Read the DCMA. Intent to allow only Apple DRM'ed files to play on the iPod is not a valid claim to prosecute under the DCMA. Real's Harmony does not "break" Apple's DRM or remove DRM from any Apple files thaat would allow them to be distributed freely.
The DCMA also explicitly states that "reverse-engineering" for compatibility and interoperation is legal.
Amid all the recent Apple-RealNetworks bickering, I tried the new iPod features built into the latest RealPlayer software.
It detected both of my loaner iPods (a mini and the just-released full-size model with a mini-like scroll wheel) just fine, but a song purchased on the RealPlayer Music Store wouldn't sync over to either player. I kept getting a "(clip) not supported by device" error message.
A RealNetworks techie told me the software should have converted the RAX-formatted file on the fly to something the iPods recognize, but that didn't happen here. There's a lot of head-scratching going on at RealNetworks HQ, apparently, along with frantic efforts to duplicate my parameters (the same tune I tried to sync on a Windows XP PC with Service Pack 2 Release Candidate 2, etc., etc.)
Possible moral: Stick with Apple's iTunes software for Windows, it just works.
Will Apple just tell people it doesn't work as well as ITMS?
just love these kinda topics, all the sharp replies etc hehe
on topic though.
Apple can win. I think if they refer to a case in the UK. Where it is now forbidden to use modchips on a PS2. For 2 reasons. One was that it is with the intend to break the copryright law (not happening in the apple vs real) and the second one is that it is illegal to bypass a copyright system alltogether. While Real might not intend to do the latter, they did anyway.
meanwhile, i will join the rest, getting my popcorn and sit back and watch
Given some countries - Like Australia, seem to be a long way away from iTMS, this is something of an academic debate. However lets think clearly about the problem.
1) Apple made a great MP3 player, but made the quality better with AAC.
2) Apple went and suceeded at what everyone else was trying to do, convince the Music Industry big 5 (soon to be big 4) that it had a business model that would allow a legal way to download music.
3) That same big 5 of the music industry who make by far the majority of the money in the industry, were keen to keep their profitability but grudgingly recognised that their business model was starting to look a bit unfair. (In this country where the average CD is $25, the band makes $1 as performers, the writer about $3 and the retailer between $5 and $7 leaving the record company who is only a publisher about $14 a CD to make an income) So they wanted a model that kept them in the game so to speak.
4) Enter the US$0.99 song, which reportedly generates Apple a few cents (less then a store retailer I suspect) 10's of cents to the record company and a few more cents to the performers and writers. The big 5 want to keep their monoliths going, Apple want to grow a market that they have come to define and not lose it to the mimics like it did Mac OS to Windows.
5) The model is working, and then Real, frustrated at not selling services and losing market share wants Apple to open up not so much its technology - remember it will play mp3's and wav's but its deal with the record companies.
Its the problem Apple will have for some time, to maintain iTMS, it needs to keep the big 5 happy, make seriously good its promise to control licensing (for the benefit of the record companies mostly)
There is the rub, long term Apple needs to assist the music industry change and lose its dependence on ripping off the punter, however unless it keeps the big 5 happy it may lose the best advantage it has - the legal DL music cataglogue, because without it the music industry may just decide owning a iPod is proof of you stealing sales by putting music off your CD's on it. I don't remember the record industry offering me to trade in tapes or LP's for CD's I needed to but new copies. Digital music means never needing to upgrade or replace again.
If Real thought they had a better product it could just go and convince the big 5 it was a suitable retailer of legal DL music, obviously the success of the iPod makes that a big ask, so they want to back door into the market by being able to claim we will sell DL suitable for iPod.
The reverse engineering claims are not what its about, its about the record industry holding the musicans hostage to make a profit for themselves, in many ways Apple is needing to tread a very careful path around a sleeping dragon with the hiccups.
If Real were serious about opening up platforms it would be trying to disassemble the US intellectual property laws which are insane. 70 years after the death of the Author means that Windows 3.11 will be public domain sometime in the early 22nd century. I can't think of an argument that justifies that.
It seems Apple has to go after Real to protect it's intelectual property, otherwise.. they loose their claim to such.
Although, I think this is a bad move by Apple. SuperBad move.
I think they would do best to bring as many people into the fold as possible. The idea here is that if they can make FairPlay as pervasive as WindowsMedia Player, they are going to make money no matter if Real is selling the same song as iTM or not. As a stock holder.. this seems like the most fiscally benificial move. Let the consumer decide which service is 'better.' .. and rake it in no matter the choice..
