The movie giant cites iTunes' prominence as a music store as an example of "the problem:" by allowing proprietary stores to exist, the music industry has effectively left the dominant format in Apple's control.
Except the dominant format is and open standard and not in Apple's control. The problem is the DRM included with it, and Apple has shown that it would be happy to remove it and double the bit rate of the songs if the record companies would let it. Psst, Sony guy. Go talk to the music division instead of yapping your mouth.
This effort is just going to fail hard. No one is going to buy new DVD/BlueRay players, TVs, etc to take advantage of this. Remove the DRM and the problem is solved. It's not like DRM actually does anything to curb piracy.
Ever hear of Amazon? I just ripped my entire iTunes lib and removed the DRM. I have no intentions of purchasing another song from iTunes. It will be DRM free, higher bit rates, and in most cases cheaper from Amazon. If Apple via iTunes sinks, then so be it. My loyalty and money goes to which provides the best bang for the buck. My days of being an Apple zealot are over. Now all I need to do is to figure a way to rip the DRM from my vids and I am free of iTunes for good.
You just proved the point I want to make --that nobody is locked into buying music from iTunes. You can buy music anywhere and as long as it is non-DRM iTunes would gladly load it on your iPod.
What the studios and recording companies fail to realize is that iTunes/iPod is dominant not because it locks in iPod owners (which it doesn't) but because it offers the content consumer convenience. The 73% of digital player buyers are choosing iPod, despite Fairplay, despite cheaper non-DRM tracks elsewhere, because it's so convenient. By convenience I mean ease of use and ubiquity. Ubiquity means that it's widespread enough that if anyone has a problem with iTunes or an iPod there is always someone out there (a friend, a relative, etc.) easily accessible, who could help fix the problem.
Apple is not getting on this bandwagon, but I bet they know that even if they have no choice but to sign up, their success in video downloads still depends on the convenience of whatever video download system they offer. My guess is as long as they do it through iTunes, they'll gobble up the market like jelly beans. People who are already using iTunes will not be willing to have to deal with a second content and device management app. If I were Jobs, I'd confirm the studios biggest fears by signing up on this neo-PlaysForSure scheme and showing them that it doesn't change a thing, there is nothing they can legally do to stop the iTunes/iPod steamroller.
The thing is, this whole discussion seems to presuppose that if the studios and the device manufacturers just get it right then movie downloads will explode. Wrong! They are both held hostage by the ISPs who have not concealed their intent to find a way to extort money from the movie download business.
I wish everyone would leave the Apple fanboyism at the door and look at this objectively.
If online distribution is to be the future of media distribution and kill off physical formats, something akin to what this article describes is how it should be done. The goal is to eliminate what is a essentially a multitude of competing formats, Zune videos, iTunes videos, Unbox videos, PSN videos, etc. and turn digital downloads into something akin to a DVD. You don't have to buy a Sony DVD player to play Sony DVDS but that's essentially what you have to do with digital files.
Sorry, but I don't want to be locked into buying both my software and hardware from one vendor.
I can already do this with 720p video files from torrent sites. Hulk, Speed Racer, Iron Man....all the new ones. Burn as data disc and I can play on my PS3. Already plays on all my Mac devices. Nothing will EVER win over free downloads on the net. The only way to stop what they can't stop is to shut down WWW. And they do actually want to do that.
With morons like you proudly proclaiming you piracy habits, can you really blame them?
I wish everyone would leave the Apple fanboyism at the door and look at this objectively.
Just as much as I wish people would stop simply dismissing everything as "Fanboyism", and not look at the fact that Apple in this case has the best model as far as ease of use and integration with the total user experience. Perhaps I don't care about an open platform simply because I chose the platform that I knew would be the most succesful at the onset. Just like those that bought Blu-Ray players because they made the correct decision at the onset. The movie industry has to get it right in order for it to work. We all saw how successful Hulu has been.....right?
Sorry, but I don't want to be locked into buying both my software and hardware from one vendor.
Then you must not use a Mac, which would beg to ask why you're posting on an Apple-related site?
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck. People have a huge variety of choices when it comes to MP3 players, and some of them don't choose the iPod. The majority that do, do so because they like the integration, ease of use and quality.
The reason this consortium is raising red flags to me is not because I am being a "fanboy", but because of the fact that if something like this were to go through then guess who would be in charge of developing the DRM used? Any guesses?
Microsoft, or possibly even Sony since they seem to love to develop new acquisition formats every time they sneeze. If that happens, and one of them do develop the "new DRM" then you can forget about being able to purchase anything from a Mac. The system requirements will probably force you to use either Windows, or Internet Explorer (basically Windows). This will effectively lock Apple out. Which is what the goal is here.
Before the iPod, there were very few MP3 players that "supported" the Mac. When Apple came out with the iPod not only did Mac users get the best hardware, but we also had the seamless software already. Apple then made the iPod work on Windows too. In fact, Apple's music and video system works very well on Windows - but you can throw that all out the door if these companies have their way.
I am not suggesting blind allegiance to Apple. I like Apple products because of what they enable me to do and no one else has matched those capabilities for me. I like the iTunes store. I don't like the Apple TV because the damn thing crashes nearly every night - so Apple needs to step it up there - but with their other products no one offers the simplicity and integration that Apple's Mac, iPod, iPhone and iTunes have and that's why I have chosen these products.
