Oh, most importantly of all - don't forget to include subtitle/closed caption and that will attract more consumers. I don't know why it isn't showing some in iTunes as well as Hulu. I assumed it's the movie studio who are too greedy or have something to do with copyright issues.
With powerpoint slides that shit I don't think anyone has to worry about that group of morons overtaking Apple.
Seriously, take 1/2 a second to remove the white background in the photos you stole off the internet. And double seriously Sony, get a fricken up to date version of your own damn product, instead of a prototype image from 3 years ago...
SONY is retarded. iTunes doesn't just run on MAC. Why they show only Apple products.
iTunes is successful because no one else is trying to accomplish same thing. SONY is just eating their nails after seeing that iTunes is getting 75% market share of music/video players.
Even if they open formats for any kind of Music Library Software that will attract so many illegal distribution of copying of video and music to a higher level.
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.
I thought there have been several tries already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supremedesigner
No thank you. I'll stick with iTunes.
Before iTunes (and after), we as a mac users were locked out, unable to do anything such as: order musics at napster, walmart, microsoft and other music/movies sites (before it was DRM-free). iTunes saved us and it's tightly integrated.
The problem is that there is no other cross-platform DRM of significance. The dominant system was Microsoft's, and I think it was Telestream reps, among others, that said that Microsoft's DRM cannot be used on a non-Microsoft platform, which is the core problem. Apple won't license theirs and I haven't heard of anyone else stepping up. I think Apple had to do it in order to protect their platform, give their users at least something. I'm not sure if there is sufficient incentive for anyone else to step up.
Exactly. If "legitimate" video content requires people to switch and use crappy non-Apple devices and software, then this will simply drive large numbers of otherwise content buying customers to the far cheaper and more convenient pirating option.
I still don't like the industry moving towards selling "rights" instead of selling content.
I don't trust large content-owners because I see them trying to make restrictions to the "rights" they sell, wherever they can, in order to ensure artificial future earnings.
With a CD you own the content, and you can almost treat it like an object, it's transferrable, etcetera. That's not the case with "rights".
My main gripe is that you need to pay every time the content becomes available in a new format (.mp3 -> .mp4, see iTunes Plus also) instead of being able to rip in the new format from a high quality "original". You can't even re-download the original content you payed for should you lose it (in iTunes), which to me is very atypical use of digital technology (since there are no real barriers to allow people to "rerip" or "redownload").
All in all I think funtion is taken away rather then gained.
Also, I feel like these developments are slowing down the broader development of technology. Think of new media file-formats. It's in the industry's benefit to frustrate the development of .mp5.
The industry will try to slow down the pace of development.
All of these developments are very artificial and seem to me to indicate a very unhealthy market place.
Add to this aggressive efforts to change copyright law.
Maybe I'm missing the obvious, wonderful aspects of the "rights"-method, if so, I would love for someone to explain it to me.
1. All of the images are from older generation products: old Moto Rokr, old PS3.
2. Use of the v. 4 iTunes logo.
3. How exactly are you supposed to get this new content onto your Landrover Discovery? Mine didn't come with a USB adapter, is that something I need to pay extra for?
4. Conspicuous absence of the MSFT logo, instead represented only by Zune, and its their older logo at that.
This all seems like something that was thrown about a few years ago. And somewhat sloppily at that.
As far as any effect on Apple, it should be negligible. Apple sells the best hardware, and uses their software to keep you hooked. Its where the margins are (or were). If you can sacrifice a few million dollars in revenue by allowing content from other stores onto your devices which bring in even more millions in revenue, then its a no brainer. This seems like a dated attempt to get out of the Apple shadow, and odds are it will fail unless the hardware side steps up its game big time.
If the movie industry doesn't institute some sort of control, then as networks get faster they're going to lose a ton of money when you can download a movie as fast as an MP3. They'll lose a lot of jobs, just as the music industry has. Although ticket prices are high, DVD prices are low, and studios are a lot more fair about pricing (not at the theater) than those charging $18 for a single CD.
