating system, it still carries on this practice to this day. So, Apple, not wanting their users to be left out of digital music revolution, created the iTunes Music Store. However, unlike Microsoft, they didn't lock the DRM to the OS, instead they chose to base it around their cross-platform media framework, QuickTime.

It's funny how short-sighted Windows users are. They have, Sony's DRM, MS Plays For Sure, MS Zune Marketplace, and iTunes. And all they can do is complain that iTunes locks them into the iPod! While us Mac users only have 1 option, iTunes. IS that Apple's fault? Nope. Apple has an OBLIGATION to the record labels to make sure the DRM remains intact or lose the license to sell the music. So, who's fault is it? Microsoft's of course. They made the wrong choice...

* Maybe if Microsoft's DRM was cross-platform, Apple would of used it instead of needing to use another DRM scheme?
* Maybe as Mac users, we would of downloaded music from a Plays For Sure store instead of setting legal download records from all of us buying from iTunes.
* Maybe we would have bought a player from Sony, or Creative, or Samsung, instead of flocking to the iPod.
* Maybe, just maybe the digital download market would have a very different landscape today if in the beginning, Microsoft would have really opened it's DRM and allowed Mac users access to the content.

But that's not what happened. What happened? Apple made all the right moves. They leveled the playing field by using the Windows monopoly to their advantage. They also took advantage of the fact that Mac users as a whole are more willing to embrace new technology.

Personally, DRM sucks. I'd rather it be removed, but I'm glad as a Mac user, FairPlay is the only option for us. So far Apple has proven to side more with the consumer when it comes to bargaining with the music labels for fair rights. The same can definitely not be said with Microsoft or Sony.

Clearly you've never worked under him. He's neither insane, megalomaniacal or a jerk.

He's blunt, consistent and extremely demanding of your best.

If you don't like to work for people who expect to deliver something worth a shit then work for the other 96% of this Industry.

Gate's is the kid who never even got picked to play a pick up game of basketball. So he went and amassed a fortune, built his own league and even offers the gym and still can't get anyone to pick him over Steve.

He's still got the same pubescent voice that cracks at over 50 as he did when he went through puberty.

He's got great business acumen--he knew how to amass a fortune by strangleholding a small market over time.

Business acumen has nothing to do with style.

Steve finally figured out how to have that acumen with style and it's pissing Bill off.

Say Apple did start licensing FairPlay, who's to say that others would even adopt it? Just because Apple sets it "free" doesn't mean it's going to start working with all the players and online stores. All those companies would have to build that support in. And knowing Microsoft's business tactics, those manufacturers may be locked in a contract with Microsoft.

Conversely, Apple could easily own the entire market with FairPlay if they "opened" it up. What media player manufacturer wouldn't want access to iTunes content? And which online store wouldn't want to sell to iPod or Mac owners? Apple could make a helluva lot more money licensing FairPlay. And they could do so while still retaining the tight integration between the iPod and iTunes Store. They could easily make 2 cents on every song sold, 10 cents on every TV Show sold, and 50 cents on every movie sold as license fees. There's got to be another reason for it other than monetary.

Have you worked for him? Very few people have had to deal with him, but he has quite a reputation that I've seen from several sources, seeing one counterargument isn't enough.

My understanding is that when he gets upset he starts firing people, whether or not they deserve it. I've also read an account that at one time, he was fussy about the appearance of a circuit board that no one would would ever see, at the expense if circuit reliability.

Great letter. Sets out the situation very nicely. What's MORE interesting is how much media attention this 'intervention' garners. I'm betting its going to be a lot.

If Apple wants to show that it will embrace DRM-free music in a heartbeat, why not sell all the indie stuff without DRM? The fact that they don't shows a hypocrisy right there.

That's not to say that the handful of EU states aren't being hypocritical in not trying to beat down other DRM systems at the same time.

I am still not buying their line that the licensing makes FairPlay vulnerable to being broken from the fact that the secret is in the hands of multiple companies. It doesn't make any difference. DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are all licenced DRM systems that have been cracked through reverse engineering, not from insider information. PlaysForSure hasn't been illegally decrypted that I remember, and that is licensed to possibly dozens of companies.

