I can't use a competing store if it doesn't have the songs I want.
If the store uses a lowish bit-rate lossy format not supported by the iPod (e.g. 128 kbps WMA), I don't want to re-compress that with AAC, as this will result in additional quality loss, and 128 kbps WMA is only just borderline acceptable quality-wise. De-compressing to AIFF/WAV preserves quality but uses too much space.
So, if there's a competitor store out there selling the same music as iTunes but using high bit-rate (at least 192) mp3 or some lossless codec, and operates in the U.K., please tell me about it.
The question really is: should Apple be penalized because it's competitors suck?
Mr. H: using your own example, it is entirely possible for you to find all the songs you are looking for in acceptable quality, to work on your player of choice, at any combination of music portals. It's not Apple's fault if the buying experience by other download portals isn't as elegant or seamless as the iTS. It's not Apple's fault if consumers all over the world have chosen the iPod / iTS solution; no one held a gun to their heads to do so. These countries are only going after Apple because it's in the dominant position.
the XBox / PS2 analogy is a fitting one. You can't separate the iPod from the iTS; that's the ecosystem Apple created, and it's no more anti competitive than the ecosystem Sony created with the Playstation or microsoft with the XBox. Apple should not be penalized for creating a working ecosystem.
The question really is: should Apple be penalized because it's competitors suck?
No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons
the XBox / PS2 analogy is a fitting one. You can't separate the iPod from the iTS; that's the ecosystem Apple created, and it's no more anti competitive than the ecosystem Sony created with the Playstation or microsoft with the XBox. Apple should not be penalized for creating a working ecosystem.
Not really. We're talking about music here not software written specifically for a specific platform.
At first I'd like to say that I am a European, but I'm totally against the government's stupid argumentation!
Argument 1: Customers are limited to Apple products
As many of you already said, the fact is that the music purchased on the iTunes store is playable on ANY device you want... just burn your CD and here you go... That's the definition of "fair play": use it as it is meant to be and everybody's happy... If you use the "front door" of iTunes for letting your music out (that would be the cd burning feature), everything is OK, so d*mn, stop arguing with this...
Argument 2: Impact on music industry
As they MAY remember, Apple signed their contracts WITH the music industry. By that time, the music industry KNEW that their stuff would only be playable on iTunes/iPod (or all other devices after burning it on CD), but hey... they signed the contract, so that means to me that they're OK with it...
And as has already been said: those governments argue to be defending customers, so leave the industry out of that all please...
Escalation
What comes next? Will they sue Apple for not releasing OS X for PC "just because it's technically doable and because it WOULD work on that platform"??
My personal ultimate counter-argument
EVERY customer who buys music on the iTunes store knows perfectly well that the music he buys will only play on iTunes&iPod (at least without burning it to cd first). So it is definitely no hidden cheat on the customer!!
Every customer can feel free to buy music from Microsoft's Zune marketplace (wait, let me have a laugh first.... LOOL, ok let's go on...), from the much-(over)advertised "www.musicload.de" (in Germany), or whatever other site sells media content... If they don't own an iPod they will probably go that way (so they perhaps don't need to burn the intermediate CD -although I don't even know HOW open this stuff is-), but if the use an iPod, they probably won't want anything else then the iTunes Store...
=> It's the user's choice, so stop pretending defending them, there's nothing to defend, period.
Yay, nice long reading *g*
Greetings to all of you from the Belgian/German border,
No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'
How exactly did the iPod and iTS penalize consumers for something they actually didn't do for years already?
Lugging around a couple of cds or compact cassettes with you isn't exactly freedom either (isn't it?) and common practice in the 80's and 90's of the last century.
I think consumers have more, better and easier ways to listen to their music than they've done for years already.
The concept of taking all your music with you, manage it easily and listen where you want it is just over 5 years old.
It started with the iPod in combination with iTunes.
On a loosely related topic, I've never had a problem with Apple's DRM until I realized that downloaded videos cannot be burned for playback on a standard DVD player. I'm not sure how I missed that (well, I've never purchased a video through iTunes), but I have to say I find that unreasonable, especially when I'm paying to purchase the film.
Mr. H: using your own example, it is entirely possible for you to find all the songs you are looking for in acceptable quality, to work on your player of choice, at any combination of music portals.
It is? Well, come on then, tell me which stores I should be using.
EVERY customer who buys music on the iTunes store knows perfectly well that the music he buys will only play on iTunes&iPod (at least without burning it to cd first).
