He makes a good point that can not be disputed outside of spin and fan boy talk.
M$ does an awesome job supporting hardware and the hardware vendors do a great job supporting M$ via drivers. So lets not start this discussion that so many Mac people spin. The fact is that the PC hardware and M$ is pushing tech no matter how Apple tries to spin this fact. Just compare what hardware advances Apple has done then look to the PC and see what advances has been made.
OSX would sell great and really challenge M$ by being open vs. Apple selling OSX on Mac(PC's) that has hardware that is behind and over priced for what you get.
In lieu of fact we are quick to use fan boy allegations.
Right now Apple's current operating system 10.4.8 can run on a 400MHz G3 iMac with 128 MB VRAM made in 1999. The reason for that is Apple only has to support a limited number of computers that they themselves created.
Vista is more akin to Tiger than XP, but Vista cannot fully run on a comparable system with such slim specs. This is the reason why there has to be Vista certified hardware components. There is no need for such a rating system in the Mac world.
It's almost like Jobs and the others are politicians now. They never really take a position on anything until it is the right time...deflecting questions to no end until they are ready. I wonder what Steve does with all of his money. I mean Bill has a multi-billion dollar non-profit, but Steve? Throw us a bone.
Yeah, but if the contracts with the indie music publishers don't call for DRM, why is Apple pushing it on the files? That's the question. And why should anyone have to write an open letter to anyone else to get answers.
Two problems with this. The first is the IF in your first sentence. How do you, or we, know IF this is the case.
But even IF it were the case it is entirely possible that the current contracts with the majors REQUIRE ALL music sold on iTS be DRM'd. This is very possible. Liken it to MSFT's (old?) REQUIREMENT that a window's license be sold with every machine that a given producer sells, whether the user wants it, or not.
If this is the case this could very well be one of the targets of the open letter toward the upcoming (ongoing) negotiations with the majors. Don't forget that it was Jobs and FairPlay that opened up this entire field (note for those anti-fanboi's I didn't claim create).
Many services would like a FairPlay license but Apple has always rejected this idea. RealNetworks and Virgin Mega asked for a license and were rebuffed. Rob Glaser had to hack his way into the iPod with Harmony. If Apple wanted to license FairPlay to other music services, they would issue a press release to announce that, as of today, every music service can buy a FairPlay license. They wouldn't need a "pretty ingenious strategy" (a twisted plan).
Apple doesn't want to do anything, which is precisely my point: Apple would rather keep the system closed and protect the assets they've developed, i.e., dedicated users with large libraries of tracks that work only on iTunes. But the reality is that Apple may be forced to open the system at some point.
Personally, I'm happy with things the way they are. I have several thousand tracks, several hundred of which were DRMd by Apple. But I'm on my third and fourth iPods, and I could care less whether my tracks work with other MP3 players or whether tracks I bought on Rhapsody work on my iPod. Neither of those situations apply to me.
I still think DRM makes sense, though, because it's the best defense agaisnt piracy, and licensing FairPlay is probably the easiest way to do it.
DRM for music makes no sense. Once again iTunes has sold 2 billion songs in 4 years. CD's sell around 20 billion songs every year, with no DRM. FairPlay has absolutely no effect (positive or negative) on piracy at all.
You guys who would argue for Apple to licensing FairPlay would give record labels exactly what they want. If Apple did license FairPlay it would likely become a defacto DRM that would unite the industry. If there ever were a defacto standard the record industry would never give up DRM. That is the reason they want an interoperable system. Right now while the DRM system is fractured its easier to say DRM makes no sense.
I wonder if Apple would've been silly enough (in the beginning) to have a contract stating that all music sold on iTunes has to have DRM in order to get major players to sign on.
This is very likely the case but most people are too busy looking for conspiracies to consider it.
Not only is it likely the case, it is the case. It was stated many times during the variable pricing push by the big four, that every label has exactly the same contract with Apple. This is how Apple has been able to keep the labels from demanding variable pricing, for instance - everyone gets the same deal, and no two labels can agree on the variable pricing structure.
What's beautiful about it, is if they *did*, then they'd run risk of being brought up on collusion and price fixing charges.
So no, the indie labels don't get a choice on DRM or lack thereof, and the big four don't get choice on pricing. No conspiracy, just a solid front from Apple on making sure that every label gets treated equally.
1) Apple is a hardware company. The software (and the music and the phone service) are merely facilitators of the hardware business, which is where they make all their money. So any argument that they should license OS X is bogus. It would complete destroy their Mac business model.