Lastly, I think Apple needs to build partnerships with companies like Real to keep their tech in the for front on the PC side.. otherwise, MS as it always does an tries, will move in like a 300 pound beast 3 years late and muscle its way into the comfortable posistion it knows it can smother anyone into..
side note.. remember "HALO".. this can and will continue to happen..
It seems Apple has to go after Real to protect it's intelectual property, otherwise.. they loose their claim to such.
Although, I think this is a bad move by Apple. SuperBad move.
I think they would do best to bring as many people into the fold as possible. The idea here is that if they can make FairPlay as pervasive as WindowsMedia Player, they are going to make money no matter if Real is selling the same song as iTM or not. As a stock holder.. this seems like the most fiscally benificial move. Let the consumer decide which service is 'better.' .. and rake it in no matter the choice..
Lastly, I think Apple needs to build partnerships with companies like Real to keep their tech in the for front on the PC side.. otherwise, MS as it always does an tries, will move in like a 300 pound beast 3 years late and muscle its way into the comfortable posistion it knows it can smother anyone into..
side note.. remember "HALO".. this can and will continue to happen..
The problem is that Fairplay is DRM scheme while Windows Media Player (.wmv or whatever) is a file format. Apples and oranges.
The fact is Fairplay is and will be a moving target. What guarantee does Real offer that they will keep you music updated to the latest Fairplay incarnation as it is updated? What if Real goes out of business? Apple already told Real *no* in no uncertain terms when it came to this yet Real is all pissy and determined to try anyway.
Apple makes money on both iPods *and* iTMS and is doing what is certainly in their best interest to keep them at the forefront of digital music. iTMS is not just a sneaky ploy to sell iPods.
Even if Apple allowed other services to use Fairplay can you say for sure what the licensing terms would be for each service? How screwed up would it be for you to have an iPod full of Fairplay DRM'ed music but from several services and then for some reason or other you were not able to play parts of your collection and had to weed back through and figure out where you purchased it from and how to update the DRM on the files etc... It would only end up reflecting bad on Apple in the end.
The problem is that Fairplay is DRM scheme while Windows Media Player (.wmv or whatever) is a file format. Apples and oranges.
The fact is Fairplay is and will be a moving target. What guarantee does Real offer that they will keep you music updated to the latest Fairplay incarnation as it is updated? What if Real goes out of business? Apple already told Real *no* in no uncertain terms when it came to this yet Real is all pissy and determined to try anyway.
Apple makes money on both iPods *and* iTMS and is doing what is certainly in their best interest to keep them at the forefront of digital music. iTMS is not just a sneaky ploy to sell iPods.
Even if Apple allowed other services to use Fairplay can you say for sure what the licensing terms would be for each service? How screwed up would it be for you to have an iPod full of Fairplay DRM'ed music but from several services and then for some reason or other you were not able to play parts of your collection and had to weed back through and figure out where you purchased it from and how to update the DRM on the files etc... It would only end up reflecting bad on Apple in the end.
Bancho...you bring excellent points and I'm eager to hear what others have to say about this.
Even if Apple allowed other services to use Fairplay can you say for sure what the licensing terms would be for each service?
I think that this is the crux of Apple's problem. I think licensing FairPlay would in the long term be wise for Apple in order to keep their more profitable iPods at the top of the heap, even if it means sacrificing some revenue through the iTMS.
However, FairPlay is a DRM scheme, and is not indicative of the licensing deals Apple has set up with the recording companies. The deal here is that the pecking order goes:
If the contract between owner and distributor is different, then FairPlay merely reflects that agreement - FairPlay isn't a hardwired set of usage rights, it simply helps enforce or protect against terms that aren't covered in the contract. But who is supposed to keep that distinction in their mind? Won't Joe Bloe think that any music he's purchasing that uses the FairPlay DRM has the same listening rights as what he buys at the iTMS? Who takes the blame for when it's not true? Where does the fallout settle?
I can see Apple reluctance to give up the revenue of the iTMS in lieu of more iPod sales from that point of view. It's not losing the revenue that could be a problem IMO, it's the exposure if these other services and their FairPlay DRM music don't perform as expected. The perception that this is Apple's problem, either as the authors of FairPlay or as the manufacturer of the iPod, is a real risk. FairPlay isn't a panacea for fair rights for everyone, but people might think it is, and some probably do in this discussion.
I am with Real on this one. Apple has gained enough momentum with ITMS and iPod. They need to fuel growth by allowing more people to contribute to the popularity of the products.