I'm no fan of DRM, the people who put it in place seem to want to be as restrictive as possible, literally trying to screw the consumer into buying it more than once to view on different devices. Maybe this system can stop that, and it is their second try. I just hope it's updatable in a sophisticated way, so that compatible players aren't locked out for being old, as has been said, because the standard will get hacked and they'll have to do security updates... though hopefully not for every flaw as that would get annoying.
The problem with old DRM was every company had their own flavor. If these guys can get it right, allow you to play it on your PSP, Computer, Tivo, iPod or iTV or Roku all at the same time in a fair and easy way, then I say freakin go for it.
But they can't go too far. They can't count how many times you watch a movie or really have any contact with the file at all, they just need to sell it and keep it off the torrent sites. Rentals should last a while, like 3-5 days unlimited viewing. They don't ever need to know what's on a computer with the intent of policing, or no one will cross over out of fear. Just be fair-ish and things will go your way, don't and you'll get hacked and fail because people will go with that. It'd be great if you could do it anonymously or somehow pay cash for it at a physical location (like when they include an itunes copy with your dvd), for those of us who don't want our data to be mined any more than it already is.
Oh and they need to work with Apple or they're screwed. Sorry for the rant.
The real problem for the media companies is that they no longer add much value, but of course do not want to stop getting rich from the creativity of others. The video industry is trying to avoid the fate of the music industry, but they don't realize how lucky they are to have iTunes.
The record companies think their problem is the fact that Apple wants to keep prices down on song downloads, because the record companies would like to charge more. They would also like to sell albums in which only one song is good. The truth, which Apple seems to understand, is that for many consumers, the choice is between getting a song for free or paying a little bit for convenience. If it costs much more than a buck for a song, people won't bother to pay, so raising the price will lead to less revenues, not more. The iTunes store is the best thing to happen to the labels in years, whether they realize it or not, because Apple isn't actually trying to make a lot of money selling songs. The iPod is the only thing that makes the business model work at all. If anything, the record labels should be subsidizing iPod sales, not trying to raise prices.
Apple's primary concern is keeping the iPod compatible with new media, and giving the consumer a good experience. If the consumer buys the iPod, they get the free iTunes software and they get access to lots of music and video at reasonable prices. By aligning their interests with those of the consumer, they have made a very successful business in a difficult environment. If a media company had figured out a way to give customers a convenient and fun way to listen to the music they want when they want it, they would have made money too, but they have been too busy trying to cling to an obsolete business model.
The media companies now hope that by supporting competition, they will be able to pit the stores against each other and gain more leverage, which would allow them to drive up prices. However, in doing so, they will be working directly against the interests of the consumers, and the consumers will probably just revert to the DIY distribution approach. It's hard to feel too bad about this, since few musicians make much money from record sales anyway, even some quite successful ones. You can get an idea of how this works here: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html
If the media companies knew what was good for them, they would just focus on working with a company like Apple that will provide the best service for the lowest margins--a company that understands new media better than they do.
Ok, are they worried about the consumer not having access or that they need MORE money?
Frankly, I don't trust that MULTIPLE vendors will be able to provide a consistent end-user experience that Apple has been able to with iTunes. Look at PlaysForSure. It was/is one DRM format provided by multiple providers based on Microsoft coding....yet one by one, they are fading into nonexistence and buyers of those tracks are losing the ability to play or transfer them. The idiotic piece now is the Content Providers are allowing non-iTunes vendors the ability to sell DRM-free tracks, yet require Apple to have the DRM for those same tracks. So, go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot, DECE!
iTunes provides a generous catalog of digital content and now those same content providers(and receivers of the income from those sales) are crying foul? Gimme a break! For them it's not about making money, it's about making MORE money.
Apple has found the right formula that works well for them AND the consumer, thus EARNING the 75% market share for audio and digital content sales. Their hardware products are updated annually and greatly improved each passing year. Their FairPlay DRM may only work in their system, but their system is compatible on both the MAC and PC computing platforms and in their iPods, as well as through iTunes thus removing the requirement for a digital player aside from their computer. If you have a PC, you download iTunes, pay $3.99 for a movie rental, and you're enjoying it.