This DECE group is masquerading as pioneers of "choice" but what they all want from you is your money. That's what Apple wants too, but Apple is smart enough to know that you get that money by offering a really good product, not a half-assed-designed-slapped-together-and-rebranded-piece-of-shit. These companies want the money to come to them without spending anything in R&D and they want to be able to raise prices at a whim without offering anything new to the customer. They're lazy and Apple is not, which is why they all look so bad right now. Apple has taken the market, and each time they try and beat Apple with an "iPod killer" (which ironically always tend to look like iPods), Apple releases a new design and they all stand there looking stupid because they copied last years model.
I doubt these companies will be able to do anything together, because I just don't see the synergy between them. Usually if a group is brought together by mutual animosity then they still are missing the point that it's the quality of the product that sells - not the amount of companies involved in a venture.
Then you must not use a Mac, which would beg to ask why you're posting on an Apple-related site?
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck. People have a huge variety of choices when it comes to MP3 players, and some of them don't choose the iPod. The majority that do, do so because they like the integration, ease of use and quality.
LOL some of you guys are so funny. I do believe the general idea is companies like Sony, Lionsgate, and microsoft don't want the monopoly (APPLE/iTunes/iPod) the consume the video world. It's one thing to be successful but its another when consumers don't have a choice but to go with apple. That is.... also against the law. It's not strictly inforced when it comes to entertainment but it should be. I am a proud owner of the iphone 3g and I admire apples innovative technology but I am tired of the molopoly. As a member of a band I hate that I make less money on my iTunes sales compared to Hard copy or many other internet media venders and I still pay the same tax on the earnings.
actually, monopolies are not illegal. abuse of your power within a monopoly is.
I believe something like this will be integral to the downfall of physical media, although I doubt this gang will get it right on the first try. For a system like this to succeed, there would need to be a third party who acts as the keyholder to your media; this keyholder simply keeps a log of all the media you've purchased, from any of the participating digital stores. Having a license for a particular song, tv show, or movie would grant you access to download that media on any of your devices in it's preferred format and DRM encryption; for example, if you bought a movie on your Apple TV, you would have instant access to download the same movie from the Microsoft store for your Zune (presuming both were participants in the keyholder program).
All the user needs is a username and password for their keyholder account, and would log in exactly as you do on the iTunes Music Store, only your account information would be the same for all digital stores. With this system, the media itself is still tied to each individual device in whatever proprietary format and DRM the device creator chooses, but the user has unlimited usage of the media in that it's not tied to any single device. A licensing system can work if all the major players recognize the license.
This PowerPoint presentation is completely hare-brained response to iTunes. The content providers haven't a clue as to how far they've already ceded control to Apple because they've been sitting on their hands while Apple has been building the customer base. The most acceptable way for consumers to use digital content is with an Apple device and it will continue to be for some time. Apple has put the studios and the labels into a well-engineered box.
Pretty sure these are examples of vending method, not confirmed tied on companies. If so the iTunes logo would be current and not something era of Version 4.
Agree about the vending machine concept, something which has been in the development and testing phase in Blockbuster ("instant" DVDs), but not in a wholly digital form.
What the industry lacks is an agreed upon "container" for this media. Apple has already provided this and consumers agree it is the best option. It's going to be amusing to watch when Apple finally rolls out their own iTunes kiosks and the content providers crash and burn.
Then you must not use a Mac, which would beg to ask why you're posting on an Apple-related site?
Until Apple opens up the iTunes App Store for Macs and makes that the only way to get new software, I'm pretty sure I don't have to buy all of my Mac software from Apple. Not that you care, but I do in fact own an iMac.
Quote:
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck. People have a huge variety of choices when it comes to MP3 players, and some of them don't choose the iPod. The majority that do, do so because they like the integration, ease of use and quality.
And as a media playback device, I think the Apple TV sucks. It's extremely limited format support and poor remote turn me off to it. I prefer the added features both my PS3 and TiVo provide. But if Apple were to have majority control over downloaded video content in the future, the AppleTV might be my only option. Sorry, such a future holds no appeal to me.
Quote:
Microsoft, or possibly even Sony since they seem to love to develop new acquisition formats every time they sneeze. If that happens, and one of them do develop the "new DRM" then you can forget about being able to purchase anything from a Mac. The system requirements will probably force you to use either Windows, or Internet Explorer (basically Windows). This will effectively lock Apple out. Which is what the goal is here.
Now we're back into conspiracy theory mode. The movie studios don't want to follow the music studios and let one store have a majority control. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I hated having to go to Wal-Mart to pick up the latest Journey CD. I'd have liked even less if I had to go to Wal-Mart for the CD and then pick up a Wal-Mart brand CD player to play it back. Which is the essence of what the iTunes-iPod-AppleTV ecosystem creates.
Quote:
Before the iPod, there were very few MP3 players that "supported" the Mac. When Apple came out with the iPod not only did Mac users get the best hardware, but we also had the seamless software already. Apple then made the iPod work on Windows too. In fact, Apple's music and video system works very well on Windows - but you can throw that all out the door if these companies have their way.
And now, even if someone wanted to create an mp3 player that supported Macs it would be a pointless venture. Just like very few vendors create internal PCI cards for Macs because Apple has turned into a pointless venture.
This initiative would have no effect on Apple's music and video system so long as Apple decided to embrace it in the iTunes Store.