There seem to be two pieces to the flack of Apple/Moto:
If a Moto cellphone plays DRM'ed AAC files from ITMS then Apple has licensed Fairplay to Moto. Doesn't matter if iTunes exists for the little phone or not. Fairplay is what allows ITMS DRM'ed files to work.
Whats "sneaky" about allowing more file formats to work on a portable jukebox. It seems that if Apple claims to derive their only profit from the ITMS-iPod-iTunes troika from the sale of iPods that more software availability would increase hardware sales. After all if Apple thinks that ITMS is driving iPod sales then they are seriously deluded.
Sorry but this smells like Mac/Wintel all over again.
" Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application on all their mass-market music phones, expected to be available in the first half of next year. "
Apple has not licensed Fairplay to Motorola any more than they have licensed Fairplay to any PC hardware vendor of machines running iTunes for Windows.
Motorola, Inc. and Apple® today announced they are partnering to enable millions of music lovers to transfer their favorite songs from the iTunes® jukebox on their PC or Mac®, including songs from the iTunes Music Store, to Motorola?s next-generation ?always with you? mobile handsets, via a USB or Bluetooth connection. Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application on all their mass-market music phones, expected to be available in the first half of next year.
If some type of iPod-like fairplay tagging is not enabled on Moto's cell phones then how do DRM'ed ITMS play?
I am with Real on this one. Apple has gained enough momentum with ITMS and iPod. They need to fuel growth by allowing more people to contribute to the popularity of the products.
and how exactly do you come to the belief that apple is NOT fueling growth? they are fueling nothing but growth, it is easiest if you use itunes and purchase from the apple store.
this is fairly new technology (AAC) and arguably the best thing to happen to apple since, well the apple computer. if real wants to contribute why not adopt the AAC code? i can see it for free on the developer sight (how to read and write AAC file types) the only tricky part is in the licensing. if apple wants to be the only game in town for now i think they are entitled to that. AND they are doing a F*(&^n great job so far in this realm. getting 47% of the market share in this space is tremendous! apple has positioned themselves with the record industry why shouldn't apple be the one to control the content? i don't want no napster like crappy and/or partial mp3's mucking up my ipod and i applaud apple for standing up on this on.
if apple no wanty-wanty real in their world that is apple's choice. i don't think if apple chooses to not allow real in that they will be hurting. i'm sure that real is looking to get in anywhere! they shat themselves out of the PC world earlier...
I guess we can finally put the stupid notion of Apple ever producing a mobile phone into a deep hole in the ground. Let's absolutely, positively blow that muthaf*ker away.
If some type of iPod-like fairplay tagging is not enabled on Moto's cell phones then how do DRM'ed ITMS play?
The same way they do on PC's. Do you honestly think that Apple gave licenses to all PC manufacturers? It is all done in software and the only license is the one the user agrees to at their discretion.
It is not the hardware of the iPod (nor is it the hardware of the phones in Motorola's case) that lets Fairplay work. It is software.
ps - did you read the portion of the article that said the *application* that plays the music is a "new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application". All Motorola does is include the software on their phones.
I guess we can finally put the stupid notion of Apple ever producing a mobile phone into a deep hole in the ground. Let's absolutely, positively blow that muthaf*ker away.
Unless as part of the deal apple gets moto cell chips.....
Apple should have no need to license anything. But when MS joins the party, Apple could always open the iTMS library as a kind of service.
So you'd still have the iPod/iTunes/iTMS as the preferred way of interacting, but you can go to other iTMS-enabled stores and get fully FairPlay compliant AACs that will work with the iPod. Why? Because the store is simply a new front-end on the exact same Apple backend. All of the songs come through Apple, and Apple is still the one handling all of the deals with the RIAA.
In other words, the other stores aren't licensing FairPlay, they're licensing the ability to access the iTMS backend.
This works on many levels:
- Apple looks like it's being open, while still maintaining control
- FairPlay is still protected
- Songs bought from all of those stores are fully compliant and supported by Apple, even through firmware upgrades (because in the end, they come from Apple)
- Other stores can't undercut the real iTMS too much, because the price per song would be pretty close to Apple's cost
- Apple would still make money on songs bought through other people's stores
Apple probably wouldn't want to dilute the iTMS brand at this point, but in order to compete with MS, this sounds like a pretty good solution.
Comments
Read the DCMA. Intent to allow only Apple DRM'ed files to play on the iPod is not a valid claim to prosecute under the DCMA. Real's Harmony does not "break" Apple's DRM or remove DRM from any Apple files thaat would allow them to be distributed freely.