I prefer the all-in-one experience....one stop shopping in a software that brings me the most content, fair pricing, and a media player that handles the content in digital form or producing a burned copy(of purchased music). Why do I need other options? Because other media companies decide what's best for me?
I think every one of these companies would slit each other's throat to accomplish what Apple has. None of them believe they can pull it off individually, so...do what losers do best (at least try).
thats lame, I look at the picture and I was like what? Such a low quality presentation. How do they expect to impress? First impression is key....guess not everyone knows that.
Quote:
Sony's just miffed that Apple's not supporting Blu-ray in any Mac products.
What! no blu-ray? At all? No way, Im sure there will be blu-ray in Mac, the question is just when.
DRM is crap, if DRM is so good, you will not be able to find pirated copy of your favorite music artist. Try searching google now for your favorite song torrent and you will get loads of result. So does DRM work? Well only work for people who buy legal music , how bout the majority of people who still pay free for their music?
I think they've missed the mark there, I'd say it was Apple's iTunes software (and it's integration with the hardware) that makes Apple successful, not the ability to have choice over the vendor.
But the "integration" is only between iTunes and iPod/iPhone. So yes, the excellent software-hardware integration is what made Apple so successful. But those iTunes Store files cannot integrate with, say, a Zune. The goal of this collaboration is to make all digital purchases integrate-able with all hardware.
If Apple's success is really due to its integration, it should have nothing to fear from removing DRM from its store. The truth is, those restrictions have helped Apple sell hardware. I've got iTunes-restricted files, so my next MP3 player must have an Apple logo on it. And that Apple iPod must sync using iTunes, so now I've got no choice as to where I purchase my music - unless it's at a DRM-free place like Amazon.
Believe me - I love my iPhone, and iTunes organizes everything conveniently. But I've stopped shopping at iTunes for music because of the inconvenient restrictions it places on my files. I'd do the same for video if there were something better.
DRM is crap, if DRM is so good, you will not be able to find pirated copy of your favorite music artist. Try searching google now for your favorite song torrent and you will get loads of result. So does DRM work? Well only work for people who buy legal music , how bout the majority of people who still pay free for their music?
DRM doesn't really do what "they" say it does, and it will never be unbreakable, but you chose a bad example. Most music is sold without DRM in the first place, there's no need to break any DRM on a purchased CD. How you can think that's an example of DRM not working when it's readily available through legal channels without it having to break any, I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong
Then why is iTunes listed in the top of the graphic as a participating store?
With an outdated logo?
I don't know if that graphic is showing who is participating, they seem to be a bunch of logos thrown in to make a point.
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.
The only reason why Apple DRM is proprietory is because the Music industry required Apple to have a DRM in place before they can sell their music in the iTunes Store. Apple was also required to maintain the DRM everytime it got hacked. Apple wasn't about to write and maintain a DRM for all devices. So it was OK with the Music industry for Apple to lock the iTunes Store bought music to the iPod with their DRM, Fairplay.
And now the Music industry is crying foul because the iTunes Store has gotten too big. Even though they require Apple to sell a lot of their music with DRM. So to level the playing field, they're letting Apple's competitors sell their music without DRM. What the Music industry don't get is that the iTunes store is a huge sucess because of the hardware, the iPod. And an iPod owner can just as easily buy DRM free music from Amazon (or anywhere else) and import them into iTunes (and their iPods) as they can music from a store bought CD. Importing from CD's is how most iPod owners get music for their iPods. So releasing DRM free music to Apple competitors doesn't really hurt Apple all that much. As Apple will still be able to maintain their dominance in the MP3 player hardware sector.
What the Music industry wants is a license fee for every iPod sold. Something that MS agreed to when they first came out with their Zune. (Not sure if this is still true.) MS paid the Music industry $1.00 for every Zune sold. And I'm sure MS did this just to show how evil Apple is for allowing their customers to "steal" music and not compenstate the Music industry for it. Plus the fact that they can afford to this without affecting their bottom line. If Apple were to follow suit, it would cost Apple over 10 million dollars a quarter. (Versus MS 1 million dollar a year.)
