“The market for legitimate music downloads is booming, but the stumbling block of incompatibility will not go away. Just ask anyone who has ever tried to put a Napster track on an iPod,” Brian Garrity writes for Billboard.
MacDailyNews Take: Why settle for asking just one? Ask all three of them.
Garrity writes, “Experts say the DRM dilemma might not be resolved for another two years. ‘It’s not going to go away quickly,’ Napster chief technology officer William Pence said at a recent DRM conference in New York.”
MacDailyNews Take: If Napster executives are such DRM experts, why do they use Microsoft’s WMA DRM instead of developing their own? Why two years? Is that how long Napster figures they’ll last?
Garrity writes, “Microsoft’s Windows Media DRM is supported on more than 60 devices and used for digital files sold by dozens of retailers, including Napster, AOL, Yahoo, RealNetworks, Virgin, FYE and Wal-Mart. Apple’s DRM is called Fair Play [sic] and works only in Apple-controlled products and services like the iPod and the iTunes Music Store.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s iTunes Music Store is the only store mentioned above that supports both Mac and Windows. All of the rest that Garrity mentions support only Windows. Apple has sold more songs online than the rest of the above-mentioned outfits combined. Apple’s AAC with FairPlay DRM is the de facto standard for legal online music files. Would it matter if Windows Media were supported by over 60,000 devices if nobody were buying and using them?
MacDailyNews Major Annnouncement: We have developed a car that runs on maple syrup! Exxon is stifling the growth of our product – they need to install maple syrup pumps in their stores! In addition, we’ve developed a maple syrup pump for maple syrup cars! Toyota are stifling the growth of our maple syrup pumps – they need to make cars that run on maple syrup! We’re waiting for The New Zealand Herald and Billboard to pick up our story and help us whine to a larger audience.
Garrity writes, “As more consumers go digital, the compatibility issues between Apple and Microsoft become more pronounced. Apple, the early market leader, has been particularly resistant to shaking hands in the interest of compatibility.”
MacDailyNews Take: The vast majority of consumers are choosing iPods and using Apple’s iTunes Music Store on their Macs or Windows PCs. A song is a song and Apple offers the largest legal music library at consistent prices. Why should Apple give away their business to other music outfits or sell songs for players from which they derive no profit? Solely for the “interest of compatibility?” That’s some business plan. Apple would have a tough time getting shareholder approval for that one.
Garrity writes, “More than 184 million digital tracks were sold in the United States this year through the end of July, according to Nielsen SoundScan. That is almost double the amount sold during the same period in 2004. Still, some digital-music executives say compatibility problems are slowing the growth of legitimate download sales and subscription services.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s iTunes Music Store surpassed 300 million songs sold on March 2, 2005 and surpassed 500 million songs on July 18, 2005. Thats’ over 200 million songs right there, in only 4 and a half months. It’s a safe bet that of the 184 million songs sold in the U.S. that Garrity mentions, almost all of them were sold by Apple. So, Apple is slowing down the growth of legitimate download sales? Come on. Apple created the market and it responsible for nearly all of its growth. Apple’s slowing down subscription services somewhat, maybe, since Apple doesn’t offer that option (mainly because it still hasn’t proven to be worth it), but consumers clearly seem to want to own their music much more than they want to rent it, as Apple proven over half a billion times. The only real growth Apple has slowed is the growth of their competitors.
Garrity continues, “Even the CD presents DRM issues, because Apple has not licensed Fair Play for inclusion on copy-protected discs, thus making secure CDs incompatible with the iPod, the most popular portable player with more then 15 million units sold.”
MacDailyNews Take: Those so-called CDs are not Red Book compliant, so they are not even CDs. Apple has sold well over 21 million iPods and counting.
Full article here.
The only people whining are portable digital device makers, online music outfits, and DRM peddlers that are not named Apple. Consumers, meanwhile, are happily buying iPods, importing music from Red Book compliant Compact Discs that they own, and using the iTunes Music Store on both Macs and PCs. The whining that we hear is coming from companies that are losing or have already lost to Apple’s superior symbiotic music solution, iPod+iTunes+iTunes Music Store, not from consumers.
The online music outfits are quite unhappy because the music they sell can’t easily and seamlessly be played on the device most people have chosen to own, Apple’s iPod. The portable digital music player makers are unhappy because very few want their players. People obviously want iPods instead and also wish to utilize Apple’s iTunes Music Store for it’s large library, podcast features, liberal DRM, consistent pricing, exclusives, etc. Microsoft is doubly unhappy because their proprietary WMA DRM is not the de facto standard for portable digital music player or online music services. These three factions, the online music outfits, the portable digital music player makers, and Microsoft, will continue the wails of their death throes via willing and/or ignorant media outlets, but that doesn’t mean that Apple has to change a thing until or unless they see a sound business case for doing so.
It’s the losers (Napster, Microsoft, Sony, Creative, iRiver, RealNetworks, etc.) that are whining. Not music buyers. Not music player buyers. Not Apple. Apple is too busy selling iPods and music online to care about the losers’ sour grapes.
Lastly, achieving a monopoly is legal. It’s monopoly abuse that is illegal, as Microsoft knows all too well. Apple isn’t forcing anyone to buy iPods or use their iTunes Music Store. Consumers are choosing to do so of their own free will. In droves.
[UPDATE: 8/13, 10:05am ET: Changed headline.]
Related article:
The New Zealand Herald serves up a steaming pile of iPod FUD – August 11, 2005
The de facto standard for legal digital online music files: Apple’s protected MPEG-4 Audio (.m4p) – December 15, 2004
Whine whine whine.
Seems to me is Sony and their ilk that are delibrately making their products iPod incompatible. Then blaming it on Apple. What hutzpah!
The onslaught from the music label PR machine is growing. First the Peter Griffin article in New Zealand paper yesterday and then this one in Billboard. Both spouting the exact same “blame it on Apple” message with the same poorly done anal-ysis.
The music labels are going to keep pushing this premise in the hopes of making Apple look like the bad guy so that they can get through their price increase. Look for at least a couple of more articles from lazy “journalists” in the next week based on the same PR junk.
So for the next journalist – here’s the analysis:
At least 25 million iPod users on Macs and Windows PCs have bought over 500 million iTMS songs. Over 1.5 million songs a day. Very few (.01%), if any, are complaining about not being able to buy songs from a store other than Apple’s iTMS.
The 5 million non-iPod users, using one of 60 devices, limited only to a Windows PC, can buy songs from several WMA-based stores. With such bountiful choice, why are they complaining instead of buying songs? (The WMA stores have continuously refused to announce the pitifully small number of songs they’ve sold.) Why? Because they bought a second-rate player to use with a second-rate OS to buy songs from second-rate stores? Well yes. And no, because there are actually very few people complaining (no quotes from users who actually feel this way in the article!) – the whole thing is made up by the music labels!!!
If the music stores were so worried about compatability, they would switch to MP3. The very fact that they don’t is their own incompetence, not Apple’s fault.
I can’t wait for Coral to get their interoperable DRM scheme into the market – and then sell even fewer songs than the WMA stores. I can’t wait to see consumers prove this premise to be the pile of crock that it is.
Why does Billboard generate such junk? Because it’s willing to sacrifice its reputation and credibility for short-term music label advertising dollars. Beware the trade media … Always follow the money.
People are voting with their wallets, they like the seamless integration of the Apple experience.
