That is a tough position to extricate from, for the human being especially if one is making money at it. Also when it is possible to loose money in the future by moving. The music companies I think may see a cash cow that may be ending milk production. I would not bet that they will give up milking soon.
What would it benefit Apple to put out a letter saying this if they were only going to renege? I'm sure Jobs doesn't believe that the music industry will do away with DRM.
It's a freebie for Jobs to claim he wants to see DRM go away. He knows it won't happen, and this way he can place all the blame on the record companies (which is the legal line they're taking in the European cases), despite the fact that Apple benefits from it.
Perhaps. But your positing that the DRM lock-in is the only advantage, discounting industrial design, features, ease-of-use, the iTunes store, and media selection. If iTMS were to sell AAC files unencumbered, these traits still would merit using iTMS. I think that the majority who use iTMS do so in spite of the DRM. No one who purchases an iPod is forced to buy songs from iTMS; those who do (and I'm into it around $500) find it valuable and easier than perusing the stacks at Borders.
Eh? I don't recall saying DRM was the only advantage. It is an advantage for Apple, and a pretty big one. It's analogous to the advantage MS has in operating systems - it's hard for users to switch because of the investment Windows users have in software for Windows.
I don't have a problem with DRM the way Apple uses it.
I don't care actually.
I do. There are interoperability problems. You can't use a third party media device such as a Roku with iTunes encrypted files. If I use Front Row to access another computer's media and the local machine isn't authenticated, Front Row says "server error" or something like that. I don't understand why they don't want the program to be honest about why it won't play a file.
It's a freebie for Jobs to claim he wants to see DRM go away. He knows it won't happen, and this way he can place all the blame on the record companies (which is the legal line they're taking in the European cases), despite the fact that Apple benefits from it.
No I do think Apple is ready to be done with DRM. The iPod is essentially a multi-media player it does not matter where the media comes from. With Apples multiplying device offerings the content can be received from anywhere, there isn't much reason to lock people only into iTunes Store.
It's a freebie for Jobs to claim he wants to see DRM go away. He knows it won't happen, and this way he can place all the blame on the record companies (which is the legal line they're taking in the European cases), despite the fact that Apple benefits from it.
My view is that Steve Jobs is stating what he believes. Your view appears to be that he is a liar, willing to publish his lies on one of the most visited websites in the world. Quite a contrast in opinions!
Agreed - with no DRM at all, then the iTunes store is going to be competing directly against MS, Sony, Real, etc, on ease of use and features *alone*... now who do you think is going to win that one? They've got the critical mass they need for self-sustainability, obviously.
If you think about it, also, if they can go DRM free, then every other DRM-laden store out there is going to look awfully lame in comparison, and people will be more likely to buy from the iTunes Store. Apple wins.
If those folks buy the songs, and decide they like the iPod or Mac, Apple wins.
If those folks buy the songs, and decide they want to play them on player X, well, Apple wins less, but they still win in the distribution channel, which, really, is pretty obviously where this is going.
Basically, this is a no-lose situation for them. They get to compete against the other players on simplicity and ease of use alone, and sell based on ease of use and convenience of their online store. Those are the places where they kick ass.
Look at it this way... if iTunes goes DRM free, will any other store be able to not follow suit? Nope. If there is no DRM, and it's an open market, with no lock-in, who do you think is going to do better, Apple, or MS?
Right now the only beef I have about DRM-protected iTunes content is that I can't easily play it on any kind of music-playing cell phone AND my iPods. I'm looking to buy a new cell phone in the next several months and am dreading the task of burning and ripping my iTunes content.
(Aside: I'm also dreading converting all of my Apple Lossless files to something a cell phone can play, but that's another matter.)
My wife has a Sony Ericsson 750i & I have an 850i, both of which have memory sticks. I can use either the application "iTuneMyWalkman" (from Versiontracker) or the memory stick, to just drag whatever songs from iTunes straight onto the memory stick, or use the cable provided by SE to transfer direct from my iTunes onto my cellphone. Dead easy, and designed to work this way.