The DCMA also explicitly states that "reverse-engineering" for compatibility and interoperation is legal.
Ironically this simple low-tech approach may be Apple's best weapon against Real ( http://yourtech.typepad.com/main/200...pod_hairp.html):
Amid all the recent Apple-RealNetworks bickering, I tried the new iPod features built into the latest RealPlayer software.
It detected both of my loaner iPods (a mini and the just-released full-size model with a mini-like scroll wheel) just fine, but a song purchased on the RealPlayer Music Store wouldn't sync over to either player. I kept getting a "(clip) not supported by device" error message.
A RealNetworks techie told me the software should have converted the RAX-formatted file on the fly to something the iPods recognize, but that didn't happen here. There's a lot of head-scratching going on at RealNetworks HQ, apparently, along with frantic efforts to duplicate my parameters (the same tune I tried to sync on a Windows XP PC with Service Pack 2 Release Candidate 2, etc., etc.)
Possible moral: Stick with Apple's iTunes software for Windows, it just works.
Will Apple just tell people it doesn't work as well as ITMS?
on topic though.
Apple can win. I think if they refer to a case in the UK. Where it is now forbidden to use modchips on a PS2. For 2 reasons. One was that it is with the intend to break the copryright law (not happening in the apple vs real) and the second one is that it is illegal to bypass a copyright system alltogether. While Real might not intend to do the latter, they did anyway.
meanwhile, i will join the rest, getting my popcorn and sit back and watch
1) Apple made a great MP3 player, but made the quality better with AAC.
2) Apple went and suceeded at what everyone else was trying to do, convince the Music Industry big 5 (soon to be big 4) that it had a business model that would allow a legal way to download music.
3) That same big 5 of the music industry who make by far the majority of the money in the industry, were keen to keep their profitability but grudgingly recognised that their business model was starting to look a bit unfair. (In this country where the average CD is $25, the band makes $1 as performers, the writer about $3 and the retailer between $5 and $7 leaving the record company who is only a publisher about $14 a CD to make an income) So they wanted a model that kept them in the game so to speak.
4) Enter the US$0.99 song, which reportedly generates Apple a few cents (less then a store retailer I suspect) 10's of cents to the record company and a few more cents to the performers and writers. The big 5 want to keep their monoliths going, Apple want to grow a market that they have come to define and not lose it to the mimics like it did Mac OS to Windows.
5) The model is working, and then Real, frustrated at not selling services and losing market share wants Apple to open up not so much its technology - remember it will play mp3's and wav's but its deal with the record companies.
Its the problem Apple will have for some time, to maintain iTMS, it needs to keep the big 5 happy, make seriously good its promise to control licensing (for the benefit of the record companies mostly)
There is the rub, long term Apple needs to assist the music industry change and lose its dependence on ripping off the punter, however unless it keeps the big 5 happy it may lose the best advantage it has - the legal DL music cataglogue, because without it the music industry may just decide owning a iPod is proof of you stealing sales by putting music off your CD's on it. I don't remember the record industry offering me to trade in tapes or LP's for CD's I needed to but new copies. Digital music means never needing to upgrade or replace again.
If Real thought they had a better product it could just go and convince the big 5 it was a suitable retailer of legal DL music, obviously the success of the iPod makes that a big ask, so they want to back door into the market by being able to claim we will sell DL suitable for iPod.
The reverse engineering claims are not what its about, its about the record industry holding the musicans hostage to make a profit for themselves, in many ways Apple is needing to tread a very careful path around a sleeping dragon with the hiccups.
If Real were serious about opening up platforms it would be trying to disassemble the US intellectual property laws which are insane. 70 years after the death of the Author means that Windows 3.11 will be public domain sometime in the early 22nd century. I can't think of an argument that justifies that.
My $0.02
Originally posted by sparhawk
While Real might not intend to do the latter, they did anyway.
No, they did not. Real is adding FairPlay DRM, not removing (like playfair/hymn).
It seems Apple has to go after Real to protect it's intelectual property, otherwise.. they loose their claim to such.
Although, I think this is a bad move by Apple. SuperBad move.
I think they would do best to bring as many people into the fold as possible. The idea here is that if they can make FairPlay as pervasive as WindowsMedia Player, they are going to make money no matter if Real is selling the same song as iTM or not. As a stock holder.. this seems like the most fiscally benificial move. Let the consumer decide which service is 'better.' .. and rake it in no matter the choice..