Quote:
This DECE group is masquerading as pioneers of "choice" but what they all want from you is your money. That's what Apple wants too, but Apple is smart enough to know that you get that money by offering a really good product, not a half-assed-designed-slapped-together-and-rebranded-piece-of-shit. These companies want the money to come to them without spending anything in R&D and they want to be able to raise prices at a whim without offering anything new to the customer. They're lazy and Apple is not, which is why they all look so bad right now. Apple has taken the market, and each time they try and beat Apple with an "iPod killer" (which ironically always tend to look like iPods), Apple releases a new design and they all stand there looking stupid because they copied last years model.
I don't know. From reading the article, it sounds like the companies are willing to invest in creating an infrastructure for a universal download structure that frees it from one vendor having control. A universal download scheme sure sounds like a good thing to me as a consumer since it means I can shop around for both my hardware and software vendor. Maybe I'd end up settling on Apple as the hardware vendor, but I don't want that choice predecided for me. I prefer to have the same choices I have today, buying my software and hardware from whatever vendor I choose.
None of these companies besides Sony has ever tried to create an "iPod killer" and even there that would the electronics side of Sony not the Sony Pictures side. These are movie studios, not hardware vendors. As for them being lazy, I'd say perhaps they've been too busy investing millions to make movies (which would be the primary objective of a movie studio). You're getting hardware vendors and the movie studios confused which hardly makes a convincing argument.
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck.
That is not a good argument. Your opinion may not be shared by someone else. You might consider a device or a certain service to "suck", but someone else may actually find utility in it. Choice is always a good thing, a locked down system masquerading under the guise of "choice" is not. Microsoft loves to play the game of redirecting attention towards hardware choices while making their software Windows-only. The iTunes Store only exists because Microsoft refused to develop a Macintosh version of it's DRM system (PlaysForSure), which it tied to Windows. This left Mac users without ANY choice. Even to this day, all these years later, PlaysForSure and even Zune will not play under OS X. So excuse me if I'm a little leery of anything Microsoft is apart of. Apple, on the other hand, was smart enough to develop a cross-platform DRM system that actually works. It works so well, that a majority of the people still buy iTunes DRM'ed music when there's plenty of services that have DRM free music available.
I will be the first to say DRM sucks! It always will. However, I don't believe the members of this consortium are at all interested in consumer choice, they are more interested in having complete control over content distribution. Personally I think these companies should redirect all their efforts towards getting the content providers to free Apple of it's FairPlay obligations and liabilities, and allow Apple to open up the FairPlay system.
Until Apple opens up the iTunes App Store for Macs and makes that the only way to get new software, I'm pretty sure I don't have to buy all of my Mac software from Apple. Not that you care, but I do in fact own an iMac.
Wow. Talk about conspiracy theory. First, the App store is only for the iPhone not for all Mac software. Apple has not declared any plans to turn the App store into one repository for all Mac software. Second, the reason they do that for the iPhone is so that they can monetize software distribution (which works equally as well for the developer as it does for Apple) and so they can offer a level of security that is lacking in the Windows mobile world. Apple is not planning that for the Mac and even if they did - buying Adobe CSX would cost the same as buying it directly from Apple because the developer decides the price - not Apple and that goes for the App store too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
And as a media playback device, I think the Apple TV sucks. It's extremely limited format support and poor remote turn me off to it. I prefer the added features both my PS3 and TiVo provide. But if Apple were to have majority control over downloaded video content in the future, the AppleTV might be my only option. Sorry, such a future holds no appeal to me.
I agree with you about the Apple TV as I stated in my previous post. Right now it sucks. As to your complaint about limited formats - that can be said about a lot of other devices - the Roku, Zune, PSP, but with most of those devices (and yes even the Apple TV), there are programmers that create ways to add that functionality on.
As to your concern that the Apple TV becoming your "only option" - that is absurd. There is no way for the Apple TV in it's current state to become the iPod of the video world - not yet at least. The iPod would not have become as popular as it is today if it was released with the quality of the Apple TV. If Apple wants the Apple TV to become it's "4th leg", then they will need to devote some attention to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Now we're back into conspiracy theory mode. The movie studios don't want to follow the music studios and let one store have a majority control. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I hated having to go to Wal-Mart to pick up the latest Journey CD. I'd have liked even less if I had to go to Wal-Mart for the CD and then pick up a Wal-Mart brand CD player to play it back. Which is the essence of what the iTunes-iPod-AppleTV ecosystem creates.
Conspiracies aside, look at the history of the iTunes Store and you'll see why the movie industry doesn't want Apple to "control" distribution. The music labels tried several times to hike download prices up - Apple rejected that. Then they wanted a piracy tax from Apple for each iPod - Apple rejected that. Apple turned all that down because they are selling directly to the end-user who will assuredly blame Apple for the price hike and Apple doesn't want their investment tarnished by fluctuating pricing schemes and confusing rights-management.
It is no secret that the music labels make more per download than by selling songs on physical media. It's nice that they want to give themselves a raise (none of which I would bet would go to the actual artists), but if they want to make more money, then they need to focus on providing more content that people want. The complaint that the music industry has is they don't want the distributor to have a say in pricing. Remember - this is why the music industry is pissed off at Apple.
