The Economist, DVD Jon On Apple's DRM Stand 425
We have two followups this morning to Tuesday's story on Steve Jobs's call to do away with DRM for music. The first is an editorial in The Economist sent in by reader redelm, who notes that as "arguably the world's leading business newspaper/magazine" that publication is in a position to influence legal and political decision-makers who may never have heard of DRM. The Economist says: "Mr Jobs's argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right." Next, Whiney Mac Fanboy sends pointers to two blog entries by "DVD Jon" Johansen. In the first Johansen questions Jobs's misuse of statistics in attempting to prove that consumers aren't tied to iPods through ITMS: "Many iPod owners have never bought anything from the iTunes Store. Some have bought hundreds of songs. Some have bought thousands. At the 2004 Macworld Expo, Steve revealed that one customer had bought $29,500 worth of music." Johansen's second post questions Jobs's "DRM-free in a heartbeat" claim: "There are... many Indie artists who would love to sell DRM-free music on iTunes, but Apple will not allow them... It should not take Apple's iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM. This could be done in a completely transparent way and would not be confusing to the users."
Update: 02/08 16:28 GMT by KD : Added missing links.
Update: 02/08 16:28 GMT by KD : Added missing links.
excellent thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the indie artists who don't want DRM were able to offer their music without it (and maybe have an 'unencumbered' badge next to the trac
Re: (Score:2)
Then I realised that actually I don't like iTunes much as a player (wrote my own
I also realised that iTunes
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:excellent thought (Score:4, Interesting)
You can have DRM protecting your content, or you can have copyright enforced on your content.
This leads to any DRM'ed content with the DRM broken (which only takes time) being copyright free, and tradeable as you wish, with no recourse for the "owner", since they gave up the copyright on the notion that the DRM would protect them.
Plus have it legal to try to break DRM, of course.
All-or-Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:All-or-Nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All-or-Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of this iPods are sold worldwide while the store can only be accessed from a few select countries, further skewing the "average" calculation...
Re:All-or-Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple would be fine without DRM, but the are better off with it - and even better with it while saying the don't want it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I do think they care about is consistency of user experience. They believe, and I think they are right to do so, that having different types of music with different usage rights confuses customers. One reason I hear for the failure of WMA is that you don't know what you can do with the file unless you read the specific license agreement for it. That alienates customers, and I think not alienating customers is what really separates iTunes from the other servi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, if they could sell DRM-free songs through iTunes, they'd probably sell more iPods.
Understand, it's only a matter of time before MySpace starts selling unprotected downloads, and that'll be a HUGE threat, both to iTunes and the major labels.
Apple
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think App
DVD Jon would love this (Score:3, Informative)
It's a given that encryption happens on the client side (using the users iTunes user account keys) so any optional do/don't DRM flag would have to be embedded in the file and transmitted (unencrypted) from Apple to your PC/Mac. DVD Jon would live this!
Just how long do you think it would take him (or someone just like him) to sniff out the flag and insert a filter to t
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos to Jobs for publicly going after the recording companies especially given the European issues and the fact that most of these companies are European companies. They seem to want their cake and yours and mine while their stuffing their face eating their own. Greedy bastards!
RIAA -- you want interoperability? Remove DRM. I guarantee 100% interoper
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a vast difference between the record companies and Apple's public relations - the record companie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is almost certainly the case. Jobs, as I recall, had to do a lot of talking to get major labels online with the iTMS. Just being able to put the same song on more than one computer probably took months of begging, threatening and deal-making. I know it's fun to whale on Jobs, but he really is interested in making his customers happy, and I imagine he's fully aware of how annoying the iTMS DRM is for non-technical people.
Me, I just burn a CD-RW as an audio CD of purchased music and re-import as MP3. S
Re: (Score:2)
That makes a lot of sense, plus it would simplify the distribution stream.