No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
Yeah, if I want the whole album (or most of the tracks), that's the best option. But if I want only one or two tracks?
Does the concept of a minimum acceptable quality make sense to you? If 128 kbps AAC is your minimum acceptable quality, you don't what to go under that, by definition. Re-compressing 128 kbps with any lossy codec, at any bit-rate, will result in additional quality loss.
[snip]
Please explain how my reasoning implies I want things for free? I want to pay for my music, and then be able to play it on any device I choose, without having to compromise file size or quality.
Actually, this is all nothing but whining.
If you don't want an entire album - tough. The record industry forced people to buy whole albums for decades. Nothing is stopping you from going back to that model, or asking the labels very nicely if they'll let you have just a song or two, please.
Minimum acceptable quality of re-ripped iTMS songs not acceptable? Again - tough. Choose a different product.
You want to play your music on any device you choose? As many people have already pointed out, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping you right at this very moment. What you don't like is the terms under which you're being allowed (by the record labels) to do so.
Once again - tough. Sure DRM sucks, but as a consumer, you have the power to deal with it right inside your own, pointy-little head. Choose not to consume a product that doesn't meet your needs. No-one's forcing you to buy music AT ALL, which essentially reduces your 'argument' to nothing but a mewling "but I want it!"
I say screw them. I understand that court battles could insue but here are the facts.
1. They entered the market with the understanding that the iTunes format was only capable on the iPod. They asked for the iTunes store, they weren't forced into it.
2. Have a problem with the format from the iTunes store...maybe don't purchase from the store. The iTunes application will gladly convert all of your music into a nice standard that can be played on many MP3 players.
3. Shut up if you buy a cheap MP3 player, you knew what you were getting into when you bought it, if you didn't then too bad. No one lets you take back a car simply because you didn't realize something was different about it...thats you own fault.
Apple should not put up with this, its tough to know since the figures aren't readily available to the public what their sales are in those countries but refusing to change isn't going to cripple their sales that much and considering the iPod has over a 75% market share in the Americas...business isn't going down the drain any time soon.
Not really since it's a strawman. The fact you can choose to buy music elsewhere is irrelevant.
The argument the Norwegian ombudsmen is making is that music bought from the iTunes music store should not be restricted to playing only on Apple hardware/software. There's a further issue in Norway in that once a sale has been completed, the terms of that sale aren't allowed to change, so for instance when Apple changed the number of places you could play a song from 5 to 3 (IIRC) it should not have applied to songs already in your library.
Seems fair enough to me. At no other point in the music industry's recent history has this kind of restriction applied and I don't see why it should still apply. Most consumers would probably be of the same opinion.
Obviously it requires one of three things.
1) Apple to licence Fairplay
2) Apple and everyone else to use a common open DRM scheme
3) Getting rid of DRM
It will happen eventually.
This is not meant to troll or flame you I think you are quite insightful on many topics on the boards but, Aegis why will DRM go away. When I hear peole say this I think that it's as likely to go away as copyright and patent rights. Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy? What would the alternative be? To me it seems DRM is hear to stay and will be a tug of war between the music industry and consumers.
The reason you can't play an Xbox game on another console is because the Xbox represents a hardware platform that Microsoft consider to be state-of-the-art at the time of development to trade-off retail price, performance, and profits. Games then have to be written to target that hardware platform to obtain decent performance, and this requires considerable effort.
A music player on the other hand, is much more of a generic platform. Any player on the market is technically capable of decoding AAC (even if the manufacturers haven't implemented an AAC codec, they could if they wanted to), and therefore the only thing stopping them playing iTunes Store downloads is FairPlay DRM.
Whilst licensing FairPlay may do Apple some damage, it is difficult to deny that Apple being forced to licence FairPlay would be good for the consumer.
Ok, maybe an Xbox differs from music in that it has to be specifically written for that one device. Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod? Seems to me that it's hardware manufacturers that made ok products, but are stuck with lousy software that want to break into the iTunes market place.
If Apple's model wasn't good for consumers, then why would so many of them buy iPods, and why would Microsoft have made the Zune (which if you remember uses a new format which is incompatible with Playsforsure or whatever Microsoft's original format that they sold to everyone else was)? People didn't buy iPods because they had purchased music on iTunes, they most likely bought the player and then bought songs.
If you don't like the end-to-end model that Apple uses, don't buy an iPod!