Your Walmart CD/Walmart CD-Player analogy doesn't really apply here since you can purchase un-DRM'd tracks from iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
And now, even if someone wanted to create an mp3 player that supported Macs it would be a pointless venture. Just like very few vendors create internal PCI cards for Macs because Apple has turned into a pointless venture.
Which is why Apple got into the MP3 player market in the first place. Very few companies support their platform - so unless Apple does, what are they supposed to do watch their platform die? Keep in mind too that Apple doesn't only support the Mac - they make software for Windows as well.
As to your analogy, do you expect Apple to add PCI slots to the iMac and Mac mini so they can keep the PCI industry happy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
This initiative would have no effect on Apple's music and video system so long as Apple decided to embrace it in the iTunes Store.
There is where you're wrong. The whole point of this ecosystem is to take control away from Apple so do you think that they will let Apple be a part of this? This isn't conspiracy either - look at the MP3 music available from the big three music labels - you can buy un-DRM'd tracks from Amazon, Napster and the Zune marketplace - but not iTunes even though Apple has publicly backed (and even instigated) such an initiative. The music labels want to wrangle distribution control from Apple so they can control pricing.
I personally have no problems with Apple's current iTunes structure - not because I'm a "fanboy" who blindly likes anything Apple does - but because it works for me. I have not been inconvenienced by Apple's Fairplay system. It has not interfered with how I use my music, if it did I wouldn't use it. That's not to say that other people might not like it - but they have other choices as well now, so they are not "locked" into buying music only from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
I don't know. From reading the article, it sounds like the companies are willing to invest in creating an infrastructure for a universal download structure that frees it from one vendor having control. A universal download scheme sure sounds like a good thing to me as a consumer since it means I can shop around for both my hardware and software vendor. Maybe I'd end up settling on Apple as the hardware vendor, but I don't want that choice predecided for me. I prefer to have the same choices I have today, buying my software and hardware from whatever vendor I choose.
The whole point of having choices is so you don't have to "settle". Apple has not pre-decided your choice of music player. People and their wallets decide that.
A "universal download scheme" is a subtle way for the big studios to control pricing. They don't care if there are 10,000 vendors out there selling their movies - they want that. But remember - this is about monetization. Who cares if you have 10,000 vendors to buy movies from if they all come from a few big studios. All the studios need to do when they decide they want a raise is hike prices up. If they decide that a download should now cost $20 guess what - the vendors will be forced to raise prices too. That is the control they want to wrangle from Apple.
These studios all talk about "choice" but in the end, we will have no choice but to pay whatever they decide we pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
None of these companies besides Sony has ever tried to create an "iPod killer" and even there that would the electronics side of Sony not the Sony Pictures side. These are movie studios, not hardware vendors. As for them being lazy, I'd say perhaps they've been too busy investing millions to make movies (which would be the primary objective of a movie studio). You're getting hardware vendors and the movie studios confused which hardly makes a convincing argument.
None of those companies besides Sony makes movies. And yes, Sony is both a hardware maker and movie studio negating your argument.
That is not a good argument. Your opinion may not be shared by someone else. You might consider a device or a certain service to "suck", but someone else may actually find utility in it.
Right. Everyones has their own opinion - but how do you gauge the true success of a product? In an open and fair playing field (amongst choices) the people decide what is successful and what is not. The iPod right now is resoundingly more successful than the other choices. That's not to say the iPod is for everybody - because there are other successful players on the market, but the iPod has gained that success because of it's design and UI which some people find lacking in other products.
I am not in any way condemning people who don't choose the iPod because I don't care what other people choose - that's up to them. But a lot of people make the claim that Apple's success is based upon people not having any choice - and that's just not right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
Personally I think these companies should redirect all their efforts towards getting the content providers to free Apple of it's FairPlay obligations and liabilities, and allow Apple to open up the FairPlay system.
I don't think this is a good idea. As you stated "DRM sucks" (which some people might find utility in by the way ), so the answer is already there - sell MP3's. The big three music labels have their collections available un-DRM'd from a lot of other stores - just not Apple's.
I feel like saying... here we go again.. yahh, can't wait to use their proprietary crappy video player. Have you used NBC's or TNTs player...bugs with going full screen, having the screen saver kick on in the middle of watching it and re-buffering all the time. <slick> I don't know, I can't even stand to use Microsoft's Media Player not because it's Microsoft but because the darn thing buffers and hiccups all through a video not to mention you can't fast forward or rewind without it taking forever to start playing again. Yahh, mmmkkk lemme know how that works out.
Oh, and if they don't let iPod play = FAIL right away.
I feel like saying... here we go again.. yahh, can't wait to use their proprietary crappy video player. Have you used NBC's or TNTs player...bugs with going full screen, having the screen saver kick on in the middle of watching it and re-buffering all the time. <slick> I don't know, I can't even stand to use Microsoft's Media Player not because it's Microsoft but because the darn thing buffers and hiccups all through a video not to mention you can't fast forward or rewind without it taking forever to start playing again. Yahh, mmmkkk lemme know how that works out.
Oh, and if they don't let iPod play = FAIL right away.
I somehow feel you people are not understanding what Sony etc are trying to do.
It will not just be some software for a PC, or providing a portable device support, they are trying to open the purchasing of downloadable media.
The interface to the PS3 is perfectly acceptable, it plays full screen just fine, so do other CE devices.