Lastly, I think Apple needs to build partnerships with companies like Real to keep their tech in the for front on the PC side.. otherwise, MS as it always does an tries, will move in like a 300 pound beast 3 years late and muscle its way into the comfortable posistion it knows it can smother anyone into..
side note.. remember "HALO".. this can and will continue to happen..
Originally posted by LGnome
here's my 2 cents..
It seems Apple has to go after Real to protect it's intelectual property, otherwise.. they loose their claim to such.
Although, I think this is a bad move by Apple. SuperBad move.
I think they would do best to bring as many people into the fold as possible. The idea here is that if they can make FairPlay as pervasive as WindowsMedia Player, they are going to make money no matter if Real is selling the same song as iTM or not. As a stock holder.. this seems like the most fiscally benificial move. Let the consumer decide which service is 'better.' .. and rake it in no matter the choice..
Lastly, I think Apple needs to build partnerships with companies like Real to keep their tech in the for front on the PC side.. otherwise, MS as it always does an tries, will move in like a 300 pound beast 3 years late and muscle its way into the comfortable posistion it knows it can smother anyone into..
side note.. remember "HALO".. this can and will continue to happen..
The problem is that Fairplay is DRM scheme while Windows Media Player (.wmv or whatever) is a file format. Apples and oranges.
The fact is Fairplay is and will be a moving target. What guarantee does Real offer that they will keep you music updated to the latest Fairplay incarnation as it is updated? What if Real goes out of business? Apple already told Real *no* in no uncertain terms when it came to this yet Real is all pissy and determined to try anyway.
Apple makes money on both iPods *and* iTMS and is doing what is certainly in their best interest to keep them at the forefront of digital music. iTMS is not just a sneaky ploy to sell iPods.
Even if Apple allowed other services to use Fairplay can you say for sure what the licensing terms would be for each service? How screwed up would it be for you to have an iPod full of Fairplay DRM'ed music but from several services and then for some reason or other you were not able to play parts of your collection and had to weed back through and figure out where you purchased it from and how to update the DRM on the files etc... It would only end up reflecting bad on Apple in the end.
Originally posted by Bancho
The problem is that Fairplay is DRM scheme while Windows Media Player (.wmv or whatever) is a file format. Apples and oranges.
The fact is Fairplay is and will be a moving target. What guarantee does Real offer that they will keep you music updated to the latest Fairplay incarnation as it is updated? What if Real goes out of business? Apple already told Real *no* in no uncertain terms when it came to this yet Real is all pissy and determined to try anyway.
Apple makes money on both iPods *and* iTMS and is doing what is certainly in their best interest to keep them at the forefront of digital music. iTMS is not just a sneaky ploy to sell iPods.
Even if Apple allowed other services to use Fairplay can you say for sure what the licensing terms would be for each service? How screwed up would it be for you to have an iPod full of Fairplay DRM'ed music but from several services and then for some reason or other you were not able to play parts of your collection and had to weed back through and figure out where you purchased it from and how to update the DRM on the files etc... It would only end up reflecting bad on Apple in the end.
Bancho...you bring excellent points and I'm eager to hear what others have to say about this.
Originally posted by Bancho
Even if Apple allowed other services to use Fairplay can you say for sure what the licensing terms would be for each service?
I think that this is the crux of Apple's problem. I think licensing FairPlay would in the long term be wise for Apple in order to keep their more profitable iPods at the top of the heap, even if it means sacrificing some revenue through the iTMS.
However, FairPlay is a DRM scheme, and is not indicative of the licensing deals Apple has set up with the recording companies. The deal here is that the pecking order goes:
Owner (Recording company) > contract > distributor (Apple) > DRM (FairPlay) > buyer(you or me)
If the contract between owner and distributor is different, then FairPlay merely reflects that agreement - FairPlay isn't a hardwired set of usage rights, it simply helps enforce or protect against terms that aren't covered in the contract. But who is supposed to keep that distinction in their mind? Won't Joe Bloe think that any music he's purchasing that uses the FairPlay DRM has the same listening rights as what he buys at the iTMS? Who takes the blame for when it's not true? Where does the fallout settle?
I can see Apple reluctance to give up the revenue of the iTMS in lieu of more iPod sales from that point of view. It's not losing the revenue that could be a problem IMO, it's the exposure if these other services and their FairPlay DRM music don't perform as expected. The perception that this is Apple's problem, either as the authors of FairPlay or as the manufacturer of the iPod, is a real risk. FairPlay isn't a panacea for fair rights for everyone, but people might think it is, and some probably do in this discussion.
