How is the first situation somehow "wrong" while the second isn't?
It all depends who you talk to.
For some people the marketshare of the iPod is a big difference.
For others, they consider the applications for OSX to be a form of choice, where they don't have a choice of music stores.
Still, your analogy is a quite valid.
For me, I've never found a company that can be all things for all people. When I see a companies products working together with another companies, in general I see a greater strength and quality of products in the mid to long term.
To me it's at the lower levels where competition is most useful. The legalities don't require that - they allow companies to subsidise products that wouldn't be competitive with the profits from their better products. XBox vs Playstation is not about XBox vs Playstation, the competition is at a far higher level (MS vs Sony). Still.... redirected funds into a developing market also has the effect of it improving more quickly.
I think the same about Apple as I've always thought.
They provide products and services which they have nearly sole control over.
This is a good way to run a business. It ensures the best possible experience to the consumer. Apple has always operated this way, creating software and hardware that only work with each other.
Why do you think so many people are angry with Microsoft? It's not because of Gates, it's because they go out and build a PC with x-number of various manufacturer's parts, and then they wonder why Windows isn't running smoothly. Apple makes both the hardware and software, so they can fix any issues that arise because they know what components they're dealing with.
Apple have (I assume) the same mindset about the iPod and iTunes.
Like I said, if you aren't happy with the service, nobody is forcing you to stay, but you'll be hard-pressed to find another service with the level of relibility, integration and ease of Apple's.
I also didn't take your post as mad. I'm not sure if you were replying to me though... and I'm not sure if the moderator was replying to you...
If it was directed at me - well I'm reasonably happy as an Apple customer... wish I could buy some songs online though!!! (hence my comment that it's difficult to be all things to all people).
A bigger bunch of crybabies I have never seen. Those of you that think Apple should make their iTMS tracks compatible with other MP3 players are forgetting something. That's not Apple's music. In order to make their tracks compatible with every MP3 player in the world, they would have to provide a way to remove the DRM. That would wind them up in court with just about every record label in the iTMS, which would be immediately shut down by court order. DRM that you can turn off is not DRM at all.
Personally, I can't stand DRM, but that was only way Apple could put up a download music store with mainstream, big record label artists. (The same ones who can't put out a whole album of good songs, because they mostly suck ) If you want to explore the world of legal, unDRM'd MP3 downloads, visit emusic.com and mp3tunes.com. If you don't like DRM, direct your frustration at the Big Labels that require it.
BTW- the iPod plays MP3's, so it is an MP3 player. *geesh*
If are still wondering why iTMS uses AAC encoding, it is not to make your life harder; it is because it sounds better than MP3 at the same bitrate. DRM assures that iTMS purchaed tracks will not be compatible regular ol' MP3 players anyway, might as well move to a more efficient compression scheme. Makes sense to me.
Those of you that think Apple should make their iTMS tracks compatible with other MP3 players are forgetting something. That's not Apple's music. In order to make their tracks compatible with every MP3 player in the world, they would have to provide a way to remove the DRM.
While this is technically true, it doesn't respond to what was said.
1) It's not about making the music work on every mp3 player. It's about licensing Fairplay to other players who want to use it. KEEP the DRM.
2) I don't think many people who own a standard MP3 player are clamouring to get to iTMS - they've got several other options. It would be nice, as an iPod owner, to be able to shop from a non-Apple music store.
1) It's not about making the music work on every mp3 player. It's about licensing Fairplay to other players who want to use it. KEEP the DRM. 2) I don't think many people who own a standard MP3 player are clamouring to get to iTMS - they've got several other options. It would be nice, as an iPod owner, to be able to shop from a non-Apple music store.
1) That is Apple's prerogative. They do not have to license Fairplay if they don't want to; it belongs to them. They don't have to license OSX to Dell either, no matter the market share. Licensing Fairplay to whoever wants it would mean that Apple would sell fewer iPods. They would never choose to do that on their own. They did decide to license Fairplay to Motorola. The 100 song limit is designed to prevent the phones from eroding demand for iPods. Apple is a seller of digital computing devices. They have no interest in music distribution beyond getting it on their devices.
2) You can. I just named two.
I understand your desire for a universal format for DRM'd music. It sure would make life simpler for consumers of DRM'd music. It may even result in a better online music market that generates more revenue while satisfying more customers. A download would be like a tape or CD. It is just not in Apple's interest to deliver that. Nor is it their obligation to provide that just because their products are wildly popular. The only body that is in the position to offer what you and many others want is the RIAA, and they have elected to prosecute rather than offer a really good alternative. They could obtain their own DRM platform and then require everyone to support it (or no tunes). Unfortunately, the RIAA consists of large corporations that are competing with independent music and each other. Sony would love nothing more than to be in Apple's shoes so it could OWN the competition. As everybody probably knows, Sony is both an electronics manufacturer and Big Music (the biggest?) record label. There are several good reasons that Sony did not end up in Apple's shoes, but that's getting too far off topic. I'll just say that one reason may have been resistance to the MP3 format and unDRM'd music in general. So here we are. Apple had the best vision. There's no reason to get the courts involved.
1) I know it's Apple's choice. You had said it wasn't technically possible for other music players to work with Apple unless they remove DRM - obviously it is possible (just license Fairplay).
2) yes Motorola wants iTunes on their phone. Other mp3 players could benefit greatly from connecting to iTunes due to its popularity. Note that iTunes is a separate product to iTMS - but they currently are intimately linked.