Comments
The movie giant cites iTunes' prominence as a music store as an example of "the problem:" by allowing proprietary stores to exist, the music industry has effectively left the dominant format in Apple's control.
Except the dominant format is and open standard and not in Apple's control. The problem is the DRM included with it, and Apple has shown that it would be happy to remove it and double the bit rate of the songs if the record companies would let it. Psst, Sony guy. Go talk to the music division instead of yapping your mouth.
This effort is just going to fail hard. No one is going to buy new DVD/BlueRay players, TVs, etc to take advantage of this. Remove the DRM and the problem is solved. It's not like DRM actually does anything to curb piracy.
Ever hear of Amazon? I just ripped my entire iTunes lib and removed the DRM. I have no intentions of purchasing another song from iTunes. It will be DRM free, higher bit rates, and in most cases cheaper from Amazon. If Apple via iTunes sinks, then so be it. My loyalty and money goes to which provides the best bang for the buck. My days of being an Apple zealot are over. Now all I need to do is to figure a way to rip the DRM from my vids and I am free of iTunes for good.
You just proved the point I want to make --that nobody is locked into buying music from iTunes. You can buy music anywhere and as long as it is non-DRM iTunes would gladly load it on your iPod.
What the studios and recording companies fail to realize is that iTunes/iPod is dominant not because it locks in iPod owners (which it doesn't) but because it offers the content consumer convenience. The 73% of digital player buyers are choosing iPod, despite Fairplay, despite cheaper non-DRM tracks elsewhere, because it's so convenient. By convenience I mean ease of use and ubiquity. Ubiquity means that it's widespread enough that if anyone has a problem with iTunes or an iPod there is always someone out there (a friend, a relative, etc.) easily accessible, who could help fix the problem.
Apple is not getting on this bandwagon, but I bet they know that even if they have no choice but to sign up, their success in video downloads still depends on the convenience of whatever video download system they offer. My guess is as long as they do it through iTunes, they'll gobble up the market like jelly beans. People who are already using iTunes will not be willing to have to deal with a second content and device management app. If I were Jobs, I'd confirm the studios biggest fears by signing up on this neo-PlaysForSure scheme and showing them that it doesn't change a thing, there is nothing they can legally do to stop the iTunes/iPod steamroller.
The thing is, this whole discussion seems to presuppose that if the studios and the device manufacturers just get it right then movie downloads will explode. Wrong! They are both held hostage by the ISPs who have not concealed their intent to find a way to extort money from the movie download business.
If online distribution is to be the future of media distribution and kill off physical formats, something akin to what this article describes is how it should be done. The goal is to eliminate what is a essentially a multitude of competing formats, Zune videos, iTunes videos, Unbox videos, PSN videos, etc. and turn digital downloads into something akin to a DVD. You don't have to buy a Sony DVD player to play Sony DVDS but that's essentially what you have to do with digital files.
Sorry, but I don't want to be locked into buying both my software and hardware from one vendor.
I can already do this with 720p video files from torrent sites. Hulk, Speed Racer, Iron Man....all the new ones. Burn as data disc and I can play on my PS3. Already plays on all my Mac devices. Nothing will EVER win over free downloads on the net. The only way to stop what they can't stop is to shut down WWW. And they do actually want to do that.
With morons like you proudly proclaiming you piracy habits, can you really blame them?
1. Apple owns more than 3/4 of the portable media market.
2. They have never gotten it right in the past which is why Apple did it.
3. No one trusts them.
I wish everyone would leave the Apple fanboyism at the door and look at this objectively.
Just as much as I wish people would stop simply dismissing everything as "Fanboyism", and not look at the fact that Apple in this case has the best model as far as ease of use and integration with the total user experience. Perhaps I don't care about an open platform simply because I chose the platform that I knew would be the most succesful at the onset. Just like those that bought Blu-Ray players because they made the correct decision at the onset. The movie industry has to get it right in order for it to work. We all saw how successful Hulu has been.....right?
Sorry, but I don't want to be locked into buying both my software and hardware from one vendor.
Then you must not use a Mac, which would beg to ask why you're posting on an Apple-related site?
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck. People have a huge variety of choices when it comes to MP3 players, and some of them don't choose the iPod. The majority that do, do so because they like the integration, ease of use and quality.
The reason this consortium is raising red flags to me is not because I am being a "fanboy", but because of the fact that if something like this were to go through then guess who would be in charge of developing the DRM used? Any guesses?
Microsoft, or possibly even Sony since they seem to love to develop new acquisition formats every time they sneeze. If that happens, and one of them do develop the "new DRM" then you can forget about being able to purchase anything from a Mac. The system requirements will probably force you to use either Windows, or Internet Explorer (basically Windows). This will effectively lock Apple out. Which is what the goal is here.
Before the iPod, there were very few MP3 players that "supported" the Mac. When Apple came out with the iPod not only did Mac users get the best hardware, but we also had the seamless software already. Apple then made the iPod work on Windows too. In fact, Apple's music and video system works very well on Windows - but you can throw that all out the door if these companies have their way.
I am not suggesting blind allegiance to Apple. I like Apple products because of what they enable me to do and no one else has matched those capabilities for me. I like the iTunes store. I don't like the Apple TV because the damn thing crashes nearly every night - so Apple needs to step it up there - but with their other products no one offers the simplicity and integration that Apple's Mac, iPod, iPhone and iTunes have and that's why I have chosen these products.