Steve caught between a rock and a hard place. Music industry want it, some consumers don't.

As long as the rules and condition are clear at purchase, it a fair system.

If you don't like DRM buy CDs like 90% of the world.

Most people like the iPod culture and are loyal and happy.

This is for consistency. It would be confusing if different songs were treated with different types of DRM. This was shown with PlaysForsure where different songs from different vendors had different DRM rules. It was a mess.


PlaysForSure has been broken many times. Bill Gates has spoken about how difficult it has been to keep it secure. That is likely why Zune has nothing to do with PlaysForSure.

Tools have been created to strip files of Windows Media DRM, such as FairUse4WM, a program released on August 19, 2006 written by Viodentia has the ability to strip DRM from files protected with WMDRM version 10 and 11. However, on August 28, 2006 Microsoft released a new version of the individualized blackbox component (IBX) to prevent FairUse4WM from working. Within 3 days, a new version of FairUse4WM was released circumventing this fix. Microsoft informed partners that they are working to fix this issue again and issued notices to web site owners. They soon followed up by filing lawsuits. As of October 16th, distributors using the Windows Media DRM protection such as Sky Anytime, are up and running using a patched codec.

I agree with no-DRM, but Steve's oversimplifying the stats. Case in point, add in videos, photos, contacts and games, and suddenly that iPod may, in fact, be WAY more loaded with just 3% iTMS-puchased material than he lets on. I know my video iPod is about 50-50, iTMS purchases (BSG and Lost episodes, mostly, then a few albums I have purchased), then my photo library, then my ripped CD collection.

Sure, I'm just a single data point, but I assume I am not the only one.

You know If you have a Mac you can use iMovie to strip away the DRM without having to burn to CD.

In that case, that further supports my point..

This keeps being brought up but I don't think anyone really knows what the conditions of the various contract between Apple, the majors and the indies are. While I tend to agree that the indies wouldn't require it they might through iTunes. More likely, IMO, is that the major require Apple to sell all item on iTune under the same conditions. This might be why some indies pass on iTunes. I don't claim to know and I would be interested if there is other information but absent that we just don't know the conditions under which Apple is operating. I do think this letter is a prelude to the upcoming negotiations in May and we'll know more after that.

What makes you think musicians wouldn't want DRM protection?

Maybe you missed the point where this became clearly a joke ... like at the Mao reference ... or maybe you missed that my snarky remark had everything to do with media relations and not with employment at Apple ... or the point that it was just the way he seemed ... or the point where I never implied that I work in the computer industry.

No need to get indignant.

I have to agree, though, that he's probably not the demon he's made out to be. In architecture, we have the the uncompromising, blunt, demanding people at every level, and they get tougher as they get better. But they still are usually megalomaniacal, and I bet Jobs is too.

It's nothing to do with honesty--Apple has failed to go the extra step of writing a clear message while in Front Row, but the same situation in iTunes DOES produce a clear message.

If you use iTunes (rather than Front Row) and try to play unauthenticated content, it says why. The fact that Front Row has one generic error in place of the several more detailed ones that iTunes uses isn't about dishonesty.

... and we'll all chant quotes from our 'dear leader'

Either you didn't read the article thoroughly, or you didn't "get it".

It's been known for a while that the average iPod has only about 23 iTunes bought songs on it. Nothing new there. Anything else can be moved around. Jobs is right. 23 bucks worth of music won't keep anyone on one system.

It's possible that they can't. without reading the contracts between Apple and the big four, we don't know if that was specified.



Playforsure has been broken as well.

But, he is right, even if it isn't the strongest argument. The more hands the code is in, the easier it is to be broken.

Yes, look at Metallica. Greedy sons of bitches, with all of their supposed counterculture disguise. Musicians are no different from anyone else. They are in it for the money.

Blessed be our iLeader's all-or-nothing ultimatum that covers His Ass while pointing the figure at the evil wizards at the record companies and the worthless leak-prone "FairPlay wanna licensees" . Pure mastery.

Do you disagree?

That would be interpreted as sarcastic if it came from anyone other than melgross.