If the indie artists aren't interested in any profits, there are any number of non-profit distribution mediums they can leverage, including existing BitTorrent networks for MP3's and services that only deliver "free" or "public" content.
The indie's can't expect Apple to pick up the costs of hosting and distribution without some
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All-or-Nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, give me a break! Of all the pro-Apple excuses, this has to be the lamest. Yes, I'm sure a programming behemoth like Apple doesn't have the resources to make a simple change in their software, one that even much smaller companies like eMusic have managed to implement. DVD Jon is dead-on right. They could do it in 2 DAYS if they wanted to.
-Eric
That link again ... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.
Missing links? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing links? (Score:5, Funny)
Long Tail (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't Steve open up the iTunes store to indies?
Chris Anderson's Long Tail [wikipedia.org] research makes it clear that more tunes means more iPod usage, even when those tunes are from the most obscure artists.
Anderson's thesis arises because "digital music is no longer subject to the artificial barrier of finite shelf space."
Or at least, that would be the case if stores like iTunes were more accessible.
C'mon Steve, open wide. Let the long tail wag.
legal and other issues possibly? (Score:2)
with indie music comes a lot of questions.
how much can Apple charge before they are considered to be exploiting?
how much does Apple spend on bandwidth per song, this figures into #1.
who does Apple contract with for payment should the artist want money?
How much will it cost to maintain al
Re: (Score:2)
Organizations like ASCAP and BMI already have the infrastructure to manage artist royalies for composition/publishing side of the royalties equation.
Indie music where the composer is also performer (anecdotally, this would cover 99% of it) ASCAP/BMI would already be involed at some level. Not to diminish BMI, but I am going to refer to ASCAP only hereafter because I am most familiar with how it works. ASCAP is a member-owned organization and is free to any writer who meets membership requirements. The b
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs' big charade (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs may SAY he hates DRM, but only because he has nothing to lose by saying that. He knows the studios aren't going to cave on DRM, so he gets to keep DRM (and, hence, his iTunes-iPod monopoly) while simultaneously portraying himself as some sort of anti-DRM crusader.
If you want to see how Jobs *REALLY* feels about
Re:Jobs' big charade (Score:5, Interesting)
repeat after me (Score:3, Insightful)
They compete on the HARDWARE not the music.
Otherwise it wouldn't be trivial to get around the DRM by design.
I can put any mp3 I wan't on the iPod no matter where I got it from. If they wanet lockin it would only play AAC files. Guess what? that wouldn't sell many iPods, which is what they want because they are a hardware company.
Re:repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
You said the same thing here [slashdot.org].
But you're looking at that backwards. It's not about preventing you from playing non-aac formats and locking you into the store. It's about selling you music that only plays on an iPod, and locking you into the iPod. Once you have a $500 collection of iTMS music, it becomes too much of a waste of money to make your next purchase *not* an iPod. Protects their revenue stream. The hardware.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The iTunes store -is- open to Indies. It could be that (1) you're not looking in the right place, or (2) the labels in question are too lazy to sign up. It's not that hard to do, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
-Eric
iTunes Podcasts can be DRM-free (Score:2, Interesting)
Confusion free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, right. Tell that to the vast majority of non-tech savvy iTunes users, who don't understand why they can't make an MP3 CD of their purchased music. I have a friend who likes to make "Mix" CD's for other friends, and they keep getting frustrated when iTunes tells them some of their tracks can't be converted to MP3. I've tried explaining DRM to them, but for the typical layperson, it goes right over their heads.