Originally posted by talksense101
I am with Real on this one. Apple has gained enough momentum with ITMS and iPod. They need to fuel growth by allowing more people to contribute to the popularity of the products.
easiest way said, the cold hard truth,
Originally posted by cowerd
There seem to be two pieces to the flack of Apple/Moto:
If a Moto cellphone plays DRM'ed AAC files from ITMS then Apple has licensed Fairplay to Moto. Doesn't matter if iTunes exists for the little phone or not. Fairplay is what allows ITMS DRM'ed files to work.
Whats "sneaky" about allowing more file formats to work on a portable jukebox. It seems that if Apple claims to derive their only profit from the ITMS-iPod-iTunes troika from the sale of iPods that more software availability would increase hardware sales. After all if Apple thinks that ITMS is driving iPod sales then they are seriously deluded.
Sorry but this smells like Mac/Wintel all over again.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004...6motorola.html
" Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application on all their mass-market music phones, expected to be available in the first half of next year. "
Apple has not licensed Fairplay to Motorola any more than they have licensed Fairplay to any PC hardware vendor of machines running iTunes for Windows.
Motorola, Inc. and Apple® today announced they are partnering to enable millions of music lovers to transfer their favorite songs from the iTunes® jukebox on their PC or Mac®, including songs from the iTunes Music Store, to Motorola?s next-generation ?always with you? mobile handsets, via a USB or Bluetooth connection. Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application on all their mass-market music phones, expected to be available in the first half of next year.
If some type of iPod-like fairplay tagging is not enabled on Moto's cell phones then how do DRM'ed ITMS play?
Originally posted by talksense101
I am with Real on this one. Apple has gained enough momentum with ITMS and iPod. They need to fuel growth by allowing more people to contribute to the popularity of the products.
and how exactly do you come to the belief that apple is NOT fueling growth? they are fueling nothing but growth, it is easiest if you use itunes and purchase from the apple store.
this is fairly new technology (AAC) and arguably the best thing to happen to apple since, well the apple computer. if real wants to contribute why not adopt the AAC code? i can see it for free on the developer sight (how to read and write AAC file types) the only tricky part is in the licensing. if apple wants to be the only game in town for now i think they are entitled to that. AND they are doing a F*(&^n great job so far in this realm. getting 47% of the market share in this space is tremendous! apple has positioned themselves with the record industry why shouldn't apple be the one to control the content? i don't want no napster like crappy and/or partial mp3's mucking up my ipod and i applaud apple for standing up on this on.
if apple no wanty-wanty real in their world that is apple's choice. i don't think if apple chooses to not allow real in that they will be hurting. i'm sure that real is looking to get in anywhere! they shat themselves out of the PC world earlier...
off soap box now so flame away!
ken;
Originally posted by cowerd
^^
If some type of iPod-like fairplay tagging is not enabled on Moto's cell phones then how do DRM'ed ITMS play?
The same way they do on PC's. Do you honestly think that Apple gave licenses to all PC manufacturers? It is all done in software and the only license is the one the user agrees to at their discretion.
It is not the hardware of the iPod (nor is it the hardware of the phones in Motorola's case) that lets Fairplay work. It is software.
ps - did you read the portion of the article that said the *application* that plays the music is a "new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application". All Motorola does is include the software on their phones.
Originally posted by vinney57
I guess we can finally put the stupid notion of Apple ever producing a mobile phone into a deep hole in the ground. Let's absolutely, positively blow that muthaf*ker away.
Unless as part of the deal apple gets moto cell chips.....
<the dead horse just twitched>
So you'd still have the iPod/iTunes/iTMS as the preferred way of interacting, but you can go to other iTMS-enabled stores and get fully FairPlay compliant AACs that will work with the iPod. Why? Because the store is simply a new front-end on the exact same Apple backend. All of the songs come through Apple, and Apple is still the one handling all of the deals with the RIAA.
In other words, the other stores aren't licensing FairPlay, they're licensing the ability to access the iTMS backend.
This works on many levels:
- Apple looks like it's being open, while still maintaining control
- FairPlay is still protected
- Songs bought from all of those stores are fully compliant and supported by Apple, even through firmware upgrades (because in the end, they come from Apple)
- Other stores can't undercut the real iTMS too much, because the price per song would be pretty close to Apple's cost
- Apple would still make money on songs bought through other people's stores
Apple probably wouldn't want to dilute the iTMS brand at this point, but in order to compete with MS, this sounds like a pretty good solution.