I’ve enjoyed it for more than 20 years, can’t see any sense to use M$ inferior solutions
Wake up, music industry. Apple has implemented the ONLY solution to ensuring legal downloads, licensing compliance, and trackable sales in the industry. You loved them for it in the beginning. Now stand behind Apple to get the masses onboard, rather than trying to get Apple to open up the channels for the other, less legal and less dependable download services.
7 MacDailyNews Take’s.
I think that’s a record.
As usual, MDN pwns everyone. Especially the first take, that was classic.
Interesting article. It does say one thing to me that the music industry doesn’t care about reducing the price of music in order to increase music sales, it would rather keep the prices high and reduce the amount of times you can make copies of a music CD. To that I say fuck you all you greedy money grubbing music executives. I am happy to support the fantastic local talent of New Zealand artists. BIG UPs to you guys and girls! But I dont have a problem with getting other stuff for free unless some music exec wants to drop the price a bit…..Nah didnt think so. ,,/,,
Question?
WhY DOESN’t the music industry promote itunes music store?
Then more downloads sold means more money for them.
Stupid greedy, short-sided idiots running the record companies
They are just pissed that Apple created a way to make downloading music both legal and profitable, and that Apple didn’t “kiss the ring” and bow to their radiant divine given right to decide how it should be done. They didn’t want iTunes to succeed, they want us to go back to buying CD’s at retail outlets for inflated prices.
This all reminds me of the Coke vending machines.
They put them out there, they become insanely popular — what a great distribution idea.
The consumers are happily buying up all the Cokes, Pepsi begins their own vending machines that aren’t selling, and the industry becomes enraged that those Coke machines are not vending out Pepsi products!
Open up those Coke vending machines to other products!
There IS a problem with not licensing Fairplay. Not necessarily to iPod competitors, but to other music players that Apple seem reluctant to make. They could license them to Elgato and squeezebox for example, and maybe to Pioneer or Blaupunkt for use in car audio systems. Or failing that, they could just be making these things themselves. The only thing they’ve done is with the Airport Express, and that offers no display and no control from the receiving end.
This article is correct in stating that there should be a “standard” if you will for all these stores’ songs.
As someone who buys from many different music stores,an iPOD owner and a Mac-user, I hate Apples format, requiring me to rip proprietary format to mp3 so I can play my files on a real player, the iPOD really is an inferior device to me – not anywhere near as feature-rich as it should be,(I guess I’m the one owner in 25 million), and it doesn’t hold even a remote torch to my Archos jukebox.
So I think all of these groups, including Apple, should get together and come up with a better standard than the iTunes or WMA format – they could do it if they tried. Here’s hoping.
The good thing about iTunes is that it brought us a damn fine alternative to being criminal!
And the bad thing about it (and others) is that it forces us to simply remove any DRM in order to use it!!! I know a DJ, that uses his notebook and some USB hardware. In order to use the music he buys, he has to remove the DRM from every song. If i bought another digital musicplayer I would have to do the same. See it´s no sweat at all using whatever musicplayer You prefer with iTunes, as long as You remove the DRM. Well, if everybody keeps removing every kind of DRM in order to use their legally bought music and other media for reasonable purpose, the industry have a problem.
STAY WITH IT APPLE. IGNORE THE WHINGING.
I say that if Apple doen’t open iTMS/iTunes to other players and the iPod to other services, they might be facing a lawsuit. Why, you ask? This is just like (someone is going to kill me for this, I just know) Windows Media Player or IE being included with Windows. Think about it. The iPod only works with iTunes and its store, the store, with iTunes and IPod, and iTunes, with the store and the iPod (CDs and unprotected WMAs work too, I know but it’s a locked triangle anyway). MS might have a crooked monopoly with web browsers but Apple has the lagest crooked (I should start writing my will soon) one in music. Steve Jobs can say ”quality controle” all he wants, it’s a monopoly.
None of this even takes into account the burgeoning Podcast revolution which was given a major kick start recently by none other than Apple of course. Billboard is full of it. The digital music market is hardly being slowed by Apple, in fact, it’s growth is accelerating quite rapidly. The only digital music growth that is dreadfully slow is the growth of music sales using the WMA DRM…
andrew
Aug 13, 05 – 05:40 am
This article is correct in stating that there should be a “standard” if you will for all these stores’ songs.
As someone who buys from many different music stores,an iPOD owner and a Mac-user, I hate Apples format, requiring me to rip proprietary format to mp3 so I can play my files on a real player, the iPOD really is an inferior device to me – not anywhere near as feature-rich as it should be,(I guess I’m the one owner in 25 million), and it doesn’t hold even a remote torch to my Archos jukebox.
Andrew, just to clarify, AAC is not proprietary. The DRM put on from the iTMS is proprietary. AAC is not inferior to WMA.
AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) – An ISO/IEC standard compression scheme published in 1997 as part of the MPEG-2 family. Designed to improve on the older MP3 codec, it delivered better quality audio in the same size files. AAC has been enhanced several times since its inception, including an improved version that was created in the MPEG-4 family. This new version, also known as MP4, was adopted by Apple as the default choice when importing to CDs into its iTunes jukebox and iPod players. With the addition of Fairplay DRM, it is also used by the iTunes Music Store. Normal MPEG-4 AAC files use the extension .m4a, while DRM-protected files use the extension .m4p. Audiobooks use the extension .m4b. While some companies have been slow to offer support for AAC, open source AAC support can be found at audiocoding.com.
If you don’t like the DRM’d files from the music store then buy your music on CD and rip to what ever codec and bit rate you prefer to choose. You DON’T have to buy tracks online, you are FREE to choose.
snowy2005, Apple’s monopoly on the iPod and music store has been brought on by customers having a choice of ALL the music stores and music players and deciding to go with Apple. Microsoft BUNDLED IE with Windows onto 3rd party hardware and FORCED the Netscape browser off the desktop GUI thus giving Microsoft an ILLEGAL (underhand) market advantage. The difference is that Apple makes BOTH the iPod (hardware) AND iTunes (software) so is LEGALLY entitled to retain control over BOTH.Now considering that Drivers Saying: ‘I Want iPod!’
The iPod is for young audiophiles who want every song they like readily available in their pocket or purse, says Bob Borchers, senior director-iPod auto integration for Apple.
“People want to carry all their music with them all the time,” says Borchers, who spoke at the Auto Interiors Show, presented in Detroit by Ward’s. “The challenge is to make sure the music goes with you wherever you are.”
Most young people listen to their iPods with headphones, but the auto industry recognizes the “killer ap” is to have a simple connector in the instrument panel so an iPod can be plugged in.
The new Mercedes M-Class, for instance, has an optional dealer-installed port in the glovebox to accommodate an iPod, Borchers says.
Once plugged in, it synchs with the vehicle’s audio system and provides a digital read out on the radio display of the song that is playing. The driver also can scroll through songs on the iPod without handling the actual device. Instead, the driver can use the audio system’s controls, making for a clean, uncluttered cockpit, Borchers says.
The Mercedes system also charges the iPod’s battery Latest News about Batteries, without sapping energy from the vehicle’s main battery.
Mercedes will market aggressively in Europe its iPod Interface Kit this summer — first was with the launch of the B-Class Sports Tourer and then in July was with availability in the current A-Class, C-Class and E-Class models, as well as others. The price in Germany is US$230 plus installation, but does not include the iPod itself.
Aftermarket Options
Mercedes is not alone. Apple also has links with BMW, Volvo Cars, Mini, Toyota Motor’s (NYSE: TM) Latest News about Toyota Motor Scion youth brand, Nissan Motor, Alfa Romeo and Ferrari. Each auto maker, through dealer networks worldwide, is establishing sales and installation of kits to accommodate iPods.