2) DVD Jon's statement that Apple could implement such a change in iTunes in 2-3 days just proves that he has never worked in a large corporate environment and destroys any credibility he has. Publishing a hack for other people to take advantage of is completely different the maintaining a code base the size of iTunes. Supporting multiple platforms, different processors, testing, etc, and only releasing an optimized, end-user ready piece of software would take much longer than that. Could it be done? Should Apple do it? Sure, IF the contracts allow it. But it's not nearly as simple as he pretends it is.
I still think DRM makes sense, though, because it's the best defense agaisnt piracy, and licensing FairPlay is probably the easiest way to do it.
DRM isn't a good defense against piracy at all. All it takes is one person to crack a "protected" item, and then the entire P2P community has it available to them. The adage of bailing the Titanic with a bucket applies.
For Apple to open OS X to work seamlessly on any PC. Would require OS X to support every possible hardware configuration. That is a lot of work for Apple, even MS has not been able to do with this completely successfully.
Microsoft doesn't have to support every piece of hardware directly. Every hardware maker has to develop their own drivers or pay someone to do it. I think those hardware makers have to pay MS for driver certification & testing if they want it.
That doesn't change Apple's situation, they make so very little money with software that it's not funny. I think they'd have to charge $400 a copy of the OS to make up the difference.
Here is a good article that shows Apple's double standards:
An open letter to Steve Jobs
Rant You are a hypocrite
By Charlie Demerjian: Friday 09 February 2007, 08:20
DEAR MR JOBS, you are the lowest form of hypocrite. It didn't dawn on me when I was reading your recent piece on DRM, nor when I was writing my response, but it did afterwards.
I was busy answering emails generated by my article, a strangely complimentary set of letters given the topic, when it dawned on me. Your entire business is based on DRM, top to bottom, and without it you would wither and die.
If you consider Apple has three product lines, the Mac, the iPod and the upcoming iPhone, all are DRMed to the gills. The iPod we all know about, that one is obvious. The Mac is a little more subtle, the DRM prevents it from running on anything but your hardware. It will even break on an Intel reference board that is almost totally identical to yours.
DRM has two functions, to prevent copying and to prevent interoperability. You are using the the latter functionality as a shield to fatten your margins and totally lock out competition. Your entire computer business model depends on DRM. Remove the artificial locks and it works fine.
Then there is the iPhone. Those of us privvy to its secrets know it is locked down hard, you have even saidas much. This DRM infection starts with a trusted boot loader and will fail with non-signed firmware. From there, you can lock out any competition with more DRM. This was a management decision, not a technical need.
So, when it comes to DRM being used to pry open your anti-competitive infrastructure, you decry it. When it comes to you using to to exclude and tax others, then it is mandatory. What a joke you are.
While I know this won't happen, here is what you need to do to put your money where your mouth is. First, completely open up or license OSX to anyone who wants it and let it run on whatever hardware they want. Second, do not lock down the iPhone in any way shape or form. Both can be done on a whim, there are no technical impediments, only management decisions.
If you do not do these things, you will expose yourself to be the true hypocrite that everyone thinks you are. DRM is unacceptable when used against you, but the best thing in the world when done by Apple. You can change things though, all it takes is a memo.
Charlie Demerjian µ
I probably wouldnt read this just because you capitalized the intro.. makes it seem unprofessional from the get go. Just letting you know.
Nevermind the fact that the first line is a flame-- that would confirm with utter certainty that I (as Jobs or as an Apple rep) would not want to read this letter. Or even just as me-- as i personally do not want to read your unprofessional flame.
I probably wouldnt read this just because you capitalized the intro.. makes it seem unprofessional from the get go. Just letting you know.
Nevermind the fact that the first line is a flame-- that would confirm with utter certainty that I (as Jobs or as an Apple rep) would not want to read this letter. Or even just as me-- as i personally do not want to read your unprofessional flame.
Believe me, you aren't missing anything by not reading it... This whole claim is bogus given the fact that, since the very beginning, Apple has always sold "computers." What they mean by "computers" is the entire system including the hardware and OS. It is MS that started a new business model based around hardware and OS being sold "separately" (given MS's licensing practices, we have to use that term loosely :P). Apple sees computers as appliances. That is, by the way, why they don't offer "upgrade pricing" on new OS releases. Because in fact everyone is upgrading so the normal price IS the upgrade price.
First and foremost the present definitions of all DRM are bad ones ;.. too restricitve on the users and music piracy unfortunately is here to stay ... sad but true .. Vista 's DRM ressembles the longest suicide note in history.
I think Apple's aim with the music store is offering a convinience to all ipod users ... the contracts with the record labels ASKED for DRM before even distribution online started at all . Apple put forward music stores to sell more ipods and hence in the end sell more macs. Nowadays in europe acceptance of DRM is low and Apple wants to expand into that market as well ... makes sense .