This DECE group is masquerading as pioneers of "choice" but what they all want from you is your money. That's what Apple wants too, but Apple is smart enough to know that you get that money by offering a really good product, not a half-assed-designed-slapped-together-and-rebranded-piece-of-shit. These companies want the money to come to them without spending anything in R&D and they want to be able to raise prices at a whim without offering anything new to the customer. They're lazy and Apple is not, which is why they all look so bad right now. Apple has taken the market, and each time they try and beat Apple with an "iPod killer" (which ironically always tend to look like iPods), Apple releases a new design and they all stand there looking stupid because they copied last years model.
I doubt these companies will be able to do anything together, because I just don't see the synergy between them. Usually if a group is brought together by mutual animosity then they still are missing the point that it's the quality of the product that sells - not the amount of companies involved in a venture.
Then you must not use a Mac, which would beg to ask why you're posting on an Apple-related site?
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck. People have a huge variety of choices when it comes to MP3 players, and some of them don't choose the iPod. The majority that do, do so because they like the integration, ease of use and quality.
[...]
Nice post!
LOL some of you guys are so funny. I do believe the general idea is companies like Sony, Lionsgate, and microsoft don't want the monopoly (APPLE/iTunes/iPod) the consume the video world. It's one thing to be successful but its another when consumers don't have a choice but to go with apple. That is.... also against the law. It's not strictly inforced when it comes to entertainment but it should be. I am a proud owner of the iphone 3g and I admire apples innovative technology but I am tired of the molopoly. As a member of a band I hate that I make less money on my iTunes sales compared to Hard copy or many other internet media venders and I still pay the same tax on the earnings.
actually, monopolies are not illegal. abuse of your power within a monopoly is.
With morons like you proudly proclaiming you piracy habits, can you really blame them?
How is making a blatant statement being a moron you moron? What's a matter Uncle Sam got you hiding under your skirt?
COWARD. You're the last guy I'd depend on when the shit hits the fan. Grab a spine.
I believe something like this will be integral to the downfall of physical media, although I doubt this gang will get it right on the first try. For a system like this to succeed, there would need to be a third party who acts as the keyholder to your media; this keyholder simply keeps a log of all the media you've purchased, from any of the participating digital stores. Having a license for a particular song, tv show, or movie would grant you access to download that media on any of your devices in it's preferred format and DRM encryption; for example, if you bought a movie on your Apple TV, you would have instant access to download the same movie from the Microsoft store for your Zune (presuming both were participants in the keyholder program).
All the user needs is a username and password for their keyholder account, and would log in exactly as you do on the iTunes Music Store, only your account information would be the same for all digital stores. With this system, the media itself is still tied to each individual device in whatever proprietary format and DRM the device creator chooses, but the user has unlimited usage of the media in that it's not tied to any single device. A licensing system can work if all the major players recognize the license.
This PowerPoint presentation is completely hare-brained response to iTunes. The content providers haven't a clue as to how far they've already ceded control to Apple because they've been sitting on their hands while Apple has been building the customer base. The most acceptable way for consumers to use digital content is with an Apple device and it will continue to be for some time. Apple has put the studios and the labels into a well-engineered box.
Pretty sure these are examples of vending method, not confirmed tied on companies. If so the iTunes logo would be current and not something era of Version 4.
Agree about the vending machine concept, something which has been in the development and testing phase in Blockbuster ("instant" DVDs), but not in a wholly digital form.
What the industry lacks is an agreed upon "container" for this media. Apple has already provided this and consumers agree it is the best option. It's going to be amusing to watch when Apple finally rolls out their own iTunes kiosks and the content providers crash and burn.
Then you must not use a Mac, which would beg to ask why you're posting on an Apple-related site?
Until Apple opens up the iTunes App Store for Macs and makes that the only way to get new software, I'm pretty sure I don't have to buy all of my Mac software from Apple. Not that you care, but I do in fact own an iMac.
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck. People have a huge variety of choices when it comes to MP3 players, and some of them don't choose the iPod. The majority that do, do so because they like the integration, ease of use and quality.
And as a media playback device, I think the Apple TV sucks. It's extremely limited format support and poor remote turn me off to it. I prefer the added features both my PS3 and TiVo provide. But if Apple were to have majority control over downloaded video content in the future, the AppleTV might be my only option. Sorry, such a future holds no appeal to me.
Microsoft, or possibly even Sony since they seem to love to develop new acquisition formats every time they sneeze. If that happens, and one of them do develop the "new DRM" then you can forget about being able to purchase anything from a Mac. The system requirements will probably force you to use either Windows, or Internet Explorer (basically Windows). This will effectively lock Apple out. Which is what the goal is here.
Now we're back into conspiracy theory mode. The movie studios don't want to follow the music studios and let one store have a majority control. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I hated having to go to Wal-Mart to pick up the latest Journey CD. I'd have liked even less if I had to go to Wal-Mart for the CD and then pick up a Wal-Mart brand CD player to play it back. Which is the essence of what the iTunes-iPod-AppleTV ecosystem creates.
Before the iPod, there were very few MP3 players that "supported" the Mac. When Apple came out with the iPod not only did Mac users get the best hardware, but we also had the seamless software already. Apple then made the iPod work on Windows too. In fact, Apple's music and video system works very well on Windows - but you can throw that all out the door if these companies have their way.