For now, the kits are available only as aftermarket options. Borchers tells Ward’s some auto makers are considering iPod connectors as factory-installed options, but he declines to give a timetable of potential availability.
In the span of a few months, BMW sold 13,000 iPod connectors through its dealers in 2004, Borchers says. “And the company had a big backlog of orders, too,” he says.
Beyond auto dealers, independent audio retailers also are offering installation of iPod connectors from brands such as Alpine and Clarion for as little as $100, plus installation costs.
Until recently, these hardwire connectors were not available in vehicals. Adopters of iPod had to settle for a radio-frequency link that transmitted the iPod’s signal over the FM radio band. Connecting the iPod directly to the vehicle’s audio system boosts sound quality dramatically, Borchers says.
As for the iPod itself, the least expensive device, the iPod shuffle, costs $99 and can hold about 240 songs. The $449 model, with 60 GB of storage space, holds 15,000 songs. Several models are available between the two.
I don’t think Apple is going to have too many problems keeping the iPod ticking along.
Archos jukebox isn’t even in the C/Net Editor’s top 5 MP3 players. Apple has deliberately included fewer features in the iPod for the sake of seamless ease of use. That is what is winning over millions of PC users, not just good looks. They are tired of complicated Windows feature-bloat.
andrew is a troll.
snowy2005, being a monopoly is not illegal, ABUSING a monopoly position is. Apple is not forcing anyone to buy an iPod, nor to buy music from the iTMS. In fact, people can buy whatever player they want and still rip the music from a CD and put it on that player. They will always have that _choice_.
The comment about IE and Windows Media player is different, in the fact that those products are wholely integrated into Windows and cannot be (reasonably) removed without breaking Windows. That is called abusing a monopoly position. Microsoft got caught for it, but you can thank G Dubya for Microsoft not being penalized for it which is why they continue to do it.
Trev
i find it so funny that.. all of this bitching and moaning.. because.. these companies can’t compete.
they want the courts to bail them out? what? and they pretend to represent the consumers’ interests? the same consumers that, given myriad choices.. choose the iPod 80% of the time?
Listen up.. Vertical Integration works for some things.. namely.. consumer electronics..
Once you get a business, that is willing to be constantly going back and fixing/upgrading.. you need open architecture so you don’t get ‘fscked’ by suppliers, changing prices (hrm.. kinda like.. Microsoft with OS charging.. ironic.)
So when it comes down to it.. PEOPLE want vertical integration. BUSINESSES don’t really care how well things work.. they want buyer leverage. They can afford an IT dept.
What does this have to do with the iPod?
It’s obvious that Vertical Integration between software/hardware is the secret to the iPod.. no one else has that.. they’re slapping WMA and WMP and some third party player together.. totally clunky.
don’t see why apple have to cooperate with anything m$ has, the company can’t be trusted, remember what happened the first time?
andrew: i assume you meant the iPod is an inferior device, not the AAC open standard format (AAC is the audio format for MPEG-4). and if you like your archos so much, why not sell your iPod on eBay or give it away? Apple is not forcing you to buy from iTMS. (If you only use a Mac, the WMA-DRMed music stores are forcing you to buy downloaded music from iTMS, since they refuse to make their stores work on the Mac, and Microsoft refuses to make WMP 10 for the Mac. Of course, you can always buy CDs – even the protected ones are rippable on the Mac.)
But if you use Windows, you have two options today:
1. a vertically integrated, seamless system consisting of the iPod, iTMS and iTunes and all kinds the accessories for the car and home, and 2 choices for OS: Mac or Windows.
Or 2. a “PlaysforSure” system built around Microsoft’s proprietary WMA format such that the portable player, store, and jukebox can come from different companies allowing you to choose from many different players, music stores, and jukeboxes but all tied to one OS: Windows. And there are a few accessories for the home. (Note: WMA locks you into Windows PCs.)
So choose your path. If you like everything to work together simply, choose iPod. If you like to choose from different players, stores, and jukeboxes, and like to tinker to make things work, and like to use only Windows, choose WMA PlaysforSure.
Don’t whine about Apple has to do – they’ve already provided you a way to opt out of the Microsoft tinker approach. Millions of consumers have spoken during this past year and they’ve chosen the iPod system.
If you own an iPod or use iTunes and can get the songs/albums you want from Apple, why would you want to buy crappy WMA/Janus DRM files from the also-rans?
The world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, has figured this out and is now selling iTunes pre-paid cards. Notice how you don’t see the signs plugging their music store all over the music dept. anymore?
Just want to make it clear: It’s Microsoft’s proprietary DRM for WMA that locks you into Windows. I’m giving that DRM the name PlaysforSure, which means that it maybe plays for sure; you need to try it first.
iTunes provides an option for you to convert non-DRMed WMA into AAC or MP3. And the iTunes choice plays for sure with an iPod and iTMS.
the recording industry, for obvious reasons, wants its product to be compatible with as much of the hardware out there as possible. in other words, the industry is hardware agnostic. it deffinitely does not want Apple to control the distribution of its product and be the only maker of hardware that can play its product. there is a risk of that happening if iTunes with its proprietary DRM supplants the traditional distribution network. that means Apple must license FairPlay or make an enemy of the recording industry. The recording industry wants to copy protect future CDs. If Apple won’t license FairPlay for CD playback, then there will be no CDs compatible with the iPod in the future.
if you use an iPod, why would you want to buy anywhere else? is there a lot of music out there that’s available on other stores but not on iTMS? is it so much cheaper that it’s worth your time to check out all sorts of stores and know about all different kinds of usage rules about your music? is it the subscription option? why?
“MacDailyNews Take: Why settle for asking just one? Ask all three of them.”
ROFL!
MDN has crawled so far up Apple’s ass that is pathetic…some MDN takes are good, while others read like the product of a badly trained defense attorney. Take:
“Consumers, meanwhile, are happily buying iPods, importing music from Red Book compliant Compact Discs that they own, and using the iTunes Music Store on both Macs and PCs.”
Could you be a little more obvious with the “Red Book compliant Compact Disc” crap? And making sure to leave out any mention of consumers that would like to stream through anything other than airport express?
I don’t mind the constant brown running from MDN’s ass about what is good for Apple as a company–obviously if you like the company’s products you want the company to do well so they continue to make said products.
However, pretending that incompatibility is good for consumers, or not that big a deal for consumers, is a load of crap. We can take for granted that Microsoft and the labels don’t care about consumers. I will faithfully submit that Apple doesn’t care about music consumers in a moral or ethical sense either. Who does that leave to speak for consumers? Well, sites like MDN–except that MDN doesn’t give a crap about consumers, either, except to the extent that they keep shoveling money into Apple’s trough.
Someone please explain to me how it is in my interest, as a consumer, that Apple will not license Fairplay so that Fairplay encoded tracks and be put side-by-side with WMA coded tracks on copy-protected CDs. Explain why it is in my interest as a consumer that I can’t play music tracks I’ve purchased from iTMS through a Roku device without jumping through hoops. Explain why it is in my interest as a consumer that an indie label that wants to offer its tracks online only has the option of selling them as WMA files if they want copy protection–or signing a deal with Apple and hoping Apple chooses to offer some of their tracks on iTMS.