I snuck into (well, sneakily gatecrashed - it was brilliant, I'll have to tell you some other time) the Australian after-party for the Australian premiere of I, Robot. With director, Will Smith appearing, a whole bunch of who knows who (really, there were only a few famous US and Australian faces...), and DJ Jazzy Jeff rescued from obscurity for a brief moment to spin for about 2 to almost 3 hours at the after-party.

Look, the real secret to the Creative Industry is the money, at the end of the day. Melgross certainly knows this. Intelligence, creativity, and "craft skills" will get you to a certain point. Then comes pulling in the dough and schmoozing your way around at more 1337 levels. Also, what becomes important is your style.

Whatever that style may be - mainstream ickiness of Justin Timberlake, angry rebellion of Pearl Jam, smooth vibes of Boyz2Men, irreverent Brit-Pop to metal and "death-metal" which apparently is still reasonably alive after all these decades.

I must say though that Will Smith is either an actual nice guy, or somewhat guilt-ridden. When he appeared at the after-party, he signed some autographs and entertained pictures, etc, with a whole bunch of screaming teenage girls, presumably winners off a radio show or something. Then, for a good 5 minutes, he just stood in front of JazzyJeff, and just grooved, facing JazzyJeff, his back turned towards the main crowd. After "Shake The Room" (gawd I'm showing my age, but some of you will know what I'm talking about), it's clear whose career really took off. Like really. And maybe someone's a bit guilty about it... Or at least aware of it.

Nah, I was just trying to be funny to cover the fact that I think Steve is really, really spot on, though very, shall we say, brilliant, if in a crafty (not necessarily in a bad way) way.

It's an Australian thing. If you really like someone because they're a bit funny and different, you try and make fun of them. Jim Courier did a lot of commentating for the local TV national broadcaster Channel7 during the Australian Open. He ended up a bit confused at the end of it all, because Channel7 "paid him out" a little - that is, made fun of, in a kind of "obscured admiration" way. Jim Courier asking Maria Sharapova what kind of men she liked though was, well, his asking for it...

The most accurate thing I think Steve said was about licensing FairPlay to a whole bunch of people and then cracks being released in the wild very rapidly and soon you've got your whole music collection cracked. I can totally see this scenario play out. Honestly. After the whole ReArm-2099 (Year2038 overflow activation-disable hack) for Vista. After well, seeing what's on BitTorrent the past 2-3 years.

I think it cuts both ways. Steve is saying this to broadcast a pro-competitive message to fed(heh, Freudian slip)... I mean, fend, off more attention against Apple.

But I think he's pissed at the major media conglomerates, particularly in expanding iTunes Movies to more studios, and expanding Movies and TVShows to iTunes Stores globally. He's done a hell of a lot of negotiating, and while slowly working, he's still pissed. He needed/wanted to come out and say, look, these are the assholes, not iTunes+iPod.

In the unlikely event that the world goes DRM-free and Iraq is a stable and low-crime state by 2010, Apple is willing to play in this space. I mean, OSX is DRM-free. iLife, iWork, etc, a lot of that is DRM free, at least from a software point of view (I know, slightly different because we are talking about media files, but anyways...).

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I know the music industry very well over four decades. Just like anything else, it's about the money.

No matter how folksy, or counterculture they are, almost all artists are in it for the money. Getting a record deal from one of the majors, or a label owned by one of the majors is the biggest prize in the industry.

No musician wants to play their music in the dives they will play in otherwise. A long time ago Black Sabboth was asked what their dream was (this was just after their first hit album). It was that they never had to go on tour again, could just record their music, and get their royalties. Nothings changed, except for mega stars who make hundreds of millions from a worldwide tour once every two or three years.

Three paragraphs starting with a "no"! That's a record for me. But it shows the negitivity I feel about the whole thing.

If anyone looks, they will see that the concern about DRM falls two camps amongst musicians.

With (very) few exceptions, the sucessful ones are all for it, and the unsucessful ones are all against it.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be.

The ones with the largest back catalogs hold DRM dearest.