No, they understand. (Score:2)
They are not confused, DRM simply sucks. Explaining the details is as pointless and asinine as a hide tanning lecture while someone is whipped. DRM is the ultimate non free expression, secrets created to dominate and abuse. The greed of the artist, the publisher and the listener are all played to create
Re:No, they understand. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're incredibly naive if your really believe that. I've had to explain to my girlfriend on three separate occasions that her music will only work on iTunes or an iPod, and that I can't play it on my Linux computer. I had to convince her sister that if she bought a Creative mp3 player, her music from iTunes wouldn't work on it. Apple makes it easy for people to play their music and transfer it to their iPod. Unless somebody has bought a music player other than an iPod and tried to transfer music, tried to burn an mp3 cd, or tried to use Linux, most likely they're only loosely aware that there are some things they can't do with their iTunes music. Apple's DRM is not nearly as restrictive as it could be. If nothing else just burn a regular CD and rip it back. You may care about quality, but the difference isn't enough for most users to care.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The artist often gets a very minimal cut of sales on iTunes, and only complies because otherwise they could lose other contracts. I'd hardly call it greedy to try and keep your job. The listener has a choice between driving to the store and buying a CD, downloading something illegally (the greediest option), or downloading it from iTunes. Then they have as many choices as they have with a CD, because they can in fact burn the music to a CD. There are two groups that could be construed as particularly greedy. The publisher, who chose DRM in an attempt to prevent piracy, would go under if everyone shared digital music freely. Then there's Apple, the distributor, who seems to have the most to gain by locking people to a platform. But Apple is saying that decision lies with the distributors.
As far as why Apple doesn't sell some tracks without DRM, I don't think its so much a matter of confusion as not wanting to advertise DRM. As I've stated, there are iTunes users out there who don't realize there are restrictions on their music. If the music store didn't distinguish between DRM free tracks and tracks with DRM, users would never know for sure what they're getting until they'd bought it. But if they put anything to indicate that some tracks have DRM and some tracks don't, it would call attention to DRM, and users would begin to realize their music had restrictions on them. Whether you'll admit it or not, right now most iTMS customers are blissfully ignorant towards DRM, and the only way Apple is going to make sure every user knows about DRM is going to be in the context that the iTMS is now DRM Free.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is like carbon monoxide. You can't "see" it, but when it's there it can cause you serious problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also I think you missed the part where I said "imagine they could..." As in, what if all books were ebooks and implemented DRM like that?
Hint: There will come a time when portable ebook readers replace inprint books for things like school. You want those DRM enabled?
If your friend asks why they can't convert their tunes to mp3, tell them Steve Jobs told them they couldn't. That's effectively the truth of it.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
-Eric
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right clicking and choosing 'Convert to mp3' gives you a pop up telling you you can't convert purchased songs.
Indie artists' access to iTunes (Score:5, Interesting)
If you produce a CD and follow the instructions to have your disc sold on CDBaby.com, they will submit your music to iTunes. In the case of music I've submitted, there was a delay of about six weeks; then we got word that we were live on iTunes.
This is not the full ticket to Hollywood. It's not a huge hurdle either. It's one of many small cumulative things that you do to get your music out there.
Notably there was no contractual lock-in with CDBaby or with iTunes. They own nothing, we retain our copyrights and our ability to distribute in any other channel we like. The whole thing has been artist-friendly.
Our R&B artist on iTunes:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Our other music (ambient & progressive rock) http://www.workshopmusic.com/streams.html [workshopmusic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes is the world biggest online music store, so of course you want your song on it. You expect that, in doing so, more people will buy it.
However, right now, if you dont like DRM and dont want your customer to be locked to his iPod, there is no way to be on iTunes. Some artists dont want their listeners to be restricted in their use of their music. Putting their song on another website wont solve the
Some Of Jobs Other 'Stands' (Score:5, Funny)
* Ponies for everyone - who doesn't love ponies?
* Rainbows everyday - wouldn't the world be just that much better?
* Love - it doesn't have to be just for dirty hippies
You gotta hand it to Jobs and his bold stance of anti-DRM and pro ponies, love, and rainbows. Let's all go out and buy incremental upgrades to our iPods!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was about lock in, then you wouldn't be able to get around it so easily by design.
Apple is a hardware company. They want to sell iPods and they want to be a full service solution.