I can understand Apple not wanting to pay a licensing fee to MS and therefore not selling WMA tracks or WMA-playability on the iPod. What I can’t understand is Apple not spreading Fairplay vertically through the consumer electronics market–licensing to labels, licensing to Roku and other hardware manufacturers. But what I find incredibly perplexing is MDN’s stance that this is good for consumers.
OpJ,
MDN/iPodDN’s stance doesn’t seem to be that “this is good for consumers.” The way I read it, their stance seems to be: let the market do the choosing and don’t let the whining of the losers color your opinion of the winner.
Apple needs to stay the course. They also need to get off their asses and get me a remote for Airport Express, but I think a lot of stuff is coming with Intel Inside that won’t be just Macs, but also entertainment-related. I think Steve Jobs has a lot up his sleeve that we cannot even imagine, yet.
OpJ-
Have you looked at the song sales chart for iTMS recently? (If you haven’t, it shows an accelerating upward slope over the last few months).
** If ** iTMS sales were starting to flatten out or contract, or iPod sales were in the same situation, then I could see a good case for reaching out to other standards. You could have iTMS sell songs to people with non-iPod players that way, or if iPod implemented WMA, it could possibly play songs from other stores. That time hasn’t come yet. Like the MDN response pointed out, if you buy a WMA player you certainly have plenty of music store choices.
One thing that no chart or survey is able to measure is how many millions of songs have been getting ripped onto iPod from the piles and piles of CD’s that typical music fans have around their house, or how many dusty MP3 files from the free trading days of Napster are being loaded onto iPods. Would you guess that those total numbers are higher or lower than the total iTMS tracks sold?
You really have to look very hard to find an iPod buyer that is rationally complaining about a lack of ways to get music onto their player. The MDN take about the whining coming from the also-rans, is spot on.
Cliff’s notes version for the consumer:
step 1. buy any music player you like.
step 2. load songs onto it using whatever avenues work for you. iPod offers several routes to do this; other players do as well.
there is no step 3.
Apple is in no danger of an anti-trust issue. Unlike MSFT, Apple has done nothing to “force” its products onto the marketplace, unless you consider making a better product “force”.
Consider this: WMA does not work on Mac, iTunes works on Mac and Windows. If anybody is being hurt it is users of WMA BECAUSE it is not cross platform.
Windows consumers can buy any of 60+/- devices and shop about a dozen different music stores. They have elected to buy iPod and shop iTMS.
Mac users only have one option BECAUSE MSFT refuses to port WMA to the Mac platform.
Creative, Rio, Samsung, Sony, Archos, Virgin et al are failing because they make an inferior product. Not because Apple is doing something underhanded.
Napster, Real, Rapsody et al are failing because they use inferior technology. Not because Apple is doing something underhanded.
Two years ago there were well over 100 different MP3 players on the market. Today there are about 60. The consolidation of the weaker makers is in full steam. All the rantings from makers and services are the squealings of firms in their death throes.
The record labels have a huge stake in who wins. Initially they were delighted when Apple showed them the way. Now they are scared to death that they will have to dance to Apple’s tune. They ignore what the consequences would have been had MSFT dominated with WMA.
Why won’t any of these other music distributors let me into their sites so I can buy their music? I don’t care what format the music is in. I’ll buy it and make it work. I don’t even own an iPod. I just want to buy and download their music. But they won’t let me into their music sites merely because I’m on a Mac. Why? It’s not fair!
Mark: that’s kinda the point–Apple isn’t letting the market do the choosing. The market has chosen the iPod–as it should, the iPod is head and shoulders above any of the competition, and keeps getting better. The iPod is so much better than competing products that it is hard to explain why the other players are as bad as they are. However, Apple is then sitting there like a rock. In digital music sales they not only are trying to leverage the market’s choice of the iPod as a mandated choice of iTMS as the only music store, but also aren’t letting anyone have any other way to get copy protected tracks onto the iPod. If you are a music act that wants to sell your tracks online and doesn’t want to release your tracks unprotected, you have only one way to get tracks easily onto an iPod–iTMS. And if iTMS doesn’t want to offer your tracks, you are shit out of luck. How’s that the market chosing?
How is the market chosing when you have to buy tracks from iTMS instead of buying a CD, because the CD is copy protected and Apple won’t license Fairplay. Where’s the market choice there? How do you know that the market, if given a choice, wouldn’t want a CD that can be played on a CD player and has Fairplay tracks ready to copy directly to iPod, without having to rip the CD?
How is the market chosing when the option available is to get either get an Airport Express plug that does music-streaming as a side-feature, with no remote, display, etc. or get a Roku device that does all those things but can’t stream Fairplay tracks?
And how’s the market chosing when there are products that won’t get offered in the first place because they aren’t marketable if they can’t play Fairplay tracks, and Apple won’t let them work with Fairplay tracks.
If you are getting in the way of consumers making choices and making one choice (iPod) determine other choices then you are not letting the market decide–you are interfering with the market.
Again, it is fine to support that as long as you are honest and admitting that you are flacking for the company, not for the users. Personally, I’m more impressed by a site that is on my side, instead of being a company whore.
Whoa, wait, what:
“Lastly, achieving a monopoly is legal. It’s monopoly abuse that is illegal, as Microsoft knows all too well. Apple isn’t forcing anyone to buy iPods or use their iTunes Music Store. Consumers are choosing to do so of their own free will. In droves.”
Microsoft was caught for a monopoly for forcing people to use Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player because nothing else would work. When you by iPods, nothing else works behind iTunes. You make it seem like people are making a conscious decision to choose both individually, and they just so happen to work together. Really, for some people they buy one and are FORCED to use the other.
It’s so funny when the shoe is on the other foot. None of these people would be worried about compatibility if Apple was not the standard. They can’t sell their crap so they want legislative help.
Grow up!
Putty–try reading my comment. Reading is fundamental. Helps avoid a lot of unnecessary conflicts–like this one. Did I mention anything about Apple supporting other codecs? Or selling other codecs? Or building more into iTunes or the iPod? Crap–I just went back and looked and it appears that I didn’t.
What I *did* write is that Apple is behaving badly by not licensing Fairplay and thereby restricting both the variety of music, hardware and ancillary products that are available.
I fail to see how that is in the interest of the consumer–and fail to see how that deserves cheerleading from the site that should be written in the interest of its readers, not a corporation.
In the digital music field you are seeing big monsters fighting, and people getting stepped on. MDN is too busy cheering on one of the monsters to give a crap about the people.
OpJ-
Apple has provided a solution for one of the issues you raise. On a Mac, you can in fact rip the audio off of the so-called “copy protected” CD’s.
Perhaps Windows Vista will also include this advanced feature.
The copy-protected CD idea is a non starter – there are too many millions of dumb CD players in cars and boom boxes everywhere, for the music companies to be able to release any new “compact discs” that won’t play in them. As long as that fact remains in effect, it will be technically possible to rip audio off of those unencrpted portions of the disc, and iTunes on Mac demonstrates that.
You also ask “How is the market choosing” and I think the answer is about the same as any other market – one buyer at a time.
Although there is probably a factor similar to the one which has made Windows so big, which is the “I want what all my friends have” effect. Windows had about 10 years in the marketplace before any serious “antitrust” concerns were raised in the courts; Apple deserves at least that long to see if they can hold off the yearly swarm of “iPod killers” I keep reading about.
The problem with a lot of these discussions is people keep confusing choice before the sale with choice after the sale. Before you choose a music player, decide which services you would like to be able to use. Ask your friends that have other brands of player, what they use. And then decide.
If you find that you made a boo-boo and don’t like the choices available after buying somebody’s player, sell it and get one you like better.