IMHO apple would be only too happy to get free of the DRM constraint for several reasons , it would allow to capture a larger audience. Put forth Apple as the main secure online music distributor. Desensitise a wide part of the EU regarding Apple (northern folks ,mainly) , that would quickly convert to the mac.
Fairplay's licencing .. Apple does not want to licence FairPlay for several reasons as with all protection schemes the more people know about the system the easier it gets to crack. It has been done before though not massively and Apple does not want to face the wrong end of the deathrays RIAA wants to use one Apple's Music distribution scheme. Why , because they dont think they get enough money from Apple and they would only too happy to sue Apple in damages.
As well in terms of Apple being anti competitive ? May i snicker ??? last time i opened a PC all i saw was flawed hardware tied up by bunches for cables and i get to open quite a few of these ... as for my home i work on MacPro's hardware is sleek , well designed from end to end and fast ... a similar motherboard qualitywise on a PC would cost you as much as a full blown server.
As to open up os X ??? never ... why is that ? because simply put PC hardware is a MESS and a bunch of poor quality circuit boards wont change either Apple's opinion and keeping by the motto "people that wish to make great software shall make their own hardware" Apple has been doing that .. and it suceeded .
As for the Iphone being locked isn't that too early to tell oh yes there are devkits out for the Iphone if you need to know and Mac os X can be ported to pretty much anything since it is all based on OpenBSD . ARM processors for the Iphone Intel Dual Core Xeons for the macPro ; PowerPc for all the Ggroups ...
Apple decided to take the support of the iphone in its hands ..... so far i have not seen a phone maker take the matter of support into their own hands Telephone company do that mostly and badly ... Apple wanted to end this era of closed world terminals see the keynote.
As for choice of phone carriers , i think verizon said a strong NO to the iPhone and Cingular said yes ... Dont blame third party vendor choices on Apple. Apple made the choice of the Sim card technology which is the right way to go in terms of compatibility with the rest of the world.
I've said it before and I say it again. Every online music store should watermark everthing they sell so each and every track will be marked. It can be done where you'll have no idea where the watermark is even if you do a bit-by-bit compare of two downloads of the same track.
If you not sharing music you have nothing to fear.
Jeez, not this again.
So the next time you're out and someone swipes your laptop and posts your 2,000 DRM'd songs all over the net for downloading.... now you're not only out the cost of your laptop, but the RIAA finds your personal watermark and is all over your ass trying to sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Don't be stupid, this is no solution, and has been dismissed many times. If you're really been repeatedly promoting this idea, you haven't been listening very well.
Comments
M$ does an awesome job supporting hardware and the hardware vendors do a great job supporting M$ via drivers. So lets not start this discussion that so many Mac people spin. The fact is that the PC hardware and M$ is pushing tech no matter how Apple tries to spin this fact. Just compare what hardware advances Apple has done then look to the PC and see what advances has been made.
OSX would sell great and really challenge M$ by being open vs. Apple selling OSX on Mac(PC's) that has hardware that is behind and over priced for what you get.
Anyway back to the topic......
Right now Apple's current operating system 10.4.8 can run on a 400MHz G3 iMac with 128 MB VRAM made in 1999. The reason for that is Apple only has to support a limited number of computers that they themselves created.
Vista is more akin to Tiger than XP, but Vista cannot fully run on a comparable system with such slim specs. This is the reason why there has to be Vista certified hardware components. There is no need for such a rating system in the Mac world.
---
The Shredmaster
http://www.monomachines.com/searchre...chpagenumber=1
Yeah, but if the contracts with the indie music publishers don't call for DRM, why is Apple pushing it on the files? That's the question. And why should anyone have to write an open letter to anyone else to get answers.
Two problems with this. The first is the IF in your first sentence. How do you, or we, know IF this is the case.
But even IF it were the case it is entirely possible that the current contracts with the majors REQUIRE ALL music sold on iTS be DRM'd. This is very possible. Liken it to MSFT's (old?) REQUIREMENT that a window's license be sold with every machine that a given producer sells, whether the user wants it, or not.
If this is the case this could very well be one of the targets of the open letter toward the upcoming (ongoing) negotiations with the majors. Don't forget that it was Jobs and FairPlay that opened up this entire field (note for those anti-fanboi's I didn't claim create).
Many services would like a FairPlay license but Apple has always rejected this idea. RealNetworks and Virgin Mega asked for a license and were rebuffed. Rob Glaser had to hack his way into the iPod with Harmony. If Apple wanted to license FairPlay to other music services, they would issue a press release to announce that, as of today, every music service can buy a FairPlay license. They wouldn't need a "pretty ingenious strategy" (a twisted plan).