The easier it is to sell music, and the easier it is for Apples clients to do what they want with the music it purchased, the more iPods he sells.
Yes his statement was self serving, but it wasn't li
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I've already suggested that if Obama really wants to win, he needs to add that in the platform. Oddly enough, I haven't gotten any response back yet.
Speaking of misuse of statistics (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, but on the other hand, not all owned songs are used in iPods (or used) at all, either. Personally, I've got a couple gigs of music that I don't really listen to, and aren't on my iPod. For example, I have the soundtracks of some video games, which are great when I'm in the mood (read: free time), but generally I listen to my iPod when I'm walking to class. For another example, I've bought one or two CD's for a really goo
I guess my wife and I are a rare breed... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't get the piracy thing. If you are going to listen to the music, then you should pay for it, whether that be from purchasing the CDs, or through a legitimate on-line music service. I also don't care to hear arguments against this, because those that argue the loudest are usually the ones with the most non-purchased music in their library. They are being just as self-serving as Mr. Jobs.
Personally, I wish we could do away with DRM, because it is quite difficult to play the songs I legally purchased off of iTMS on my Linux computer. I think that is a load of crap, and that it severely cuts into my fair-use rights, which nobody seems to care about.
Re:I guess my wife and I are a rare breed... (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, because you get to check their computers.
Nice assumption.
I suppose you also believe that people who believe Pot should be legal also smoke it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i haven't bought a cd since 1999 (Score:3, Informative)
since 1999, my musical tastes have grown eclectic, and my musical collection has grown huge and varied and rich
what piracy has enabled me to do is to "grow up" outside of american pop music and embrace music from the world. to download trance music from the netherlands, bhangra from india, soca from trinidad, wierd love ballads from japan, and strange slow ditties from the philippines
the existence of the rich esoterica easy at my fingertips would have been impossible
lose your holier-than-thou tone (Score:3, Insightful)
more exposure = more income... concerts, exposure that translates into ad revenue, etc.
more exposure is only gotten by embracing free exposure
in other words, i'm not the enemy, i'm the friend, so STOP LECTURING ME
free as in "here, this is free" not free as in "this is free but i'm going to cop a holier than thou attitude and badger you until you're guilted into giving something"
in other words, your attitude is poison to any band you think
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a pro-"piracy" discussion. Maybe you're confused over what DRM is?
Re:I guess my wife and I are a rare breed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere in there the CDs and MP3s are being treated differently. Why is it ok if you buy a CD to let your wife listen to it, to let her rip it to her iTunes library and put it on her iPOd. Why do you think it is ok for her to listen to the song on her iPod while you can listen to it on your iPod as well? And at the same time? And why when you buy a song from iTunes Store, why don't you have the same liberty? Which one of those is right?
So do you get it now?
Hey, Johansen (Score:2)
A Major Injustice (Score:5, Interesting)
apple (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but that doesn't include the six months needed to design the new icons...