OpJ: “The” CD is copy protected? Are you assuming that all CDs will be copy protected? Perhaps they will but they sure aren’t now and as such, it’s a bit of a stretch to be implying that Apple is depriving CD owners of copying capabilities by refusing to license its DRM.
If you are going to make your assertions based on how you guess things will work out to be in the future .. you might as well get with the program and guess that Apple is doing all the right things, both for itself, for the developing market and most importantly .. for the consumer.
“Before you choose a music player, decide which services you would like to be able to use. Ask your friends that have other brands of player, what they use. And then decide.”
And this why, Putty, you are an idiot. (I call myself a jerk, so I don’t feel bad about calling anyone else an idiot.)
Chosing a player shouldn’t have anythign to do with choosing services. One is a player. A chunk of plastic and metal. The other are software services, auxillary products, etc. etc. etc. Anyone wanting to offer a product–software, hardware, anything–compatible with a particular player ought to be free to do so. Not free as in no cost, necessarily. But there shouldn’t be a manufacturer standing there saying, “No.”
There is absolutely nothing in it for the consumer for a manufacturer–Apple or anyone else–standing in the way of what you can do with the product you’ve purchased. To take the side of the manufacturer is to be a sycophantic little asspuppy.
Hope you enjoy your time in Steve’s colon.
OpJ, I can see you’re frustrated.
I think the summary of Apple’s behavior is very simple really.
They won’t do anything to jeopardize their business position. In the position they are in at this time, it would not make any sense to make life easier for the competition. I would expect the competition to also avoid doing anything that would weaken their business (multi million dollar super bowl ads aside)
If you were the CEO, what changes would you make to the iPod/iTunes product? Maybe if you posted a specific idea, it could be discussed more rationally (and we could see both sides of it). I’ll stand by my earlier assertion, if market conditions change suuch that opening up FairPlay would be important to Apple, they will do it. At present that would be a bad move – it only makes life easier for competitors.
I believe Apple is keeping the workings of FairPlay close to the vest because they do not want a re-play of the DVD CSS problem where DVD ripping software became commonplace.
An unrelated question, I wonder if one boots that hacked OS X for x86 on an Intel machine, if it can rip “copy protected” CD’s ?
What should competitors be doing to take a bite out of iPod? cut prices?
Great takes, MDN.
If Apple has slowed the growth of digital music, Microsoft has put the computer industry decades behind with its predatory behaviour.
MW: “Respect” the better product
You are not “forced” to use iTMS if you buy an iPod.
Rip CDs into it or buy WMA DRM tracks from any other online service (of course you’re stuck having to use a Windows PC for that) and burn a CD, take the quality hit and import into iTunes – or use P2P at your own risk.
In fact, you are not “forced” to buy an iPod to use Apple’s iTunes and/or iTunes Music Store.
Face it, naysayers, Apple has constructed the perfect trio, iPod+iTunes+iTunes Music Store. Neither iPod nor iTunes Music Store requires the other and Apple isn’t forcing anything on anybody.
MDN/iPodDN said it best above and also here:
Enjoying Apple’s iTunes and iTunes Music Store without owning an iPod
iPodDN MW: “fact” (and I swear to God that’s really the MW)
From TFA: Even the CD presents DRM issues, because Apple has not licensed Fair Play for inclusion on copy-protected discs, thus making secure CDs incompatible with the iPod
This has to be one of the most backwards, and causally confused statements i have read with respect to this issue. The problem is not Apple’s unwillingness to license FairPlay, it is the labels’ decision to put DRM on CDs. That is what is causing the incompatibility.
Yet somehow the labels believe the best way to combat piracy is to encumber the usage rights of people who are actually buying CDs. Brilliant! Here’s how the phases break down:
1. Piss off existing customers
2. ???
3. Profit!
Oh … by the way … God bless you MDN. This is most excellent work, and on a Saturday morning too! Put your feet up for the rest of the day. You deserve it
First take = instant classic
/off to buy some iTMS tracks through the MDN affiliate link.
be nice to MS and support WMA. Only MS can truly make the world open and available to all.
How can you be so stubborn to the altruistic angels of MS.
Apple is offering a product that is selling. The same product is available in many other forms and places, physical locations and over the internet.
The competition is offering the same exact content, and virtually identical products as well.
So why must Apple open up their product to the competition? It may be in their best interest for greater iPod sales, but they will hold that trump card and make that decision when the market dictates it.
–As an aside, MS was taken to court for attempting to actually sabotage their competition in various forms. Apple is simply creating and selling a popular product, their own product, and it is available to all computer users.
From OPJ
<<What I *did* write is that Apple is behaving badly by not licensing Fairplay and thereby restricting both the variety of music, hardware and ancillary products that are available.
I fail to see how that is in the interest of the consumer–and fail to see how that deserves cheerleading from the site that should be written in the interest of its readers, not a corporation.>>
Hey OPJ, what has MSFT done to embrace interoperability. WMA does not work on Mac. As a Mac user, if I wanted to buy a Rio player, I would also have to buy a Wintel to use it. WMA DOESN’T WORK ON MAC. That is MSFT’s choice.
Apple on the other hand made iTunes available for Windows. WINDOWS USERS, HAVING A CHOICE OF 60+ PLAYERS AND A DOZEN DIFFERENT SERVICES, CHOSE IPOD & ITMS.
It appears to me that Apple has done far more than MSFT to create an interoperable product. Creative, Rio, Samsung etc can’t bitch MSFT (their livelihoods depend on MSFT) so they bitch Apple.
Interoperability is a non-issue.
I love all these DRMed cd’s coming out, because everyone who attempts to rip them with their computer will learn a painful lesson.
Just buy it via iTMS in the first place
What will be painful is those who started building a collection of cd’s, not realizing they are copy proected and buy the time they get a computer to rip them the M$ DRM will be so tough that copying will not be possible.
Shucks, if I weren’t so stupid, I might read all these articles coming out all at once and say to myself “It’s almost like a corporation that spends millions of dollars hiring really expensive Public Relations firms somehow got all these “journalists” to all write various versions of the same spin, all at once…”
Luckily, I’m too stupid for that kind of thinking. I just swallow everything I read in the paper.
Gregg Thurman said “Two years ago there were well over 100 different MP3 players on the market. Today there are about 60. The consolidation of the weaker makers is in full steam. All the rantings from makers and services are the squealings of firms in their death throes.”
I agree with your points whole heartedly except you are mis-interpreting some facts they said only 60 players that are M$ DRM compatible. there are still hundreds of mp3 makers, but they are just smart enough to cater to the mp3 and not the DRM audience.
This “compatibility issue” is really a non-starter. I mean, all the music stores basically offer the same songs at the same quality and around same price—at least as far as the US and major labels. If someone doesn’t want an iPod, it really doesn’t affect his/her choice of “software.”
This is like saying the console gaming industry would really blossom if the manufacturers (Sony, MS and Nintendo) would just standardize their software.
Wait maybe the whinners are on to something. Apple could promise to be WMA compliant just after Microsoft becomes fully MacOS compliant.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> Why is standardization only a problem when it impacts the Microsoft world?! The Mac faithful have worked around, thru and over compatability issues for years… It’s not fun, but it is part of the territory. Microsoft is the king of incompatable formats.
Also, there are other compatibility issues that are out in front the tech media community. Why isn’t the issue of digital music compatability brought into a larger context of media compatability. Because, any journalist of any sense knows that every company desires to establish their own standard of preference as the popular choice for consumers giving them a business edge. A natural fallout of our capatalistic system which has blessed and served us so well.