This is what the movie industry is after. First they want to release their movies with a single DRM. And then they will want every company that puts out a device that can play their movies to pay for a licence in order for their devices to play their DRM movies. This would include computers (or the media playing software for computers.) They will disguise this "movie tax" as a fee to maintain the DRM on all devices. And finally they will just do away with the DRM but keep on charging for the licence. The extra billions of dollars they generate every year from the license fee would compenstate them for any pirating going on. Which is what the industry really wants. They really don't want to spend the effort to stop pirating. They would rather try to find a way to get compensated for it. If it's by taxing the law abiding among us. So be it. Screwing their customers is par for the industry.
The ironic part is that Sony is heading this. Sony was on the other end of this when the movie industry wanted Sony (and other VCR makers) to pay a licence fee for every VCR they sold. But now that Sony is part of the Music and Movie industries, they fight for them instead of against them.
Comments
Seriously, take 1/2 a second to remove the white background in the photos you stole off the internet. And double seriously Sony, get a fricken up to date version of your own damn product, instead of a prototype image from 3 years ago...
iTunes is successful because no one else is trying to accomplish same thing. SONY is just eating their nails after seeing that iTunes is getting 75% market share of music/video players.
Even if they open formats for any kind of Music Library Software that will attract so many illegal distribution of copying of video and music to a higher level.
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.
I thought there have been several tries already.
No thank you. I'll stick with iTunes.
Before iTunes (and after), we as a mac users were locked out, unable to do anything such as: order musics at napster, walmart, microsoft and other music/movies sites (before it was DRM-free). iTunes saved us and it's tightly integrated.
The problem is that there is no other cross-platform DRM of significance. The dominant system was Microsoft's, and I think it was Telestream reps, among others, that said that Microsoft's DRM cannot be used on a non-Microsoft platform, which is the core problem. Apple won't license theirs and I haven't heard of anyone else stepping up. I think Apple had to do it in order to protect their platform, give their users at least something. I'm not sure if there is sufficient incentive for anyone else to step up.
I don't trust large content-owners because I see them trying to make restrictions to the "rights" they sell, wherever they can, in order to ensure artificial future earnings.
With a CD you own the content, and you can almost treat it like an object, it's transferrable, etcetera. That's not the case with "rights".
My main gripe is that you need to pay every time the content becomes available in a new format (.mp3 -> .mp4, see iTunes Plus also) instead of being able to rip in the new format from a high quality "original". You can't even re-download the original content you payed for should you lose it (in iTunes), which to me is very atypical use of digital technology (since there are no real barriers to allow people to "rerip" or "redownload").
All in all I think funtion is taken away rather then gained.
Also, I feel like these developments are slowing down the broader development of technology. Think of new media file-formats. It's in the industry's benefit to frustrate the development of .mp5.
The industry will try to slow down the pace of development.
All of these developments are very artificial and seem to me to indicate a very unhealthy market place.
Add to this aggressive efforts to change copyright law.
Maybe I'm missing the obvious, wonderful aspects of the "rights"-method, if so, I would love for someone to explain it to me.
1. All of the images are from older generation products: old Moto Rokr, old PS3.
2. Use of the v. 4 iTunes logo.
3. How exactly are you supposed to get this new content onto your Landrover Discovery? Mine didn't come with a USB adapter, is that something I need to pay extra for?
4. Conspicuous absence of the MSFT logo, instead represented only by Zune, and its their older logo at that.
This all seems like something that was thrown about a few years ago. And somewhat sloppily at that.
As far as any effect on Apple, it should be negligible. Apple sells the best hardware, and uses their software to keep you hooked. Its where the margins are (or were). If you can sacrifice a few million dollars in revenue by allowing content from other stores onto your devices which bring in even more millions in revenue, then its a no brainer. This seems like a dated attempt to get out of the Apple shadow, and odds are it will fail unless the hardware side steps up its game big time.
I'm no fan of DRM, the people who put it in place seem to want to be as restrictive as possible, literally trying to screw the consumer into buying it more than once to view on different devices. Maybe this system can stop that, and it is their second try. I just hope it's updatable in a sophisticated way, so that compatible players aren't locked out for being old, as has been said, because the standard will get hacked and they'll have to do security updates... though hopefully not for every flaw as that would get annoying.