Self-serving or not (Score:2)
i've noticed the tension (Score:5, Insightful)
just this morning, i read this (Hollywood Takes Its Concerns About Piracy and Taxes to Washington [nytimes.com]):
i have a feeling that the prime mover and shaker in the wars for/ against drm will be fought mainly along this battlefront. so either hardware manufacturers, by ignoring content creators, will drag content creators kicking and screaming into reality, or content creators will probably, as a mode of attack, simply buy hardware manufacturers, and silence them via business channels
some, like sony, are both hardware and content creators. internal battles on the issue within sony might be revelatory for what our future holds
i'm actually pretty upbeat about the future in this regard though. people like jobs show that hardware manufacturers are just as willing to dream about bullying around content creators as visa versa. it was the content creators dithering and denial on the subject of downloadability that allowed jobs to create iTunes and lead us into the future, so to say. from an obvious business perspective in terms of natural fit, content creators should have been the ones offering a download storefront on the internet, but they didn't out of their fear and panic about what the internet meant to their existence. along came a hardware manufacturer, with nothing to lose on the content front, and therefore no fear, and filled the natural void of consumer want/ need that wasn't being filled as it should have naturally been filled by the content creators. and for dithering as they did, now content creators are in a deeper hole because they have to deal with a formidable opponent, jobs, with nothing to lose and no reason not to defy content creators. he is now in charge of the largest growing revenue stream for the content creators, not one of their own stooges. good for the consumer
and besides, even if all of american hardware and content creators were consolidated business-wise against the interests of us, the consumers, there is always hardware manufacturers in china, or russia, or india, or europe, who would be all too happy to steal the lions share of the marketplace from consumers sick of the ridiculous 1984-style limitations on their hardware that would obviously result from collusion between hardware and content creators
in other words, i don't think content creators have enough business muscle AND international clout to completely limit the range of drm-free options we as consumers will be able to access hardware-wise. and therefore, content creators and their dreams of completely controlling how we access our own culture is doomed
an odious intrusion, simply because they want to preserve their antiquated pre-internet business model. no, i have a better option: why don't you just fade away and die, movie/ music conglomerates? you need us. we don't need you. welcome to the future: the internet has rendered old style media distribution models, where you could easily put up your tolls, archaic. in the future, artists will reach consumers directly
in short, you're history
Here Here! Cheers DVD Jon (Score:3, Informative)
Indie Music (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for allowing Indie artists access. My question is how would you implement this, and not end up with every American Idol reject? How would the typical user be able to sift through it all to find talent vs. a bunch of basement bands? Sure a rating system would be helpful, but if I'm searching by song names could still end up with long lists of remakes. There needs to be some sort of minimum standard, otherwise the system will get unwieldy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How do they do it now? 30% of the music on iTunes right now is from indie labels.
The problem isn't indie labels can't sell on iTunes, it's that they can't sell on iTunes without DRM. Apple requires DRM for everyone.. Apple, not the labels.
I don't know what the big deal is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this creating such a commotion, or better yet, why are people arguing against Jobs? I'm no apologist, but his stance made 100% perfect sense to me.
DRM:
Look, if you are required by some companies to use DRM, what are you going to do? 1., use it or 2., don't and don't sell their music. I think DRM is a sham, but it's pretty clear what the companies want that own the music they license out to iTunes.
iPod:
Again, I agree with Jobs here. The iPod plays MP3 and AAC, which can both be considered 'standards'. The only thing missing, of course, is Ogg. But this is pretty good. I don't see anyone bitching much about the Zune which has THE WORST DRM imaginable on a player. Not only is your DRM-free songs wrapped in DRM, but when you share (or squirt - jesus..) these with the social - this is ANY track mind you - it's wrapped in DRM and the receiver can only listen to it 3 times and/or it expires automagically in something like three days. I can't begin to say how unbelievably lame this is for the consumer, but makes perfect sense to the record companies. Where's the uproar against the worlds largest software company regarding that?
iTS:
Yes, it does not sell all indie labels (some tho) and yes, Apple probably could roll in something to allow non-DRM stuff to work perfectly with DRM stuff. But again, without having priviledged access to the project/source, who's to say how that could be done. I'm sure it could be though. I still think Apple does a pretty good job with the iTS. I mean how many other music stores out there fight with the record cartel to keep prices low? If it was Bill G or Ballmer or whoever else, you know they wouldn't give a shit about $.99 price and kowtow to the labels every wish. This is a FACT.
Licensing FairPlay:
I'm with Jobs on this one. M$ tried it with the 'Plays For Sure' and look where they are now, copying iTS/iPod. For a company providing a product, NOT a socially beneficial service, it makes sense to keep it small and in control. Doesn't mean I support FairPlay, but from a practical product standpoint, Jobs is right and the real goal is to get RID of FairPlay, not expand it to more vendors.