Also, instead of complaining about DRM to companies that sell the music, why not go to the companies that made the music and required DRM in order for digital sales to be allowed at all!
No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
So, taking this as the goal - protecting the consumer 0 all that is needed to address the 'real' issue is a better, easier to read warning about the what can, and can't be done with your purchases? Then everything is OK?
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;1032590]France, Germany, and the Netherlands are all teaming up with Norway to pressure Apple into opening its iTunes music format for the sake of compatibility, according to news reports.
Apple does not force anybody. You cna buy at iTunes store and play the music on iPod and any computer, apple, sony, panasonic, you name it. Once you have downlaoded the music you can burn it on a cd and play it on any cd player and subsequently record etc. Nobody is being forced to buy anything on iTunes. Nobody forces you to play the music on an iPod. It is one's choice. Th essence of a monopoly is that you have no choice. You are locked in. But nobody is forced to buy music at iTunes and even if you do, you can play it on a pc, a CD player, any stereo you want. Apple offers portability through iPod, but this is voluntary.
This is not meant to troll or flame you I think you are quite insightful on many topics on the boards but, Aegis why will DRM go away. When I hear peole say this I think that it's as likely to go away as copyright and patent rights. Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy? What would the alternative be? To me it seems DRM is hear to stay and will be a tug of war between the music industry and consumers.
CDs haven't had DRM on them for decades yet the works are still copyright. I think at some point, governments will intervene and remove DRM so that consumers have the same rights they've always had.
How the music industry solves piracy is another issue.
It'll probably be the European Union that rules against DRM as digital sales become more popular. At the moment, digital sales are small and IMHO stifled by DRM. It'll take legislature to open up the market. Unlike the USA, Europe places a much higher value on culture and free expression above pure market goals. It's evident in this thread that most of us Europeans value that whereas the overriding view in the USA seems to be that governments have no right to interfere (even if that's not actually true in the USA).
Ok, maybe an Xbox differs from music in that it has to be specifically written for that one device. Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod?
They are, but you know, iTunes is the poster boy...
Quote:
Not just iTunes
Many other music download services operate with similar terms and conditions. ?CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services. We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services,? says Torgeir Waterhouse.
Comments
It's worth reading the official statement from the norwegian government.
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71
It's worth reading the official statement from the norwegian government.
They aren't the government.
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Publikasjoner/1080715527.7
I can't use a competing store if it doesn't have the songs I want.
If the store uses a lowish bit-rate lossy format not supported by the iPod (e.g. 128 kbps WMA), I don't want to re-compress that with AAC, as this will result in additional quality loss, and 128 kbps WMA is only just borderline acceptable quality-wise. De-compressing to AIFF/WAV preserves quality but uses too much space.
So, if there's a competitor store out there selling the same music as iTunes but using high bit-rate (at least 192) mp3 or some lossless codec, and operates in the U.K., please tell me about it.
The question really is: should Apple be penalized because it's competitors suck?
Mr. H: using your own example, it is entirely possible for you to find all the songs you are looking for in acceptable quality, to work on your player of choice, at any combination of music portals. It's not Apple's fault if the buying experience by other download portals isn't as elegant or seamless as the iTS. It's not Apple's fault if consumers all over the world have chosen the iPod / iTS solution; no one held a gun to their heads to do so. These countries are only going after Apple because it's in the dominant position.
the XBox / PS2 analogy is a fitting one. You can't separate the iPod from the iTS; that's the ecosystem Apple created, and it's no more anti competitive than the ecosystem Sony created with the Playstation or microsoft with the XBox. Apple should not be penalized for creating a working ecosystem.
They aren't the government.
The question really is: should Apple be penalized because it's competitors suck?
No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'
the XBox / PS2 analogy is a fitting one. You can't separate the iPod from the iTS; that's the ecosystem Apple created, and it's no more anti competitive than the ecosystem Sony created with the Playstation or microsoft with the XBox. Apple should not be penalized for creating a working ecosystem.
Not really. We're talking about music here not software written specifically for a specific platform.
No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'
No. The question is 'Should consumers be allowed to make choices, then complain about them?'.
Argument 1: Customers are limited to Apple products
As many of you already said, the fact is that the music purchased on the iTunes store is playable on ANY device you want... just burn your CD and here you go... That's the definition of "fair play": use it as it is meant to be and everybody's happy... If you use the "front door" of iTunes for letting your music out (that would be the cd burning feature), everything is OK, so d*mn, stop arguing with this...