The problem with old DRM was every company had their own flavor. If these guys can get it right, allow you to play it on your PSP, Computer, Tivo, iPod or iTV or Roku all at the same time in a fair and easy way, then I say freakin go for it.
But they can't go too far. They can't count how many times you watch a movie or really have any contact with the file at all, they just need to sell it and keep it off the torrent sites. Rentals should last a while, like 3-5 days unlimited viewing. They don't ever need to know what's on a computer with the intent of policing, or no one will cross over out of fear. Just be fair-ish and things will go your way, don't and you'll get hacked and fail because people will go with that. It'd be great if you could do it anonymously or somehow pay cash for it at a physical location (like when they include an itunes copy with your dvd), for those of us who don't want our data to be mined any more than it already is.
Oh and they need to work with Apple or they're screwed. Sorry for the rant.
The record companies think their problem is the fact that Apple wants to keep prices down on song downloads, because the record companies would like to charge more. They would also like to sell albums in which only one song is good. The truth, which Apple seems to understand, is that for many consumers, the choice is between getting a song for free or paying a little bit for convenience. If it costs much more than a buck for a song, people won't bother to pay, so raising the price will lead to less revenues, not more. The iTunes store is the best thing to happen to the labels in years, whether they realize it or not, because Apple isn't actually trying to make a lot of money selling songs. The iPod is the only thing that makes the business model work at all. If anything, the record labels should be subsidizing iPod sales, not trying to raise prices.
Apple's primary concern is keeping the iPod compatible with new media, and giving the consumer a good experience. If the consumer buys the iPod, they get the free iTunes software and they get access to lots of music and video at reasonable prices. By aligning their interests with those of the consumer, they have made a very successful business in a difficult environment. If a media company had figured out a way to give customers a convenient and fun way to listen to the music they want when they want it, they would have made money too, but they have been too busy trying to cling to an obsolete business model.
The media companies now hope that by supporting competition, they will be able to pit the stores against each other and gain more leverage, which would allow them to drive up prices. However, in doing so, they will be working directly against the interests of the consumers, and the consumers will probably just revert to the DIY distribution approach. It's hard to feel too bad about this, since few musicians make much money from record sales anyway, even some quite successful ones. You can get an idea of how this works here: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html
If the media companies knew what was good for them, they would just focus on working with a company like Apple that will provide the best service for the lowest margins--a company that understands new media better than they do.
Frankly, I don't trust that MULTIPLE vendors will be able to provide a consistent end-user experience that Apple has been able to with iTunes. Look at PlaysForSure. It was/is one DRM format provided by multiple providers based on Microsoft coding....yet one by one, they are fading into nonexistence and buyers of those tracks are losing the ability to play or transfer them. The idiotic piece now is the Content Providers are allowing non-iTunes vendors the ability to sell DRM-free tracks, yet require Apple to have the DRM for those same tracks. So, go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot, DECE!
iTunes provides a generous catalog of digital content and now those same content providers(and receivers of the income from those sales) are crying foul? Gimme a break! For them it's not about making money, it's about making MORE money.
Apple has found the right formula that works well for them AND the consumer, thus EARNING the 75% market share for audio and digital content sales. Their hardware products are updated annually and greatly improved each passing year. Their FairPlay DRM may only work in their system, but their system is compatible on both the MAC and PC computing platforms and in their iPods, as well as through iTunes thus removing the requirement for a digital player aside from their computer. If you have a PC, you download iTunes, pay $3.99 for a movie rental, and you're enjoying it.
I prefer the all-in-one experience....one stop shopping in a software that brings me the most content, fair pricing, and a media player that handles the content in digital form or producing a burned copy(of purchased music). Why do I need other options? Because other media companies decide what's best for me?
I don't think so.
Had Sony been leading the music download wars they'd be singing a new tune.
DECE won't take off anytime soon and Apple will have already had the intertial forces
needed to make sure it's a tough uphill battle.
I really don't need muliple stores to sell me the same content when it comes to online
services. With physical product the store stock, accoutrements (listening stations etc) and
other creature comforts dictated what stores I shopped at. Until the competitors find a
superior way to present music and movies than iTunes you're going to see them all languish.