In the end, again, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course the Microsoft club is gonna slam everything Jobs does - cuz they're not #1 in that area, so they'll naturally hate everything else. But the Econ calling the article 'self serving'? I dunno, I guess, but how is taking the labels to task so self serving? When did Ballmer last call for the labels to drop DRM? Or any other big computer/electronics exec? I think Gates went as far as mentioning at one point that DRM "won't work" but, that falls very short compared to Jobs speech.
I also don't look at the iPod as some big monopolistic, lock in mechanism. I can play all the formats I use on it except, again, Ogg. And for indie artists, there's always eMusic or CDs. The Econ article, and many others, cite lock-in as a argument the EU is using, but seriously, why would someone jump ship to a player from M$ or Sony? Plus, what does Jobs really have to lose if the EU rules iTS/iPod illegal? Fine, worst case, don't sell to them. And then what DRM will the EU run to? M$? Sony? Or will they spend years and years coming up with some 'standard' that then fades away when the labels finally cave in to unprotected tracks, but only because consumers demanded it from them? The EU may sue or whatever, but Apple dropping FairPlay is not going to happen and again, music players are not computers, so the 'lock-in' will fade.
I think, if anything, more people should be backing Jobs. What other high profile hardware maker is saying the same? M$? Sony? Creative? Sandisk? His stance on having the EU look at EMI and Universal is dead on. I've been in the music industry and they ARE the culprit in this case. 100%. If anyone opened up an online music store tomorrow and wanted major label music, it w
He's in a balloon... (Score:5, Insightful)
A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"
The man below says, "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."
"You must be an engineer", says the balloonist.
"I am", replies the man. "How did you know?"
"Well", says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's of no use to anyone."
Technically, since Apple doesn't do the encryption until after download, it would be trivial to implement.
The problem isn't implementing it, the problem is that unless the Big Four labels go along with it there's a huge risk and no benefit. One of Apple's "lines in the sand" for the iTunes Music Store right from the start was that all music would be available on the same terms: you can play ALL the songs in the store on 5 computers, you can burn them ALL to disc, they ALL cost the same. Making an exception for a few small labels, or even a lot of them, may violate their existing contract with the big four and would certainly hurt them when they have to renegotiate.
And there's no need: eMusic.com already fills that market, and it's cheaper than the iTunes store!
But wait, there's more! Let's complete the joke:
The man below says, "You must be in management."
"I am", replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well", says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault. "
Nah, Jon, I'm in the same position I was before, and it's not a problem, so it's nobody's fault. See, I'm one of the people who's supposed to be locked in to the iPod.
I've bought 286 tracks from the iTunes Music Store, plus a dozen TV shows. That's over $300, and I'm not locked in at all. I've played this music on an iPod Shuffle, an HP Pocket PC, and a cheap Magic Star MP3 player. I have done this using nothing but Apple's own software, unmodified, using instructions provided by Apple on their website.
Yes, technically, I've lost a fraction of the sound quality by remixing their old ad campaign into "mix, burn, rip", but who cares? Buying music where absolute fidelity matters from the iTMS is daft... you've accepted a loss in quality just by buying it in lossy-compressed format to begin with. I buy classical music on CD, and I don't listen to it in a noisy office through tiny earbuds.
The real lock-in for iPods isn't the music, it's the accessories. Apple's changed the iPod form factor and connectors far less often than their competitors, so there's easily a dozen times as many accessories available for the iPod as for any other MP3 player... probably than all the others put together.
Right now, I don't have an MP3 player. My daughter's iPod Mini broke, so I gave her my shuffle. I'm looking at new MP3 players now, and right now I'm inclined to get something other than an iPod. The new shuffle looks sweet, but I don't like the click-wheel on the higher end iPods. If I decide to stick with a flash based player I'll probably get an iPod Shuffle, but the Toshiba Gigabeat (the real thing, not Microsoft's rebadged "Zune") looks pretty good.