And now, even if someone wanted to create an mp3 player that supported Macs it would be a pointless venture. Just like very few vendors create internal PCI cards for Macs because Apple has turned into a pointless venture.
This initiative would have no effect on Apple's music and video system so long as Apple decided to embrace it in the iTunes Store.
This DECE group is masquerading as pioneers of "choice" but what they all want from you is your money. That's what Apple wants too, but Apple is smart enough to know that you get that money by offering a really good product, not a half-assed-designed-slapped-together-and-rebranded-piece-of-shit. These companies want the money to come to them without spending anything in R&D and they want to be able to raise prices at a whim without offering anything new to the customer. They're lazy and Apple is not, which is why they all look so bad right now. Apple has taken the market, and each time they try and beat Apple with an "iPod killer" (which ironically always tend to look like iPods), Apple releases a new design and they all stand there looking stupid because they copied last years model.
I don't know. From reading the article, it sounds like the companies are willing to invest in creating an infrastructure for a universal download structure that frees it from one vendor having control. A universal download scheme sure sounds like a good thing to me as a consumer since it means I can shop around for both my hardware and software vendor. Maybe I'd end up settling on Apple as the hardware vendor, but I don't want that choice predecided for me. I prefer to have the same choices I have today, buying my software and hardware from whatever vendor I choose.
None of these companies besides Sony has ever tried to create an "iPod killer" and even there that would the electronics side of Sony not the Sony Pictures side. These are movie studios, not hardware vendors. As for them being lazy, I'd say perhaps they've been too busy investing millions to make movies (which would be the primary objective of a movie studio). You're getting hardware vendors and the movie studios confused which hardly makes a convincing argument.
People like to rant on and on about having "choices", but what good are choices when the majority of them suck.
That is not a good argument. Your opinion may not be shared by someone else. You might consider a device or a certain service to "suck", but someone else may actually find utility in it. Choice is always a good thing, a locked down system masquerading under the guise of "choice" is not. Microsoft loves to play the game of redirecting attention towards hardware choices while making their software Windows-only. The iTunes Store only exists because Microsoft refused to develop a Macintosh version of it's DRM system (PlaysForSure), which it tied to Windows. This left Mac users without ANY choice. Even to this day, all these years later, PlaysForSure and even Zune will not play under OS X. So excuse me if I'm a little leery of anything Microsoft is apart of. Apple, on the other hand, was smart enough to develop a cross-platform DRM system that actually works. It works so well, that a majority of the people still buy iTunes DRM'ed music when there's plenty of services that have DRM free music available.
I will be the first to say DRM sucks! It always will. However, I don't believe the members of this consortium are at all interested in consumer choice, they are more interested in having complete control over content distribution. Personally I think these companies should redirect all their efforts towards getting the content providers to free Apple of it's FairPlay obligations and liabilities, and allow Apple to open up the FairPlay system.
a user could still have access to a "locker"
This whole "ecosystem" thing seems to be a veiled attempt by the content owners to further monetize every possible usage scenario.
By "locker," they mean "cash register," where users go to pay for different levels of usage. Burn to DVD? $5. Transfer to TiVo? $10.
Interoperability at a price.
Until Apple opens up the iTunes App Store for Macs and makes that the only way to get new software, I'm pretty sure I don't have to buy all of my Mac software from Apple. Not that you care, but I do in fact own an iMac.
Wow. Talk about conspiracy theory. First, the App store is only for the iPhone not for all Mac software. Apple has not declared any plans to turn the App store into one repository for all Mac software. Second, the reason they do that for the iPhone is so that they can monetize software distribution (which works equally as well for the developer as it does for Apple) and so they can offer a level of security that is lacking in the Windows mobile world. Apple is not planning that for the Mac and even if they did - buying Adobe CSX would cost the same as buying it directly from Apple because the developer decides the price - not Apple and that goes for the App store too.
And as a media playback device, I think the Apple TV sucks. It's extremely limited format support and poor remote turn me off to it. I prefer the added features both my PS3 and TiVo provide. But if Apple were to have majority control over downloaded video content in the future, the AppleTV might be my only option. Sorry, such a future holds no appeal to me.
I agree with you about the Apple TV as I stated in my previous post. Right now it sucks. As to your complaint about limited formats - that can be said about a lot of other devices - the Roku, Zune, PSP, but with most of those devices (and yes even the Apple TV), there are programmers that create ways to add that functionality on.
As to your concern that the Apple TV becoming your "only option" - that is absurd. There is no way for the Apple TV in it's current state to become the iPod of the video world - not yet at least. The iPod would not have become as popular as it is today if it was released with the quality of the Apple TV. If Apple wants the Apple TV to become it's "4th leg", then they will need to devote some attention to it.
Now we're back into conspiracy theory mode. The movie studios don't want to follow the music studios and let one store have a majority control. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I hated having to go to Wal-Mart to pick up the latest Journey CD. I'd have liked even less if I had to go to Wal-Mart for the CD and then pick up a Wal-Mart brand CD player to play it back. Which is the essence of what the iTunes-iPod-AppleTV ecosystem creates.