It's not just the music companies.

even if apple DID want drm, i would bet my left foot that it was the record execs who demanded it first

after all, we know from numerous quotes how these execs feel about their customers: they hate them and regard them as the enemy way to do business, gents. thank god punk rock ethics still exist in some parts of the music biz. i haven't bought a cd from a big label in about 10 years music companies are irrelevant these days since there is no need for a middle man anymore. they are fighting to justify their existence

If I was running an independent label and decided to sell music at iTunes I would try and see if I could sell it DRM free. This is really a way for smaller labels to lead the way for the big guys.

I have to agree with you there. Since the birth of Mac OS X, Apple has been using a lot of open standards and competing with how slickly they implement them.

I'd say that DRM is more of a pain in the arse for Apple than it helps them ship iPods. I'd say that DRM hinders a lot of uptake of the iTunes Music Store. I for one won't buy from iTunes because of DRM. I probably would if there wasn't any DRM in it and I suspect that a lot of people hold this view. I do buy from bleep.com which sells DRM-free mp3s.

I had a thought - what do you think would happen if Apple removed all the "big four" content from the iTunes Store and offered "independent" label stuff DRM-free?

Would Apple lose any iPod sales? Not measurably, I think. There are many considerations involved in choosing which device to buy, the availability of legal online music from the "big four" for the device is way down near the bottom of the list.

Would Apple lose out on profits at the iTunes Store? Yes, but the store only operates just over break-even anyway, so it wouldn't be exactly painful.

Would sales at other online stores rocket? Doubtful, as their offerings won't work on iPods.

Would piracy rocket? Probably.

Then Apple could offer the "big four" a choice: re-offer their content on the iTunes Store with no DRM, or don't offer it at all.

To use an American term - Bullshit!

If Apple want to operate in Europe they shouldn't expect us to put up with the crap Americans are prepared to put up with and Americans should quit whining that we have a different set of values and culture that isn't based on corporate capitalism. You wouldn't go round someone else's house and stick your feet up on their table, eat their fridge contents and fart on the sofa because that's what you do at home.

Apart from that, your claim that we are not willing to pressure the record companies over DRM is patently false...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01...es_record_biz/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/01...to_put_poison/

And that's just the Reg articles I remember.

There's still ongoing investigations over price fixing between European states and investigations into selling restrictions across boundaries - something that's against the law in the EU.

Jobs' "It's the record companies fault" is just him dodging the bullet. It's quite clever as it puts the ball in the record companies court. And he's probably right too. Unfortunately the record companies today seem to have replied with the second option - open up Fairplay rather than the third - Destroy all DRM!!!

So what will happen is the first - the status quo.

The difference being that in fighting any moves from Europe to open up the market, Apple will now just tell them to go annoy the record companies. And that's probably a good thing provided that Jobs isn't spinning a yarn when he says the record companies are the ones forcing DRM on people.

Can we kill the Europe thing here please?

There are currently NO European states trying to beat down DRM. Not one single European government is trying to change Apple's or ANYONE else's DRM system.

So far, the only Europeans calling for DRM's downfall are consumer groups based in Norway, France, Germany and the Netherlands IIRC. These are all consumer groups just like say, Greenpeace is a consumer group.

The only legal challenge to Apple comes from Norway's consumer ombudsman. That's a non-governmental organisation independent of the government who protects consumer rights. A Norwegian consumer body complained to their ombudsmen who is threatening action. They also explicitly mentioned other online music stores including MSN.no - Microsoft's Norwegian music store.

The revolt against DRM is consumer led, not government.

I agree that people should quit bashing Europe.

But you are wrong about it all being consumer-led: In France (where it all originated last Fall), the government was the prime mover -- last I looked, the French House and Senate (which passed the law), and the Constitutional Council (which amended it) are, indeed, government.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/....takes.effect/

It was a private bill, not government sponsored. The original would have been far reaching but it got watered down in consultation such that France gave the record companies the right to waive the requirement on inter-operability. ie. if Universal (owned by Vivendi - a French company) tells Apple they don't want the iTunes songs to be interoperable with other systems, they don't have to.

Ball back in the record companies court.

The original law did not require that Apple removed DRM either.

Funnily, at the time Apple PR were on record as saying the original law as written amounted to 'state sponsored piracy'. I wonder what changed Apple's mind in the last 6 months?