Pretty Clear to Me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mafiaa legions already trolling for "examples" already makes them the bad guy. With Europe stacking up on him, Jobs is just assuming the classic Noshitonmi stance to deflect all negative energy towards the Mafiaa.
Quite brilliant, actually.
He better start stretching, though. Those new Noshitonmi poses he's going to need for SEC investigations are gonna require special foo.
But where's the lock-in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indies are perfectly free (individually or co-operatively) get a paypal account and a website and sell their own DRM-free music. Maybe there will be fewer sales, but the profit margins should be rather better. I listen to one group that bankrolls the production of each new album by asking fans to pay for it in advance (currently CDs, though - but its prog, so not very download friendly anyway).
There seems to be a circular argument here that iTMS is the only game in town. The whole point about internet sales is that its easy(er) for little guys to sell to the world. If you want a lock-in then I'm pretty sure that if most indies could only get some fricking airplay then enough people would google for their webshop.
iPod, iTMS, and DRM: confusion is beneficial (Score:4, Insightful)
This, however, isn't necessarily the case.
While the iPod and iTunes Music Store are promoted hand-in-hand, the technical (ie: you and me) know that you don't need to buy music from iTMS. The iPod is a wonderful music player; you can rip and/or load your music onto your pod in lossless or lossy formats, without DRM, if you so desire. The iTMS makes it easier to load music onto your iPod, but the iPod will play a whole bunch of formats, most of which are DRM-free.
So why the focus on FairPlay and iTMS? Because Steve Jobs is a sneaky guy.
The conventional wisdom is that the iTMS is a loss leader for iPods; its only reason for existence is to "trap" people into buying and keeping their iPods. It follows that if the people weren't locked into iTMS and Fairplay, they'd be free to buy other players. That's why everyone wants to force Apple to license FairPlay.
But what if the iTMS sold music in the WMA format? What if Apple licensed FairPlay? What if Apple supported WMA on the iPod? Would that increase the sales of other music players? Would that increase the traffic to alternative music stores?
When it's spelled out like this, the fallacy, and the answer is obvious: probably not.
By keeping the focus on DRM, Jobs is keeping the iPod safe. The iPod isn't successful because of its tie to iTMS. It's successful because it's a good product that people want to buy. DRM is a red herring, a bargaining chip that can be pulled or offered when the need arises. By keeping the focus on FairPlay, Apple is making sure that nobody in the business is focusing on what they should be doing, namely, making a device that's better than an iPod. It's unbelievable that after 5 years, there are no players that are qualitatively equal to or better than the iPod. Likewise, in 3 years there are no music stores that are qualitatively as good as or better than iTMS.
In the end, Apple may make more money from licensing FairPlay than from the iTMS. By being licensing FairPlay and charging a royalty per song and per device sold, Apple could take a piece of every device and song sold for the next decade or more...and they'd effectively be forced to do that by the music industry and the various misguided European governments. And as a bonus, there would be little to no impact on iPod sales. A serious win-win for Apple.
Look for third-party Fairplay licensees after the upcoming negotiations, and watch Apple get thrown right into the briar patch.
What about Disney, Mr Jobs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let all Disney BluRay discs be DRM-free.
Let all Disney DVDs be unprotected.
Let all Disney online content be DRM-free.
He can talk all he wants about DRM-free music, but let's see him make his own company's created content available in DRM-free form. Until then, his words regarding DRM-free music are simply a PR play, nothing more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Law of Averages (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Law of Averages (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything else is just a measure of how severely they are locked in, how much already-paid-for music it would cost them to switch. But even if the switching cost is to give up just one track that you already paid for -- lock in is lock in.
Re:Law of Averages (Score:5, Interesting)
But it still isn't quite the same situation. When we used cassette tapes, we could play them in any cassette player we wanted, regardless of who manufactured it. A cassette was a cassette was a cassette. Our tapes became obsolete because technology changed, and offered us benefits that convinced us to switch to something newer -- cds gave us track by track access and an order of magnitude better quality -- and for a time the manufacturers all put out stereos that could play your cassettes or cds.