Conspiracies aside, look at the history of the iTunes Store and you'll see why the movie industry doesn't want Apple to "control" distribution. The music labels tried several times to hike download prices up - Apple rejected that. Then they wanted a piracy tax from Apple for each iPod - Apple rejected that. Apple turned all that down because they are selling directly to the end-user who will assuredly blame Apple for the price hike and Apple doesn't want their investment tarnished by fluctuating pricing schemes and confusing rights-management.
It is no secret that the music labels make more per download than by selling songs on physical media. It's nice that they want to give themselves a raise (none of which I would bet would go to the actual artists), but if they want to make more money, then they need to focus on providing more content that people want. The complaint that the music industry has is they don't want the distributor to have a say in pricing. Remember - this is why the music industry is pissed off at Apple.
Your Walmart CD/Walmart CD-Player analogy doesn't really apply here since you can purchase un-DRM'd tracks from iTunes.
And now, even if someone wanted to create an mp3 player that supported Macs it would be a pointless venture. Just like very few vendors create internal PCI cards for Macs because Apple has turned into a pointless venture.
Which is why Apple got into the MP3 player market in the first place. Very few companies support their platform - so unless Apple does, what are they supposed to do watch their platform die? Keep in mind too that Apple doesn't only support the Mac - they make software for Windows as well.
As to your analogy, do you expect Apple to add PCI slots to the iMac and Mac mini so they can keep the PCI industry happy?
This initiative would have no effect on Apple's music and video system so long as Apple decided to embrace it in the iTunes Store.
There is where you're wrong. The whole point of this ecosystem is to take control away from Apple so do you think that they will let Apple be a part of this? This isn't conspiracy either - look at the MP3 music available from the big three music labels - you can buy un-DRM'd tracks from Amazon, Napster and the Zune marketplace - but not iTunes even though Apple has publicly backed (and even instigated) such an initiative. The music labels want to wrangle distribution control from Apple so they can control pricing.
I personally have no problems with Apple's current iTunes structure - not because I'm a "fanboy" who blindly likes anything Apple does - but because it works for me. I have not been inconvenienced by Apple's Fairplay system. It has not interfered with how I use my music, if it did I wouldn't use it. That's not to say that other people might not like it - but they have other choices as well now, so they are not "locked" into buying music only from Apple.
I don't know. From reading the article, it sounds like the companies are willing to invest in creating an infrastructure for a universal download structure that frees it from one vendor having control. A universal download scheme sure sounds like a good thing to me as a consumer since it means I can shop around for both my hardware and software vendor. Maybe I'd end up settling on Apple as the hardware vendor, but I don't want that choice predecided for me. I prefer to have the same choices I have today, buying my software and hardware from whatever vendor I choose.
The whole point of having choices is so you don't have to "settle". Apple has not pre-decided your choice of music player. People and their wallets decide that.
A "universal download scheme" is a subtle way for the big studios to control pricing. They don't care if there are 10,000 vendors out there selling their movies - they want that. But remember - this is about monetization. Who cares if you have 10,000 vendors to buy movies from if they all come from a few big studios. All the studios need to do when they decide they want a raise is hike prices up. If they decide that a download should now cost $20 guess what - the vendors will be forced to raise prices too. That is the control they want to wrangle from Apple.
These studios all talk about "choice" but in the end, we will have no choice but to pay whatever they decide we pay.
None of these companies besides Sony has ever tried to create an "iPod killer" and even there that would the electronics side of Sony not the Sony Pictures side. These are movie studios, not hardware vendors. As for them being lazy, I'd say perhaps they've been too busy investing millions to make movies (which would be the primary objective of a movie studio). You're getting hardware vendors and the movie studios confused which hardly makes a convincing argument.
None of those companies besides Sony makes movies. And yes, Sony is both a hardware maker and movie studio negating your argument.
That is not a good argument. Your opinion may not be shared by someone else. You might consider a device or a certain service to "suck", but someone else may actually find utility in it.
Right. Everyones has their own opinion - but how do you gauge the true success of a product? In an open and fair playing field (amongst choices) the people decide what is successful and what is not. The iPod right now is resoundingly more successful than the other choices. That's not to say the iPod is for everybody - because there are other successful players on the market, but the iPod has gained that success because of it's design and UI which some people find lacking in other products.
I am not in any way condemning people who don't choose the iPod because I don't care what other people choose - that's up to them. But a lot of people make the claim that Apple's success is based upon people not having any choice - and that's just not right.
Personally I think these companies should redirect all their efforts towards getting the content providers to free Apple of it's FairPlay obligations and liabilities, and allow Apple to open up the FairPlay system.
I don't think this is a good idea. As you stated "DRM sucks" (which some people might find utility in by the way
Oh, and if they don't let iPod play = FAIL right away.
I feel like saying... here we go again.. yahh, can't wait to use their proprietary crappy video player. Have you used NBC's or TNTs player...bugs with going full screen, having the screen saver kick on in the middle of watching it and re-buffering all the time. <slick> I don't know, I can't even stand to use Microsoft's Media Player not because it's Microsoft but because the darn thing buffers and hiccups all through a video not to mention you can't fast forward or rewind without it taking forever to start playing again. Yahh, mmmkkk lemme know how that works out.
Oh, and if they don't let iPod play = FAIL right away.
I somehow feel you people are not understanding what Sony etc are trying to do.
It will not just be some software for a PC, or providing a portable device support, they are trying to open the purchasing of downloadable media.
The interface to the PS3 is perfectly acceptable, it plays full screen just fine, so do other CE devices.