Argument 2: Impact on music industry
As they MAY remember, Apple signed their contracts WITH the music industry. By that time, the music industry KNEW that their stuff would only be playable on iTunes/iPod (or all other devices after burning it on CD), but hey... they signed the contract, so that means to me that they're OK with it...
And as has already been said: those governments argue to be defending customers, so leave the industry out of that all please...
Escalation
What comes next? Will they sue Apple for not releasing OS X for PC "just because it's technically doable and because it WOULD work on that platform"??
My personal ultimate counter-argument
EVERY customer who buys music on the iTunes store knows perfectly well that the music he buys will only play on iTunes&iPod (at least without burning it to cd first). So it is definitely no hidden cheat on the customer!!
Every customer can feel free to buy music from Microsoft's Zune marketplace (wait, let me have a laugh first.... LOOL, ok let's go on...), from the much-(over)advertised "www.musicload.de" (in Germany), or whatever other site sells media content... If they don't own an iPod they will probably go that way (so they perhaps don't need to burn the intermediate CD -although I don't even know HOW open this stuff is-), but if the use an iPod, they probably won't want anything else then the iTunes Store...
=> It's the user's choice, so stop pretending defending them, there's nothing to defend, period.
Yay, nice long reading *g*
Greetings to all of you from the Belgian/German border,
miguy2k
PS: I hope Belgium won't hop in as well :-/
No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'
How exactly did the iPod and iTS penalize consumers for something they actually didn't do for years already?
Lugging around a couple of cds or compact cassettes with you isn't exactly freedom either (isn't it?) and common practice in the 80's and 90's of the last century.
I think consumers have more, better and easier ways to listen to their music than they've done for years already.
The concept of taking all your music with you, manage it easily and listen where you want it is just over 5 years old.
It started with the iPod in combination with iTunes.
Do I have this correct?
Apple should charge a hefty fee to license their DRM to other manufacturers. That would shut the boneheads up.
Well, considering this is exactly what the boneheads are asking for... Yes, it would shut them up.
Mr. H: using your own example, it is entirely possible for you to find all the songs you are looking for in acceptable quality, to work on your player of choice, at any combination of music portals.
It is? Well, come on then, tell me which stores I should be using.
My personal ultimate counter-argument
EVERY customer who buys music on the iTunes store knows perfectly well that the music he buys will only play on iTunes&iPod (at least without burning it to cd first).
No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
Yeah, if I want the whole album (or most of the tracks), that's the best option. But if I want only one or two tracks?
Does the concept of a minimum acceptable quality make sense to you? If 128 kbps AAC is your minimum acceptable quality, you don't what to go under that, by definition. Re-compressing 128 kbps with any lossy codec, at any bit-rate, will result in additional quality loss.
[snip]
Please explain how my reasoning implies I want things for free? I want to pay for my music, and then be able to play it on any device I choose, without having to compromise file size or quality.
Actually, this is all nothing but whining.
If you don't want an entire album - tough. The record industry forced people to buy whole albums for decades. Nothing is stopping you from going back to that model, or asking the labels very nicely if they'll let you have just a song or two, please.
Minimum acceptable quality of re-ripped iTMS songs not acceptable? Again - tough. Choose a different product.
You want to play your music on any device you choose? As many people have already pointed out, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping you right at this very moment. What you don't like is the terms under which you're being allowed (by the record labels) to do so.
Once again - tough. Sure DRM sucks, but as a consumer, you have the power to deal with it right inside your own, pointy-little head. Choose not to consume a product that doesn't meet your needs. No-one's forcing you to buy music AT ALL, which essentially reduces your 'argument' to nothing but a mewling "but I want it!"
1. They entered the market with the understanding that the iTunes format was only capable on the iPod. They asked for the iTunes store, they weren't forced into it.
2. Have a problem with the format from the iTunes store...maybe don't purchase from the store. The iTunes application will gladly convert all of your music into a nice standard that can be played on many MP3 players.
3. Shut up if you buy a cheap MP3 player, you knew what you were getting into when you bought it, if you didn't then too bad. No one lets you take back a car simply because you didn't realize something was different about it...thats you own fault.
Apple should not put up with this, its tough to know since the figures aren't readily available to the public what their sales are in those countries but refusing to change isn't going to cripple their sales that much and considering the iPod has over a 75% market share in the Americas...business isn't going down the drain any time soon.