Can we please stop calling copy-protected discs Compact Discs.
The Red Book spec does provide a means for copy management, namely the SCMS system which is largely ignored by Apple’s iTunes, Microsoft’s Windows Media Player or any of the other popular digital jukeboxes.
Any other “kludge” that effectively makes a data session the initial session of a disc means that the disc in question ceases to be spec-compliant. It’s that simple.
Also, if you use iTunes with a converted CD library, you have a range of rendering devices other than the iPod: you can use Sonos’ Zoneplayer, Roku’s Soundbridge, Hemestedt’s Hifidelio, Olive’s Symphony and even iRiver’s range of personal digital devices: the thing is that iRiver – AFAIK – will only play MP3 files and requires you to use a truly inelegant (dare I say, almost Windows-like) mechanism to get the files onto the player.
I grant people the fact that Protected AAC is a problem with only Airport Express able to render the files. However, the problem is mitigated by burning to CD and then reimporting, at which point you can render to any device you please.
Also let’s remember one interesting fact: between 28th April 2003 and 16th October 2003 (171 days), Apple sold 13 million tracks to a Jaguar-using population based solely in the United States – a rate of nearly 70,000 downloads/day. Following the launch of the Windows (2000/XP) version of iTunes and iTMS on the 16 October 2003, Apple achieved the next 12 million downloads in only 57 days (12 December 2003) at a rate of over 210,000 tracks/day.
In other words, Windows users – who, contrary to popular history, had plenty of choice of second-rate music stores and third-rate players prior to 16/10/03 – appear to have been responsible for iTMS sales rising by 300% in less than two months. Furthermore, by 11/03/04 – ninety days later, Apple had sold another 25 million tracks: a rate of nearly 278,000/day proving that the initial take-up was no fluke.
Furthermore, in Q1 FY2004 (the quarter in which iTunes for Windows was released), iPod sales increased to 733,000 units for the quarter compared to 336,000 units in the previous quarter. Sadly the figures for Q1 FY2003 do not appear to be available, but would probably be under 80,000 units.
So, by being the only cpmpany to create and support a fully-integrated music management solution on both Windows and Macintosh platforms, Apple nearly doubled sales of its personal music player and tripled sales of downloads from its allegedly proprietary music store. So maybe, instead of whining about incompatible DRM systems, maybe the followers of the WMA architecture should ask themselves if they could make their lives better by supporting AAC through QuickTime (thus making their players cross-platform) and working harder (with people like Art & Logic) to make their players work under integration with iTunes.
I know of one music player manufacturer who simply refuses to integrate their player under iTunes because, and I quote a senior sales body, “they don’t want to be too closely identified with Apple and iTunes Music Store”. Now I don’t mean to be judgemental, but that strikes me a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face…
Speaking of “choice” it would seem that NOT everyone likes Sony Music in Japan….
Musicians working to join iTunes in Japan
AUG. 10 3:01 A.M. ET Japanese musicians under contract with Sony and other labels that haven’t joined Apple’s iTunes Music Store are starting to defy their recording companies and trying to get their music on the popular download service launched last week in Japan.
At least one artist has already gone against his label to offer his songs on iTunes. And a major agency that manages Japanese musicians said Wednesday it was interested in a possible deal with Apple Computer Inc., regardless of the recording companies’ positions.
Online music stores had not taken off in Japan until iTune’s arrival last Thursday, which opened with a million songs from 15 Japanese record labels.
In just four days, customers downloaded 1 million songs — the fastest pace for the service’s launch in any of the 20 nations it’s become available, including the U.S. Most songs cost 150 yen (US$1.35; euro1) to download, and only 10 percent cost 200 yen (US$1.80; euro1.40).
But Sony Corp.’s music division has not signed up to join Apple’s service.
The two companies have emerged as major rivals in the portable music player business. Apple’s iPod music player, which stores music on a hard drive, has hurt Sony, which its own Network Walkman, some of which have hard drives.
Sony Music Entertainment and Apple say they’re in talks but there’s been no agreement.
But wayward artists could just start averting the issue and opt to offer their music to iTunes.
Rock musician Motoharu Sano, who has a recording contract with Sony, is making some of his songs available on iTunes, according to his official Web page.
“It is an individual’s freedom where that person chooses to listen to music. I want to deliver my music wherever my listeners are,” Sano was quoted as saying by Japan’s top business daily Nihon Keizai Shimbun Wednesday.
Amuse Inc., an agent for some of Japan’s most popular artists, is also thinking about joining iTunes. The company, which pushes musicians signed not only with Sony but also others, had initially decided against signing with iTunes.
“But we are considering joining in the future,” Amuse spokeswoman Kyoko Ijichi said Wednesday. “We want to do what users want.”
Eddy Cue, Apple vice president of applications, acknowledged earlier this week that more work is needed to sign additional record companies for the Japanese service.
Tokyo-based recording company Victor Entertainment spokesman Yoshiaki Aoki said Wednesday talks are still continuing with Apple, but stressed he is interested in a deal.
Still, iTunes’ popularity in Japan has been stunning. The publicity campaign, including a rare personal appearance by Chief Executive Steve Jobs, has grabbed media attention here.
Before iTunes’ arrival, Japan’s top music download service, which is backed by Sony and includes Sony recording artists, averaged about 450,000 downloads a month.
By offering its service for lower prices, Apple is undercutting such online music services. Japanese are accustomed to paying twice as much as Apple is charging in Japan, which are still higher than the 99 cents charged in the U.S.
Apple has sold 21.8 million iPods worldwide since it went on sale in October 2001, and more than 500 million songs through its iTunes Music Store.
MCCFR: Given MS’ past behavior, don’t you think there might be some fine print in that WMA license about MS co-marketing funds disappearing if you are “too closely identified with Apple and iTunes Music Store”?
Apple sold 219000 iPods in Q1 of FY2003. So sales just about tripled from one Christmas to the next once iTunes for Windows became available.
OpJ: Apple’s chosen method is to let the iPod (or iTunes on the Mac or Windows PC) be the music renderer for any ancillary device. In other words I can dock my iPod with an Onkyo stereo, Bose speakers, car stereo, etc, and hear my music. The only point on which I agree with you is the lack of a remote control for such an attached iPod. I bet by MacWorld Paris, this little problem will be taken care of. Let’s revisit the situation after then.
And please, there’s no need to be nasty or condescending to those responding to your points. You only make yourself look bad.
How depressing…it just occured to me that these whiners (they don’t deserve to be called competitors) are probably going to take the low road that is so f’n popular today and sue Apple to give up their DRM exclusivity and let everone have their “fair share of the pie”.
Anyone ever try buying and downloading a song from BuyMusic.com? I won a free song from Del Taco. Using VirtualPC (since Macs aren’t supported), I spent 20 minutes trying to download one song! It took me 3-4 minutes just to find the song I was searching for because their search engine pulls up not only songs, but books, CDs, and all kinds of crap. Then I can only play it in VirtualPC b/c Microsoft hasn’t released Windows Media 10 for Mac (and probably won’t).
Why the hell do I want to deal with BuyMusic.com when I can find my song (in the nice, pleasing, easy-to-navigate interface of iTunes), download via One Click, and be listening to my song in less than 1 minute total time? No wonder iTunes and iPod dominate the market.
@ FUDDY:
Thanks for adding that last statistic, much appreciated – in the spreadsheet that I maintain already.
