If you like music, you might like this brand-new essay from the Master of Macintosh himself.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Interestingly enough, the publication date -- yesterday, February 6 -- was also the date I first used my new iPod Shuffle!
The iPod was a generous gift from Deadron, and it's quite a clever little contraption. I like it plenty. You may, therefore, regard this previous post as obsolete:
http://members.byond.com/ Gughunter?command=view_post&post=3707
I get it now!
ID:26968
 Feb 7 2007, 5:51 am
|
|
How would licensing FairPlay encourage sales of other MP3 players? That seems to imply that people buy iPods primarily to gain access to the iTunes music store. Are the non-iTunes music vendors significantly more expensive, or more limited in their selection? And why wouldn't Apple simply charge licensees a large enough fee to make it worthwhile? (I am pretty new to the sordid world of Internet music.)
Maybe the record companies are already getting ready to give up on DRM, and Jobs just wants to be sure he gets some of the credit! | |
Here's an interesting different point of view from RoughlyDrafted.com.
Also, tangentially interesting, here is RoughlyDrafted's take on iTunes being a monopoly which is very compelling reading. I should say that I think Mike has a deep and thoughtful point of view on this stuff, and I think the RoughlyDrafted guy does too, and I don't necessarily completely agree or disagree with either of them. I'm just hoping to spread some info, while leaving my own opinion out of it...:) | |
Gughunter wrote:
How would licensing FairPlay encourage sales of other MP3 players? That seems to imply that people buy iPods primarily to gain access to the iTunes music store. I'm sure that the iTunes Store is not the primary selling point for the iPod. It has to be quite low on the list. It still represents a very small percentage of music purchased overall. I think the most common situation is something like this: You either have an iPod, or no portable player. You use iTunes on your computer, and you've bought, say, 20 albums of music from the iTunes Store. That's about a $200 investment. Now it's time to either upgrade or buy a new portable device. Do you buy a non-iPod and throw away your $200 investment, or do you buy an iPod to keep that investment? Are the non-iTunes music vendors significantly more expensive, or more limited in their selection? I don't know all the factors, but iTunes owns a majority of the digital music market. I've seen figures like 70% or more, but not sure what it is currently. I don't think the other stores are more expensive (Wal-Mart sells tracks for $0.88 instead of $0.99), but none of them are doing nearly as well. And why wouldn't Apple simply charge licensees a large enough fee to make it worthwhile? (I am pretty new to the sordid world of Internet music.) I don't know, but there are a few possibilities. For one, Apple seems to have a culture of tightly guarding their key technologies. They got burned in the 90s when licensing Mac clones, and I don't see them doing something similar anytime soon. The other possibility is that the cost to make it worthwhile is more than licensees are willing to pay. Maybe the record companies are already getting ready to give up on DRM, and Jobs just wants to be sure he gets some of the credit! Could be. I read an article recently claiming that one of the big record companies was contemplating trying out DRM-free MP3 sales. But it also mentioned that this would only apply to certain types of promotional deals, not across the board. Still, it might be dipping a toe in the water. I'd love to see DRM gone -- the people who really impact record companies' bottom line by illegally obtaining copyrighted material are unaffected by DRM. It only serves to restrict legitimate consumers, both in what they can do with their purchased content, and in what devices will play such content. It's definitely bad for consumers, and of questionable benefit at best for record companies. I've always felt like it had the most benefit to companies like Apple, which can leverage it to lead customers to buy more of their own products. Of course, it can be devastating if another format takes off and wins in the long run, so it's a double-edged sword for them, too. | |
Hmm, both of you have come up with some interesting angles on this. Thanks!
| |
Mike H wrote:
There's no question that the record labels want and require DRM. Therefore they do shoulder much of the blame. Well, even this is actually BS; the record companies don't need DRM by any reckoning. The actual accounts of pirated songs by the ordinary consumer base are staggeringly low, all things considered. You hear tale after tale of "internet fanboy XYZ" having over 80 gigs of MP3s on his computer, but what about "average Joe"? Record companies love to think of a free online medium as their enemy, so they use a limited sample set of lowlife internet users to exaggerate their case. I'm sure everyone here has at least one pirated song or piece of software on their computer (whether knowingly or unknowingly!). So I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist -- I'm just saying that the record companies love to blow it out of proportion. As Lummox JR is fond of pointing out, it's the companies off in China who are raking in millions in pirated music that these companies should be targetting. [edit]Heh. As I read the rest of the comments, I find you already made that assertion. =) | |
As one data point, and possibly an unusual one, here is my situation:
I use two iPods (iPod video for my car, Nano around the house) and iTunes (on my computer at work) on a daily basis, and I listen to dozens of hours of content every week. I've listened to thousands of hours of content in the last couple of years since I got my first iPod. I have never bought a single item from the iTunes store. My content is composed of music ripped from CD (which I very rarely listen to anymore), audiobooks ripped from CD, and podcasts downloaded through iTunes. Prompted by me, my partner started listening to podcasts (it's pretty funny to have both of us walking around, one with earbuds and one with headphones on -- a modern relationship!), and as a result our household now has three iPods in constant use, and still not a single DRMed file between us. | |
I built a small stack of CD's tonight, to begin the long road to transferring all the best music I've bought since 1988...