In the case of digital audio, the iTunes DRM songs can only be played in the player(s) produced by a single manufacturer, and are incompatible with any other. There is no fundamental difference in technology between a protected iTunes track and a track encoded with mp3, ogg, or whatever. The issue of whose device you can play it on is the only significant difference between a DRMed track and a non-DRMed one).
In short, your point about cassettes has to do with format lock-in. The issue with Apple's DRM is more about vendor lock in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Such wealthy people include Apple executives... Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon reading your post all I could think about is how funny it would have been had you said "He knows what mean means".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of it this way. Bill Gates walks into a stadium full of people who have no money, and each person is very wealthy ac
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 22 per ipod is the mean - often the most useful and the one that is frequently implies with the more ambiguous word "average" however in this case its the most useless.
The mode usually requires wider boundries than single elements to be useful (eg 0, 1-5, 6-10, etc) but I would tend to say that the mode or perhaps the median would be the more useful average when tailoring a service to your main user base.
Despite these figures not being announced you can bet
Re: (Score:2)
As for DRM, I'm glad that corporations, er, the leaders of corporatio
Re:Law of Averages (Score:4, Informative)
Also, DVD Jon was pointing out that Jobs's iPod figure reflected all iPods sold, not all that are functional or in use (a number that no one knows). People have been replacing iPods as they break, and have been upgrading as new ones get released. Additionally, music might be on more than one iPod, as a family might authorize everyone's computers to play everyone else's music, so that Bro and Sis can share songs on their iPods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Law of Averages (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Law of Averages (Score:5, Informative)
He knows what average means, and he knows that Steve was specifically referring to the arithmetic mean, because 20 billion songs/ 90 million ipods is the ~22 songs/ipod in question.
He's just saying that using this figure is misleading. Like talking about average fuel economy by dividing all the car miles ever by total gasoline production for the last 110 years. Sure it's the average, but it doesn't really tell you anything about current mileage. Most of those cars are scrap by now, just like many of the ipods sold in the last few years.
Re:Law of Averages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People that have purchased songs from iTunes and don't own an iPod.
That makes the average number of songs per iPod even lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Law of Averages (Score:5, Insightful)
Jon is not an idiot, though, Mr. Parent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is that misusing statistics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there people with investments in iTMS who probably feel locked in? Undoubtedly yes. I'd guess that if you asked Steve Jobs that question flat-out, he'd likely say yes as well. But does that mean that that's Apple's motivation for including DRM? According to Jobs, it's not. Would both the iPod and iTMS store continue to do well with DRM removed? Jobs seems to think so.
I'm not naive enough to automatically believe word for word anything that someone I don't even know says, but Steve Jobs has felt comfortable putting himself into a position where Apple may have the opportunity to drop the DRM, and the PR that would form around that opportunity would almost force Apple to do it.
Here's a guy who's one of the big names in the industry, and he's publicly announcing the position of Apple Inc., and it just so happens that this position includes a whole lot of what the anti-DRM people have been saying all along. What is the problem with that? If you're expecting Apple to suddenly just drop all the DRM and tell the record labels to go screw themselves, then your mind is wandering outside the realm of reality, which doesn't help your cause.
Re:How is that misusing statistics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A contract like that would be illegal, top to bottom. The big labels can't contractually obligate Apple to require DRM on other people's music. That'd land the RIAA right back in court for anticompetitive practices.
They could threaten to pull their distribution contract on the sly, but that would be awfully shad
Disagreement doesn't imply deception. (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't, and I didn't claim it did. The first part of my message addressed that point. I didnt go into more detail because I really think I've already posted more than enough on that topic. The second part (the one you're quoting here) is a response to the claim that Apple is preventing artists and labels from releasing DRM-free music: they could only do that if they were a monopoly.
But since y