Apple doesn't want to do anything, which is precisely my point: Apple would rather keep the system closed and protect the assets they've developed, i.e., dedicated users with large libraries of tracks that work only on iTunes. But the reality is that Apple may be forced to open the system at some point.
Personally, I'm happy with things the way they are. I have several thousand tracks, several hundred of which were DRMd by Apple. But I'm on my third and fourth iPods, and I could care less whether my tracks work with other MP3 players or whether tracks I bought on Rhapsody work on my iPod. Neither of those situations apply to me.
I still think DRM makes sense, though, because it's the best defense agaisnt piracy, and licensing FairPlay is probably the easiest way to do it.
You guys who would argue for Apple to licensing FairPlay would give record labels exactly what they want. If Apple did license FairPlay it would likely become a defacto DRM that would unite the industry. If there ever were a defacto standard the record industry would never give up DRM. That is the reason they want an interoperable system. Right now while the DRM system is fractured its easier to say DRM makes no sense.
I mean Bill has a multi-billion dollar non-profit
Yes, we know all about it because he calls a press conference every time they do
anything. Is it charity or self-promotion? Perhaps they should rename it the
"Pass a camel through the eye of a needle Foundation".
I wonder if Apple would've been silly enough (in the beginning) to have a contract stating that all music sold on iTunes has to have DRM in order to get major players to sign on.
This is very likely the case but most people are too busy looking for conspiracies to consider it.
What's beautiful about it, is if they *did*, then they'd run risk of being brought up on collusion and price fixing charges.
So no, the indie labels don't get a choice on DRM or lack thereof, and the big four don't get choice on pricing. No conspiracy, just a solid front from Apple on making sure that every label gets treated equally.
1) Apple is a hardware company. The software (and the music and the phone service) are merely facilitators of the hardware business, which is where they make all their money. So any argument that they should license OS X is bogus. It would complete destroy their Mac business model.
2) DVD Jon's statement that Apple could implement such a change in iTunes in 2-3 days just proves that he has never worked in a large corporate environment and destroys any credibility he has. Publishing a hack for other people to take advantage of is completely different the maintaining a code base the size of iTunes. Supporting multiple platforms, different processors, testing, etc, and only releasing an optimized, end-user ready piece of software would take much longer than that. Could it be done? Should Apple do it? Sure, IF the contracts allow it. But it's not nearly as simple as he pretends it is.
I still think DRM makes sense, though, because it's the best defense agaisnt piracy, and licensing FairPlay is probably the easiest way to do it.
DRM isn't a good defense against piracy at all. All it takes is one person to crack a "protected" item, and then the entire P2P community has it available to them. The adage of bailing the Titanic with a bucket applies.
For Apple to open OS X to work seamlessly on any PC. Would require OS X to support every possible hardware configuration. That is a lot of work for Apple, even MS has not been able to do with this completely successfully.
Microsoft doesn't have to support every piece of hardware directly. Every hardware maker has to develop their own drivers or pay someone to do it. I think those hardware makers have to pay MS for driver certification & testing if they want it.
That doesn't change Apple's situation, they make so very little money with software that it's not funny. I think they'd have to charge $400 a copy of the OS to make up the difference.
Here is a good article that shows Apple's double standards:
An open letter to Steve Jobs
Rant You are a hypocrite
By Charlie Demerjian: Friday 09 February 2007, 08:20
DEAR MR JOBS, you are the lowest form of hypocrite. It didn't dawn on me when I was reading your recent piece on DRM, nor when I was writing my response, but it did afterwards.
I was busy answering emails generated by my article, a strangely complimentary set of letters given the topic, when it dawned on me. Your entire business is based on DRM, top to bottom, and without it you would wither and die.
If you consider Apple has three product lines, the Mac, the iPod and the upcoming iPhone, all are DRMed to the gills. The iPod we all know about, that one is obvious. The Mac is a little more subtle, the DRM prevents it from running on anything but your hardware. It will even break on an Intel reference board that is almost totally identical to yours.
DRM has two functions, to prevent copying and to prevent interoperability. You are using the the latter functionality as a shield to fatten your margins and totally lock out competition. Your entire computer business model depends on DRM. Remove the artificial locks and it works fine.
Then there is the iPhone. Those of us privvy to its secrets know it is locked down hard, you have even saidas much. This DRM infection starts with a trusted boot loader and will fail with non-signed firmware. From there, you can lock out any competition with more DRM. This was a management decision, not a technical need.