Actually the DRM (I assume) is responsible for my one complaint about the iPod thus far. I initially recharged and loaded the iPod at work. It worked fine. Then, when I got home, I spent a half-hour or so installing iTunes, rebooting, etc., only to find I couldn't move the files off my iPod onto my home PC! I was able to solve this by logging into my work computer and moving the files to my own PC (consuming precious space on my 12-GB hard drive) but it still left a bad taste in my mouth. | |
That one I think you can blame solely on the record companies. Apple has nothing to gain from making its device unnecessarily restrictive, except maybe pleasing the record labels. Without such a restriction, the labels see every iPod as nothing more than a music piracy accelerator. And certainly it could be - imagine bringing your 30 GB iPod over to your friend's house and loading all your stuff onto his computer. And then he does the same with all of his friends.
This is not technically DRM (the files you imported are 100% DRM-free), but it's a software restriction with similar consequences. The good news is that there are plenty of third party utilities to get around this. I know on the Mac side you can even access the iPod's hidden music folder directly from the command line. It might be possible to do something similar from Windows Explorer with the "show hidden files" option set. The music is stored in the "ipod_control" folder on the iPod. A quick Google search comes up with several utilities (I haven't used them, I did it the old fashioned way the few times I needed to): http://www.kennettnet.co.uk/musicrescue/ http://www.thelittleappfactory.com/software/ipodripwin.php http://www.wideanglesoftware.com/ipodcopy/ http://www.copypod.net/ http://macs.about.com/od/ipod/a/copy_from_ipod.htm | |
iTunes recently had an update that stopped you from putting your music off your iPod and onto your harddrive. Yeah, stupid idea, I know.
However there ARE solutions. I found a couple of programs that let you take them off... one was a bit shoddy, the other one was great. I'm going to try and find it then post it here. CNet's do-it-yourself way: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7899_1-6477981-1.html On another PC I have something called... uh, Ipod Dump or something? Something like that. Anyway I thought it was really good. Gimme a sec to find it. :P *edit* Mike H beat me to it... :P *double edit* http://www.softpedia.com/get/IPOD-TOOLS/ Multimedia-IPOD-tools/iDump.shtml This is what I use. I dunno if it's any good though- it's free, which is cool. | |
I suggest you now start keeping a small suitcase filled with necessaries next to your door, and arrange for someone to feed the dog...
| |
Jobs is bluffing because he knows that the record companies will never call his bluff.
"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. . . . This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."
BS. BS, BS, BS. He knows full well that the record companies would never allow this situation, so he cleverly takes the opportunity to come across as the good guy. Nobody's going to call this monstrous bluff, and thus it has the Apple fanboys singing his praises like never before.
I think the most clever bluff here is when he talks about licensing FairPlay so that non-iPod devices could use it. Of course Apple will never do this because the lock-in between iTunes Music Store and the iPod is a huge part of their business model. Nothing wrong with that -- it's a complete package, all or nothing, take it or leave it. But a lot of people complain, so Jobs again deflects the blame to the record companies so that he comes out apparently looking squeaky-clean:
"However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store."
This is his central argument against licensing FairPlay. Yet, how does Microsoft manage to license PlaysForSure to dozens if not hundreds of other companies? They are dealing with the same record companies, after all.
It's nothing but another smokescreen from Reality-Distortion Master Steve Jobs. The real reason Apple won't license FairPlay is that it would encourage sales of non-iPod players. I'd have gained a lot more respect for Mr. Jobs if he'd simply told the truth. There's nothing wrong with a company wanting to make money -- that's the point of its existence! Lying about it makes me cry.
There's no question that the record labels want and require DRM. Therefore they do shoulder much of the blame. But Apple shares it equally, as they have a strong vested interest in maintaining the current system. Coming out and boldly lying about it is nothing but a brilliantly executed PR stunt. I have to say it's worked -- gauging the reaction across the internet the past day or so, I see more people than ever singing the praises of Apple and Jobs. The Reality Distortion Field is stronger than ever.
Well played, Apple. Well played.