Not really since it's a strawman. The fact you can choose to buy music elsewhere is irrelevant.
The argument the Norwegian ombudsmen is making is that music bought from the iTunes music store should not be restricted to playing only on Apple hardware/software. There's a further issue in Norway in that once a sale has been completed, the terms of that sale aren't allowed to change, so for instance when Apple changed the number of places you could play a song from 5 to 3 (IIRC) it should not have applied to songs already in your library.
Seems fair enough to me. At no other point in the music industry's recent history has this kind of restriction applied and I don't see why it should still apply. Most consumers would probably be of the same opinion.
Obviously it requires one of three things.
1) Apple to licence Fairplay
2) Apple and everyone else to use a common open DRM scheme
3) Getting rid of DRM
It will happen eventually.
This is not meant to troll or flame you I think you are quite insightful on many topics on the boards but, Aegis why will DRM go away. When I hear peole say this I think that it's as likely to go away as copyright and patent rights. Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy? What would the alternative be? To me it seems DRM is hear to stay and will be a tug of war between the music industry and consumers.
That is not an equivalent thing at all.
The reason you can't play an Xbox game on another console is because the Xbox represents a hardware platform that Microsoft consider to be state-of-the-art at the time of development to trade-off retail price, performance, and profits. Games then have to be written to target that hardware platform to obtain decent performance, and this requires considerable effort.
A music player on the other hand, is much more of a generic platform. Any player on the market is technically capable of decoding AAC (even if the manufacturers haven't implemented an AAC codec, they could if they wanted to), and therefore the only thing stopping them playing iTunes Store downloads is FairPlay DRM.
Whilst licensing FairPlay may do Apple some damage, it is difficult to deny that Apple being forced to licence FairPlay would be good for the consumer.
Ok, maybe an Xbox differs from music in that it has to be specifically written for that one device. Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod? Seems to me that it's hardware manufacturers that made ok products, but are stuck with lousy software that want to break into the iTunes market place.
If Apple's model wasn't good for consumers, then why would so many of them buy iPods, and why would Microsoft have made the Zune (which if you remember uses a new format which is incompatible with Playsforsure or whatever Microsoft's original format that they sold to everyone else was)? People didn't buy iPods because they had purchased music on iTunes, they most likely bought the player and then bought songs.
If you don't like the end-to-end model that Apple uses, don't buy an iPod!
Also, instead of complaining about DRM to companies that sell the music, why not go to the companies that made the music and required DRM in order for digital sales to be allowed at all!
No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
So, taking this as the goal - protecting the consumer 0 all that is needed to address the 'real' issue is a better, easier to read warning about the what can, and can't be done with your purchases? Then everything is OK?
Apple does not force anybody. You cna buy at iTunes store and play the music on iPod and any computer, apple, sony, panasonic, you name it. Once you have downlaoded the music you can burn it on a cd and play it on any cd player and subsequently record etc. Nobody is being forced to buy anything on iTunes. Nobody forces you to play the music on an iPod. It is one's choice. Th essence of a monopoly is that you have no choice. You are locked in. But nobody is forced to buy music at iTunes and even if you do, you can play it on a pc, a CD player, any stereo you want. Apple offers portability through iPod, but this is voluntary.
This is not meant to troll or flame you I think you are quite insightful on many topics on the boards but, Aegis why will DRM go away. When I hear peole say this I think that it's as likely to go away as copyright and patent rights. Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy? What would the alternative be? To me it seems DRM is hear to stay and will be a tug of war between the music industry and consumers.
CDs haven't had DRM on them for decades yet the works are still copyright. I think at some point, governments will intervene and remove DRM so that consumers have the same rights they've always had.
How the music industry solves piracy is another issue.
It'll probably be the European Union that rules against DRM as digital sales become more popular. At the moment, digital sales are small and IMHO stifled by DRM. It'll take legislature to open up the market. Unlike the USA, Europe places a much higher value on culture and free expression above pure market goals. It's evident in this thread that most of us Europeans value that whereas the overriding view in the USA seems to be that governments have no right to interfere (even if that's not actually true in the USA).
Ok, maybe an Xbox differs from music in that it has to be specifically written for that one device. Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod?
They are, but you know, iTunes is the poster boy...
Not just iTunes
Many other music download services operate with similar terms and conditions. ?CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services. We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services,? says Torgeir Waterhouse.
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71