The statistics he quoted (while he did twist them, by falsely assuming the average, to fit his interpretation, by ignoring the illegal music segment) clearly show that the huuuuge majority of people playing music on iPods are not using music bought from the iTunes Store. If you assume the more accurate (I think) interpretation of the data that the market is split into people who just use legal music and people who just use illegal and/or CD purchased music you can see that only around 2 million (2billion/1000 songs per iPod) of the ipods sold or 2.2% of iPods sold are to people who use the iTunes store to fill them. I, for example, am one of the others who does not own a single track from the iTunes store. So you're argument is pretty weak, that Apple should be fighting for DRM to lock in 2.2% of their customers. They would probably turn off more than that amount if it were revealed that they were supporting DRM.
Actually, I think the numbers are this way because a great deal of people are buying songs at iTunes that actually don't have an iPod.
I bought well over a hundred songs from iTMS before I ever owned an iPod.
I was more than happy to listen on my laptop or desktop or burn to a CD for my car.
My wife has a Sony Ericsson 750i & I have an 850i, both of which have memory sticks. I can use either the application "iTuneMyWalkman" (from Versiontracker) or the memory stick, to just drag whatever songs from iTunes straight onto the memory stick, or use the cable provided by SE to transfer direct from my iTunes onto my cellphone. Dead easy, and designed to work this way.
You are mistaken in some way.
Only tracks bought from the iTunes Store are DRM protected. Tracks that you've imported yourself are not. Any track that you've bought from the iTS and is therefore DRM protected will not play on your phones, unless you remove the DRM by using QTfairUse 6 or similar, or burn the track to CD and rip it back to your machine.
There's another reason for Jobs to be publicly positioning Apple to be against DRM: Vista.
One of the aspects of Vista that hasn't gotten a lot of press yet (although I think it will) is its aggressive implementation of all kind of right management controls at the OS/hardware level.
From what I've read it looks like MS decided that the fast track to being the default media device for the 21st century was to pretty much give the RIAA/MPAA anything and everything they wanted in terms of controlling what and how and when you play back digital media on a PC (and undoubtedly PC derivatives).
I think Apple is hoping to get the content industry to follow by leveraging their iTunes clout, and MS hopes that allowing the content industry to lead will give them the access to challenge that clout.
If Apple hadn't snuck in under the radar with the iPod, it would all be over by now anyway-- implement any and all industry mandated hardware/software controls or have no access to content.
Instead, the industry pretty much has to dance with Jobs, but you know they resent the hell out of it. So they work with MS to make Vista a DRM platform, while Jobs works to remind consumers that Leopard won't have anything like the DRM tripwires as Vista and hopes to force the industry's hand by having the most popular distribution service.
Most CDs aren't DRM protected. I can legally rip my CDs into unprotected MP3s, AACs or whatever digital format I like and use it on whatever player is capable of playing back those formats. However, if I buy a digital copy of the same recording (which probably costs less to distribute and therefore generates more profits for the label), I have to live with all the restrictions that come with DRM.
It doesn't make any sense to apply completely different legal restrictions to the same content just because it is sold in two different formats. Actually the higher quality version of the content (the CD) has less restrictions that the lower quality (DRM protected compressed format of your choice).
If the labels wanted to retaliate, the one thing they could do is tighten down it's DRM policy and prohibit iTunes protected tracks from being burned to CD. I mean, as it is right now, the DRM is useless.. All one has to do is burn to cd and then re-import. A three minute process and wella, DRM is gone. But if they took away the ability to burn (like iTunes movies,) then iTunes purchased music would truly be dependent on the iPod.
I don't want this to happen, but it is something the labels could do, if they really wanted to piss Apple and/or Steve off.
Comments
And, next, do the same with the video content!!!!
DVD's always had DRM.
Respectfully submitted. HT
Just saw this article on Apple.com
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
I completely agree - I dont like DRM but until the music industry removes its head from its posterior, its not an option Apple really has a say in.