And to add to your comment addressed to OpJ, I would go and have an look at the work of Open Peak (http://www.openpeak.com) and in particular here at http://www.openpeak.com/news_release_98.html (sorry, I can’t remember how to embed links at MDN): I see a fully-functional iTunes/Airport Express coming – the only question is whose badge is going to be on the damn thing.
I really resent your equating my Window Media Audio with maple syrup.
iPodDN MW: “quality” (What’s that, exactly?)
Hi. It’s been ten and a half hours.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it is a good thing for me, or any other consumer, that Apple won’t license Fairplay.
Tick tock tick tock.
Anyone?
I see these whiners are indirectly promoting Microsoft. The claim that the market would grow if only Apple would get out of the way is just a theory. If Apple moved out of the way they don’t know that Microsoft’s monopoly wouldn’t drive the market into the ground.
Personally I’m starting to think that DRM is a bad idea. It’s the greedy music business pimps trying to corral a good thing. Instead they’re going to kill it.
The biggest drawback to Microsoft and its WMA-DRM (PlaysForSure hyperbole) is its Windows-only nature, hence not available or compatible on Mac, Linux and/or Amiga!
OpJ,
My customer’s (I’m a shareholder) in general are VERY happy with the current situation. I never expected my company to please everyone, especially the competition.
Can you explain why it is not in Apple’s best interest (and mine) to diverge from the status quo and license Fairplay at this time, rather that hold out until if/when it is necesarry?
Tick tock tick tock…
OpJ?
sorry…
Why it is in Apple’s best interest (and mine) to diverge from the status quo and license Fairplay at this time, rather than hold out until if/when it is necesarry?
OpJ:
Why is it Apple’s job to meet your demands? Why does anybody here have to answer for Apple?
But I’ll take the bait.
My best guess is that Apple’s doing what it thinks is best for consumers, the music execs, the artists, and itself/shareholders. You know, tradeoffs. MDN obviously thinks Apple has the best solution so far. I agree. Will something better emerge? Let’s hope so and vote for the best opportunities with our dollars.
Hello.
It’s been fifteen and a half years.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it is a good thing for ME, or any other ‘consumer’ (a true M$ word), that M$ won’t license xls; doc; or ppt.
Tick tock tick tock.
Anyone?
–
PS. Apple has CUSTOMERS, Micro$oft has CONSUMERS. It’s too bad so many don’t ‘get’ this…
MDN, your comments are stupid. Please try to retain an aire of professionalism. Thank you.
Shaun,
Are you serious?
Hey,
I’ll bet everything that I own with any AppleHater, that if your beloved M$ was in the position that Apple was in – regarding digital music – you wouldn’t utter one fscking word about ‘incompatibility’. Your attitude would be, “Oh, It’s Apple’s DUTY to comply with the ‘industry ‘STANDARD'”.
Yeah, whatever. Whatever rules you need to ensure that ‘your team’ ALWAYS wins. Invertebrates like you, are far too fragile to actually COMPETE – thus the ever changing rulebook.
BTW, are industry standards only applicable if set by Micro$oft – a twice convicted ILLEGAL monopolist? Please use whatever form of revisionism or justification you need to, to bolster your flaccid argument.
–
Anyway, ‘Artisticulated’ is correct… Apple’s currently doing what it thinks is best for customers, the music execs, the artists, and itself/shareholders. You know… tradeoffs.
FactA
Aug 13, 05 – 10:21 pm
Hello.
It’s been fifteen and a half years.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it is a good thing for ME, or any other ‘consumer’ (a true M$ word), that M$ won’t license xls; doc; or ppt.
Tick tock tick tock.
Anyone?
–
PS. Apple has CUSTOMERS, Micro$oft has CONSUMERS. It’s too bad so many don’t ‘get’ this…
I love the response! The ultimate reply to comments about Microsoft being “Open”
themax-x Question?
WhY DOESN’t the music industry promote itunes music store?
Because, how will they get us to buy their unholy expensive CDs.
They whine about iTunes yet the others don’t even support Macs. And the other services don’t have the great DRM that Apple has. And there to stupid to make there own. Like MacDailyNews says why should Apple give away there profits to the others. Did Microsoft do that when they were winning the OS wars, NO! This is called the best product wins in a free society and Apple has the best music download system period. Easy to use on both Mac and Windows which none of the others even offer. The best portable player with the best music store. So that is just to bad for the others now isn’t it.
OpJ,
The reason it is in your best interest that Apple NOT license Fairplay is because Apple has created the ONLY truly successful legal music download ecosystem, an advancement that has pushed the online music industry forward like no other, and its use of proprietary DRM is as essential in its formula as the iPod hardware, the iTunes software, and the iTMS. In order to continue pushing the online music industry forward, it’s in everybody’s best interest that Apple maintain its formula as is until Apple sees fit to change the game play.
What is the real point here?
Is it incompatibility and competition or is it rather getting consumer feet wet for Trusted Computing and Digital Restrictions Management?
Here some independent info on TC and DRM:
Trusted Computing FAQ by Professor Ross Anderson
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
DRM and Copy Protection Schemes
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM
Your General-Purpose PC –> Hollywood-Approved Entertainment Appliance
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003882.php
An Optimistic Vision of a Future with TC and DRM
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1847514,00.asp
An Alternative to TC and DRM
MusicFreedom Presents Another Way For Artists To Get Their Music To Fans
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20050805TheSellOfMusic.html
MW: “training,” as in, Apple is training the digital download music industry
If it weren’t for Apple in the first place, there wouldn’t be any boom in digital music downloads at all!
It’s in our best interests for Apple not to license FairPlay because the iPod and iTunes “just work”. Start introducing third parties into the equation and you lose that reliability.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it is a good thing for me, or any other consumer, that Apple won’t license Fairplay.
Tick tock tick tock.
Anyone?
————————
Vertical Integration is a no-brainer for Consumer Electronics.. only Apple is willing to do it for Computers (Game Companies do it for Consoles..)
Now.. the iPod is basically vertically integrated.. Apple does pick up Synaptics tech, and throw together the parts from various suppliers, but, the iTunes player, and the iPod are made for each other.
With an 80% marketshare in player and iTMS markets… Apple is in no rush to license.
But.. you ask.. why NOT license.. there is NOT downside!
Are you kidding? Making other players work with iTunes the way the iPod works with iTunes.. aren’t you helping out the competition?
Why would you want to lose potential ITMS future revenues?
The most important aspect is that Apple would take slack for… say.. Creative’s shortcomings. Someone would complain that their Creative Player sounded like shit.. or iTunes was misfiring on the sync and Apple would look like a scrappy mediocre player.
By focusing on EXCELLENCE.. not ‘good enough’.. Apple’s brand is sterling.
More future profits, More brand integrity
Also, just to finish off the argument from my point of view.
iTMS performance in 2003: somewhere around 230,000 downloads/day
iTMS performance in 2004: around 475,000 downloads/day
iTMS performance in 2005: around 1.4 million downloads/day
So, whatever else is causing a delay in the development of the digital downloads market, the iTunes platform and its alleged incompatibility with several dozen ugly, half-assed players and various WMA stores, would not appear to be responsible.
Here’s a thought: maybe the development of the WMA legal download industry is being held back because it is simply too difficult to use.
Too much choice: from Korean monoliths to “boutique” (i.e. too small to be significant) players created from OEM components, there are way too many personal music players with too many potential integration problems.
Too much choice: seriously, how many media players does the Windows market need? WinAmp, Windows Media Player, Musicmatch, etc. Surely, they all do the same thing – take an audio file and play it through some speakers. It’s not like as if any of them add value like iTunes by integrating a store or the management of players.