Sony's just miffed that Apple's not supporting Blu-ray in any Mac products.
What! no blu-ray? At all? No way, Im sure there will be blu-ray in Mac, the question is just when.
DRM is crap, if DRM is so good, you will not be able to find pirated copy of your favorite music artist. Try searching google now for your favorite song torrent and you will get loads of result. So does DRM work? Well only work for people who buy legal music
I think they've missed the mark there, I'd say it was Apple's iTunes software (and it's integration with the hardware) that makes Apple successful, not the ability to have choice over the vendor.
But the "integration" is only between iTunes and iPod/iPhone. So yes, the excellent software-hardware integration is what made Apple so successful. But those iTunes Store files cannot integrate with, say, a Zune. The goal of this collaboration is to make all digital purchases integrate-able with all hardware.
If Apple's success is really due to its integration, it should have nothing to fear from removing DRM from its store. The truth is, those restrictions have helped Apple sell hardware. I've got iTunes-restricted files, so my next MP3 player must have an Apple logo on it. And that Apple iPod must sync using iTunes, so now I've got no choice as to where I purchase my music - unless it's at a DRM-free place like Amazon.
Believe me - I love my iPhone, and iTunes organizes everything conveniently. But I've stopped shopping at iTunes for music because of the inconvenient restrictions it places on my files. I'd do the same for video if there were something better.
DRM is crap, if DRM is so good, you will not be able to find pirated copy of your favorite music artist. Try searching google now for your favorite song torrent and you will get loads of result. So does DRM work? Well only work for people who buy legal music
DRM doesn't really do what "they" say it does, and it will never be unbreakable, but you chose a bad example. Most music is sold without DRM in the first place, there's no need to break any DRM on a purchased CD. How you can think that's an example of DRM not working when it's readily available through legal channels without it having to break any, I don't know.
Then why is iTunes listed in the top of the graphic as a participating store?
With an outdated logo?
I don't know if that graphic is showing who is participating, they seem to be a bunch of logos thrown in to make a point.
so I guess they will include iTunes
And now the Music industry is crying foul because the iTunes Store has gotten too big. Even though they require Apple to sell a lot of their music with DRM. So to level the playing field, they're letting Apple's competitors sell their music without DRM. What the Music industry don't get is that the iTunes store is a huge sucess because of the hardware, the iPod. And an iPod owner can just as easily buy DRM free music from Amazon (or anywhere else) and import them into iTunes (and their iPods) as they can music from a store bought CD. Importing from CD's is how most iPod owners get music for their iPods. So releasing DRM free music to Apple competitors doesn't really hurt Apple all that much. As Apple will still be able to maintain their dominance in the MP3 player hardware sector.
What the Music industry wants is a license fee for every iPod sold. Something that MS agreed to when they first came out with their Zune. (Not sure if this is still true.) MS paid the Music industry $1.00 for every Zune sold. And I'm sure MS did this just to show how evil Apple is for allowing their customers to "steal" music and not compenstate the Music industry for it. Plus the fact that they can afford to this without affecting their bottom line. If Apple were to follow suit, it would cost Apple over 10 million dollars a quarter. (Versus MS 1 million dollar a year.)
This is what the movie industry is after. First they want to release their movies with a single DRM. And then they will want every company that puts out a device that can play their movies to pay for a licence in order for their devices to play their DRM movies. This would include computers (or the media playing software for computers.) They will disguise this "movie tax" as a fee to maintain the DRM on all devices. And finally they will just do away with the DRM but keep on charging for the licence. The extra billions of dollars they generate every year from the license fee would compenstate them for any pirating going on. Which is what the industry really wants. They really don't want to spend the effort to stop pirating. They would rather try to find a way to get compensated for it. If it's by taxing the law abiding among us. So be it. Screwing their customers is par for the industry.
The ironic part is that Sony is heading this. Sony was on the other end of this when the movie industry wanted Sony (and other VCR makers) to pay a licence fee for every VCR they sold. But now that Sony is part of the Music and Movie industries, they fight for them instead of against them.