Hell, I want my iPod, iTunes, and ANY music store. Unfortunately I have iPod, iTunes, and NO music store. I happen to think cross competitiveness is good for any industry too.
Comments
Originally posted by Fireball1244
How is the first situation somehow "wrong" while the second isn't?
It all depends who you talk to.
For some people the marketshare of the iPod is a big difference.
For others, they consider the applications for OSX to be a form of choice, where they don't have a choice of music stores.
Still, your analogy is a quite valid.
For me, I've never found a company that can be all things for all people. When I see a companies products working together with another companies, in general I see a greater strength and quality of products in the mid to long term.
To me it's at the lower levels where competition is most useful. The legalities don't require that - they allow companies to subsidise products that wouldn't be competitive with the profits from their better products. XBox vs Playstation is not about XBox vs Playstation, the competition is at a far higher level (MS vs Sony). Still.... redirected funds into a developing market also has the effect of it improving more quickly.
They provide products and services which they have nearly sole control over.
This is a good way to run a business. It ensures the best possible experience to the consumer. Apple has always operated this way, creating software and hardware that only work with each other.
Why do you think so many people are angry with Microsoft? It's not because of Gates, it's because they go out and build a PC with x-number of various manufacturer's parts, and then they wonder why Windows isn't running smoothly. Apple makes both the hardware and software, so they can fix any issues that arise because they know what components they're dealing with.
Apple have (I assume) the same mindset about the iPod and iTunes.
Like I said, if you aren't happy with the service, nobody is forcing you to stay, but you'll be hard-pressed to find another service with the level of relibility, integration and ease of Apple's.
Jimzip
The ball not the man.
Avoid PWM (Posting While Mad).
Don´t make me come and close this thread.
Originally posted by Anders
AO anyone?
The ball not the man.
Avoid PWM (Posting While Mad).
Don´t make me come and close this thread.
What's AO? (Also I didn't mean to come across angry in the last post if it was me you were referring to.. It's actually a lovely day here!)
Jimzip
Originally posted by Jimzip
What's AO?
Good question!
I also didn't take your post as mad. I'm not sure if you were replying to me though... and I'm not sure if the moderator was replying to you...
If it was directed at me - well I'm reasonably happy as an Apple customer... wish I could buy some songs online though!!! (hence my comment that it's difficult to be all things to all people).
That would be directed at Gene Clean and I Greg so I wouldn't worry
Personally, I can't stand DRM, but that was only way Apple could put up a download music store with mainstream, big record label artists. (The same ones who can't put out a whole album of good songs, because they mostly suck
BTW- the iPod plays MP3's, so it is an MP3 player. *geesh*
If are still wondering why iTMS uses AAC encoding, it is not to make your life harder; it is because it sounds better than MP3 at the same bitrate. DRM assures that iTMS purchaed tracks will not be compatible regular ol' MP3 players anyway, might as well move to a more efficient compression scheme. Makes sense to me.
Originally posted by funkfeend
Those of you that think Apple should make their iTMS tracks compatible with other MP3 players are forgetting something. That's not Apple's music. In order to make their tracks compatible with every MP3 player in the world, they would have to provide a way to remove the DRM.
While this is technically true, it doesn't respond to what was said.
1) It's not about making the music work on every mp3 player. It's about licensing Fairplay to other players who want to use it. KEEP the DRM.
2) I don't think many people who own a standard MP3 player are clamouring to get to iTMS - they've got several other options. It would be nice, as an iPod owner, to be able to shop from a non-Apple music store.
1) It's not about making the music work on every mp3 player. It's about licensing Fairplay to other players who want to use it. KEEP the DRM. 2) I don't think many people who own a standard MP3 player are clamouring to get to iTMS - they've got several other options. It would be nice, as an iPod owner, to be able to shop from a non-Apple music store.
1) That is Apple's prerogative. They do not have to license Fairplay if they don't want to; it belongs to them. They don't have to license OSX to Dell either, no matter the market share. Licensing Fairplay to whoever wants it would mean that Apple would sell fewer iPods. They would never choose to do that on their own. They did decide to license Fairplay to Motorola. The 100 song limit is designed to prevent the phones from eroding demand for iPods. Apple is a seller of digital computing devices. They have no interest in music distribution beyond getting it on their devices.
2) You can. I just named two.
I understand your desire for a universal format for DRM'd music. It sure would make life simpler for consumers of DRM'd music. It may even result in a better online music market that generates more revenue while satisfying more customers. A download would be like a tape or CD. It is just not in Apple's interest to deliver that. Nor is it their obligation to provide that just because their products are wildly popular. The only body that is in the position to offer what you and many others want is the RIAA, and they have elected to prosecute rather than offer a really good alternative. They could obtain their own DRM platform and then require everyone to support it (or no tunes). Unfortunately, the RIAA consists of large corporations that are competing with independent music and each other. Sony would love nothing more than to be in Apple's shoes so it could OWN the competition. As everybody probably knows, Sony is both an electronics manufacturer and Big Music (the biggest?) record label. There are several good reasons that Sony did not end up in Apple's shoes, but that's getting too far off topic. I'll just say that one reason may have been resistance to the MP3 format and unDRM'd music in general. So here we are. Apple had the best vision. There's no reason to get the courts involved.
2) yes Motorola wants iTunes on their phone. Other mp3 players could benefit greatly from connecting to iTunes due to its popularity. Note that iTunes is a separate product to iTMS - but they currently are intimately linked.
Hell, I want my iPod, iTunes, and ANY music store. Unfortunately I have iPod, iTunes, and NO music store. I happen to think cross competitiveness is good for any industry too.