So, when it comes to DRM being used to pry open your anti-competitive infrastructure, you decry it. When it comes to you using to to exclude and tax others, then it is mandatory. What a joke you are.
While I know this won't happen, here is what you need to do to put your money where your mouth is. First, completely open up or license OSX to anyone who wants it and let it run on whatever hardware they want. Second, do not lock down the iPhone in any way shape or form. Both can be done on a whim, there are no technical impediments, only management decisions.
If you do not do these things, you will expose yourself to be the true hypocrite that everyone thinks you are. DRM is unacceptable when used against you, but the best thing in the world when done by Apple. You can change things though, all it takes is a memo.
Charlie Demerjian µ
I probably wouldnt read this just because you capitalized the intro.. makes it seem unprofessional from the get go. Just letting you know.
Nevermind the fact that the first line is a flame-- that would confirm with utter certainty that I (as Jobs or as an Apple rep) would not want to read this letter. Or even just as me-- as i personally do not want to read your unprofessional flame.
I probably wouldnt read this just because you capitalized the intro.. makes it seem unprofessional from the get go. Just letting you know.
Nevermind the fact that the first line is a flame-- that would confirm with utter certainty that I (as Jobs or as an Apple rep) would not want to read this letter. Or even just as me-- as i personally do not want to read your unprofessional flame.
Believe me, you aren't missing anything by not reading it... This whole claim is bogus given the fact that, since the very beginning, Apple has always sold "computers." What they mean by "computers" is the entire system including the hardware and OS. It is MS that started a new business model based around hardware and OS being sold "separately" (given MS's licensing practices, we have to use that term loosely :P). Apple sees computers as appliances. That is, by the way, why they don't offer "upgrade pricing" on new OS releases. Because in fact everyone is upgrading so the normal price IS the upgrade price.
I think Apple's aim with the music store is offering a convinience to all ipod users ... the contracts with the record labels ASKED for DRM before even distribution online started at all . Apple put forward music stores to sell more ipods and hence in the end sell more macs. Nowadays in europe acceptance of DRM is low and Apple wants to expand into that market as well ... makes sense .
IMHO apple would be only too happy to get free of the DRM constraint for several reasons , it would allow to capture a larger audience. Put forth Apple as the main secure online music distributor. Desensitise a wide part of the EU regarding Apple (northern folks ,mainly) , that would quickly convert to the mac.
Fairplay's licencing .. Apple does not want to licence FairPlay for several reasons as with all protection schemes the more people know about the system the easier it gets to crack. It has been done before though not massively and Apple does not want to face the wrong end of the deathrays RIAA wants to use one Apple's Music distribution scheme. Why , because they dont think they get enough money from Apple and they would only too happy to sue Apple in damages.
As well in terms of Apple being anti competitive ? May i snicker ??? last time i opened a PC all i saw was flawed hardware tied up by bunches for cables and i get to open quite a few of these ... as for my home i work on MacPro's hardware is sleek , well designed from end to end and fast ... a similar motherboard qualitywise on a PC would cost you as much as a full blown server.
As to open up os X ??? never ... why is that ? because simply put PC hardware is a MESS and a bunch of poor quality circuit boards wont change either Apple's opinion and keeping by the motto "people that wish to make great software shall make their own hardware" Apple has been doing that .. and it suceeded .
As for the Iphone being locked isn't that too early to tell oh yes there are devkits out for the Iphone if you need to know and Mac os X can be ported to pretty much anything since it is all based on OpenBSD . ARM processors for the Iphone Intel Dual Core Xeons for the macPro ; PowerPc for all the Ggroups ...
Apple decided to take the support of the iphone in its hands ..... so far i have not seen a phone maker take the matter of support into their own hands Telephone company do that mostly and badly ... Apple wanted to end this era of closed world terminals see the keynote.
As for choice of phone carriers , i think verizon said a strong NO to the iPhone and Cingular said yes ... Dont blame third party vendor choices on Apple. Apple made the choice of the Sim card technology which is the right way to go in terms of compatibility with the rest of the world.
I've said it before and I say it again. Every online music store should watermark everthing they sell so each and every track will be marked. It can be done where you'll have no idea where the watermark is even if you do a bit-by-bit compare of two downloads of the same track.
If you not sharing music you have nothing to fear.
Jeez, not this again.
So the next time you're out and someone swipes your laptop and posts your 2,000 DRM'd songs all over the net for downloading.... now you're not only out the cost of your laptop, but the RIAA finds your personal watermark and is all over your ass trying to sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Don't be stupid, this is no solution, and has been dismissed many times. If you're really been repeatedly promoting this idea, you haven't been listening very well.