I can imagine the bigwigs at the big 4 are frothing at the mouth with this
What would it benefit Apple to put out a letter saying this if they were only going to renege? I'm sure Jobs doesn't believe that the music industry will do away with DRM.
It's a freebie for Jobs to claim he wants to see DRM go away. He knows it won't happen, and this way he can place all the blame on the record companies (which is the legal line they're taking in the European cases), despite the fact that Apple benefits from it.
Perhaps. But your positing that the DRM lock-in is the only advantage, discounting industrial design, features, ease-of-use, the iTunes store, and media selection. If iTMS were to sell AAC files unencumbered, these traits still would merit using iTMS. I think that the majority who use iTMS do so in spite of the DRM. No one who purchases an iPod is forced to buy songs from iTMS; those who do (and I'm into it around $500) find it valuable and easier than perusing the stacks at Borders.
Eh? I don't recall saying DRM was the only advantage. It is an advantage for Apple, and a pretty big one. It's analogous to the advantage MS has in operating systems - it's hard for users to switch because of the investment Windows users have in software for Windows.
I don't have a problem with DRM the way Apple uses it.
I don't care actually.
I do. There are interoperability problems. You can't use a third party media device such as a Roku with iTunes encrypted files. If I use Front Row to access another computer's media and the local machine isn't authenticated, Front Row says "server error" or something like that. I don't understand why they don't want the program to be honest about why it won't play a file.
Today we get a letter from Steve telling us why the big 5 record labels are bad.
Could it be that Apple could be looking to become record label #6 and offering its music DRM-free?
Inquiring minds want to know.
DVD's always had DRM.
They have copy protection, not DRM. The two are related and meant to achieve the same, but they're not the same.
It's a freebie for Jobs to claim he wants to see DRM go away. He knows it won't happen, and this way he can place all the blame on the record companies (which is the legal line they're taking in the European cases), despite the fact that Apple benefits from it.
No I do think Apple is ready to be done with DRM. The iPod is essentially a multi-media player it does not matter where the media comes from. With Apples multiplying device offerings the content can be received from anywhere, there isn't much reason to lock people only into iTunes Store.
They have copy protection, not DRM. The two are related and meant to achieve the same, but they're not the same.
I know I meant DRM as a generic term for copy protection to keep the point consistent.
It's a freebie for Jobs to claim he wants to see DRM go away. He knows it won't happen, and this way he can place all the blame on the record companies (which is the legal line they're taking in the European cases), despite the fact that Apple benefits from it.
My view is that Steve Jobs is stating what he believes. Your view appears to be that he is a liar, willing to publish his lies on one of the most visited websites in the world. Quite a contrast in opinions!
If you think about it, also, if they can go DRM free, then every other DRM-laden store out there is going to look awfully lame in comparison, and people will be more likely to buy from the iTunes Store. Apple wins.
If those folks buy the songs, and decide they like the iPod or Mac, Apple wins.
If those folks buy the songs, and decide they want to play them on player X, well, Apple wins less, but they still win in the distribution channel, which, really, is pretty obviously where this is going.
Basically, this is a no-lose situation for them. They get to compete against the other players on simplicity and ease of use alone, and sell based on ease of use and convenience of their online store. Those are the places where they kick ass.
Look at it this way... if iTunes goes DRM free, will any other store be able to not follow suit? Nope. If there is no DRM, and it's an open market, with no lock-in, who do you think is going to do better, Apple, or MS?
Before going to boardroom with the Big Four in march, apple and Jobs created a big backup to fight with Big Four. DRM Down!
Right now the only beef I have about DRM-protected iTunes content is that I can't easily play it on any kind of music-playing cell phone AND my iPods. I'm looking to buy a new cell phone in the next several months and am dreading the task of burning and ripping my iTunes content.
(Aside: I'm also dreading converting all of my Apple Lossless files to something a cell phone can play, but that's another matter.)
My wife has a Sony Ericsson 750i & I have an 850i, both of which have memory sticks. I can use either the application "iTuneMyWalkman" (from Versiontracker) or the memory stick, to just drag whatever songs from iTunes straight onto the memory stick, or use the cable provided by SE to transfer direct from my iTunes onto my cellphone. Dead easy, and designed to work this way.
The statistics he quoted (while he did twist them, by falsely assuming the average, to fit his interpretation, by ignoring the illegal music segment) clearly show that the huuuuge majority of people playing music on iPods are not using music bought from the iTunes Store. If you assume the more accurate (I think) interpretation of the data that the market is split into people who just use legal music and people who just use illegal and/or CD purchased music you can see that only around 2 million (2billion/1000 songs per iPod) of the ipods sold or 2.2% of iPods sold are to people who use the iTunes store to fill them. I, for example, am one of the others who does not own a single track from the iTunes store. So you're argument is pretty weak, that Apple should be fighting for DRM to lock in 2.2% of their customers. They would probably turn off more than that amount if it were revealed that they were supporting DRM.
Actually, I think the numbers are this way because a great deal of people are buying songs at iTunes that actually don't have an iPod.
I bought well over a hundred songs from iTMS before I ever owned an iPod.
I was more than happy to listen on my laptop or desktop or burn to a CD for my car.
My wife has a Sony Ericsson 750i & I have an 850i, both of which have memory sticks. I can use either the application "iTuneMyWalkman" (from Versiontracker) or the memory stick, to just drag whatever songs from iTunes straight onto the memory stick, or use the cable provided by SE to transfer direct from my iTunes onto my cellphone. Dead easy, and designed to work this way.
You are mistaken in some way.
Only tracks bought from the iTunes Store are DRM protected. Tracks that you've imported yourself are not. Any track that you've bought from the iTS and is therefore DRM protected will not play on your phones, unless you remove the DRM by using QTfairUse 6 or similar, or burn the track to CD and rip it back to your machine.
One of the aspects of Vista that hasn't gotten a lot of press yet (although I think it will) is its aggressive implementation of all kind of right management controls at the OS/hardware level.
From what I've read it looks like MS decided that the fast track to being the default media device for the 21st century was to pretty much give the RIAA/MPAA anything and everything they wanted in terms of controlling what and how and when you play back digital media on a PC (and undoubtedly PC derivatives).
I think Apple is hoping to get the content industry to follow by leveraging their iTunes clout, and MS hopes that allowing the content industry to lead will give them the access to challenge that clout.
If Apple hadn't snuck in under the radar with the iPod, it would all be over by now anyway-- implement any and all industry mandated hardware/software controls or have no access to content.
Instead, the industry pretty much has to dance with Jobs, but you know they resent the hell out of it. So they work with MS to make Vista a DRM platform, while Jobs works to remind consumers that Leopard won't have anything like the DRM tripwires as Vista and hopes to force the industry's hand by having the most popular distribution service.
Should be interesting.
Most CDs aren't DRM protected. I can legally rip my CDs into unprotected MP3s, AACs or whatever digital format I like and use it on whatever player is capable of playing back those formats. However, if I buy a digital copy of the same recording (which probably costs less to distribute and therefore generates more profits for the label), I have to live with all the restrictions that come with DRM.
It doesn't make any sense to apply completely different legal restrictions to the same content just because it is sold in two different formats. Actually the higher quality version of the content (the CD) has less restrictions that the lower quality (DRM protected compressed format of your choice).
I don't want this to happen, but it is something the labels could do, if they really wanted to piss Apple and/or Steve off.
Yesterday we find out that Apple Inc and Apple Corps have settled their legal differences.
Today we get a letter from Steve telling us why the big 5 record labels are bad.
Could it be that Apple could be looking to become record label #6 and offering its music DRM-free?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Now you're talking! We often hear musicians complaining that the labels
take too much money for distributing the music. If musicians started signing
with Apple to exclusively distribute their music thru iTunes, DRM forced by
the labels would disappear. The "big four" would stagger toward extinction as,
one-by-one, artist contracts expire and they sign with Apple.