Too much choice: And what is is the point in having a dozen or more music stores all offering the same 500,000 to 1.5 million track catalogues: the only thing that does is create consumer confusion as they try to work out what is the best DRM deal for the money.
So you have too many players to integrate with too many media players whilst trying to ensure that the DRM from all the sites you might buy from works on a diverse range of players, some of which might have been produced by “get rich quick” OEMs who are no longer in business and no longer releasing firmware/software updates to address problems in the field.
iTunes/iPod/iTMS is successful simply because it takes a problem and deals with it in a holistic, rather than monopolistic, manner: it also recognises that 99%+ of the music that exists out there in customer collections exists in a physical CD form, whilst the rest of the industry obsesses about digital delivery.
Seriously, these people need to get a grip.
Well said MCCFR
I think this can be summed up one of MDN’s comments:
“It’s the losers (Napster, Microsoft, Sony, Creative, iRiver, RealNetworks, etc.) that are whining. Not music buyers. Not music player buyers.”
The most irritating thing to me is hearing about how the recording industry wants to raise prices … pure greed … they get the largest chunk from each ITMS sale … and it must already be close to pure profit on their part since they don’t have to create a physical product (ie. a CD) or ship it all over the planet. Over time, I imagine the only company whose actual costs go up is Apple since they host the store and manage the accounting.
Several colleagues have purchased iPods after I did early last year … all of them are Windows users and everyone of them has commented to me how easy/simple the iPod/iTunes/ITMS combination is to use. Many competitors to Apple forget that the vast majority of customers have no desire to become a geek simply to get their MP3 player to work.
As has been said before, when the market demands such a move (customers, NOT competitors), Apple will do so.
Goo job, MDN.
It is in every mac users interest that Apple license FairPlay for CD playback because if it doesn’t future DRM protected CDs will not play on Macintosh computers or iPods. The only alternative will be downloading poor sound quality iTune music store files.
justified said, “it’s in everybody’s best interest that Apple maintain its formula as is until Apple sees fit to change the game play.”
let me see if i understand this correctly. it is in my interest to be against licensing and follow Apple until Apple decides to change. Then, because Apple decided to change its plan it is in my interest to support the change? Wow! Someone has been drinking the Kool-Aid big time.
Any CD that is ever sold in a store has to be able to play on a “dumb” $20 portable CD player or car stereo CD player. Those players don’t know anything about encryption or strange formats. That fact alone means it will be a very very long time before we see any credible “secure CD” format – the customer backlash from finding CD’s that won’t play in conventional CD players would be too large.
The secure-CD’s that are out now are kind of a joke – even though Windows trips ups on them, the Mac rips them fine – wanna bet OS X on PC hardware can rip them as well? It’s because the discs still have unencrypted audio on them.
I believe to make that kind of change really happen, the entire CD player industry would have to be evangelized to include that extra functionality, on every player, for some years, to ensure significant market uptake. And we will continue to hear noises about “industry forces” that want to do that.
the issue here is not about loser downloading service like Napster complaing that their music won’t play on iPods. this is about the recording industry not wanting one company to control the distribution of its product. Apple is beginning to monopolize the music downloading business. It is NOT in the recording industry’s best interest to have its short hairs held tightly by Apple.
With most computer users being on Windows, and the availability of 60+ portable digital music player choices (iPod notwithstanding), and plenty of music download services (Napster — having been around as long as it has and having the name recognition that it does), the competition SHOULD, by any sense of logic, be fierce for Apple. But the numbers show that no combination of the above offered a desirable solution for online digital music distribution/digital music management/portable music players. AND, Apple was a late comer onto the scene.
it’s absurd to assert that Apple is holding back the industry. Apple has provided the ONLY forward push in the industry.
So, what IS slowing the growth of the industry? What’s slowing the growth is that only ONE company is leading the charge. Niche player Apple. Beleaguered Apple. Going-out-of-business-for-the-last-20-years Apple.
The only people crying about Fairplay are Apple’s half-baked competitors (who wouldn’t know the definition of Complete Solution if it were written on the palms of their hands) and consumers who are unhappy with their choice in portable music players.
diamond,
I realize the concept of “leading the charge” and schooling the industry is a bit esoteric. Try to keep up.
Regarding “the recording industry not wanting one company to control the distribution of its product. Apple is beginning to monopolize the music downloading business.”
Uh, no. Can you say Napster? AOL? Yahoo? RealNetworks? Virgin? FYE? Wal-Mart? Not to mention the music mega-stores.
People have plenty of choice. Buy a Creative or Roxio or whatever, and download from Yahoo! or AOL. If your concern is Apple monopolizing the business, don’t purchase from iTMS. Support Virgin instead. You’ll be supporting choice AND a record label.
By the way, there is no “recording industry.” There are separate record labels. And they are each in competition with one another. So, it’s not like all these labels are suddenly in harmony against Apple the predator. Note that some labels have yet to strike a deal with Apple — a clear sign the “the recording industry not wanting one company to control the distribution of its product” is farcical imagination.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and the ‘whiners’ had the market and Apple was a small player, would they give a flying flapjack for Apple and demand that they be given a ‘even go’?
As for the Kiwi guy, all I can say is he is evenly balanced because he has chips on both shoulders and being a Kiwi suffers from small country syndrome.
…that some in the music industry dare to complain about Apple slowing the growth of downloading. These are the same idiots that didn’t want to, and then couldn’t figure out how to create a music download store. These are the same donkeys that tried to wish away digital music and the internet in the 90s. Apple slowing downloads? Probably. However, you stupid muppet music execs, without Apple, the growth would be far lower than it has been with them.
Here’s an idea – get the other dumbshits to make a better product and then Apple won’t dominate.
and stop trying to copy protect CDs! It just pisses off the consumer and make people want to pirate that CD.
Diamond:
Please try to understand…
[B]Copy-protected CDs are not real CDs!![/B]
We need to send a message to the music industry – in particular Sony BMG, who appear to be the worst culprits = that we know that they are trying to subvert a format that has stood for nearly 25 years because they have neither the creativity to find music that we are willing to buy not the business nous to price the creatively-bankrupt product they do produce in line with what the market is willing to pay.
Copy-protected CDs won’t make music sales go up – people won’t buy them (I know I don’t)
Suing people in court won’t make music sales go up – it’s not like the people who downloaded the music from illegal P2P networks are ending up in court.
Pricing CDs at levels above the capability of the market won’t help music sales go up – people only have so much disposable income for discretionary expenditure; God alone knows what makes the music industry think they have a divine right to most of it.
Churning out hundreds of identikit R&B artists, boy bands and girl bands with their stylists and their choreographers and their indistinguishable output won’t help make music sales go up.
Reducing the number of albums and singles released each year won’t help music sales go up – Or are they expecting us to but more than one copy.
OpJ says: “Chosing a player shouldn’t have anythign to do with choosing services. One is a player. A chunk of plastic and metal.”
That’s a fallacy. Plastic and software can’t work without the other. Apple has the upper hand because it can count on the consistency of its products; unlike the disorganized Microsoft cartel.
Apple has hit on a solution that works today. Just because Microsoft didn’t create it doesn’t mean that it should be denigrated. The music industry ought to quit kowtowing to Microsoft, raise Apple’s glove in the air declaring it the winner, and declare Fairplay the standard.
Just because something is in the consumer’s best interest doesn’t mean a company should do it. Selling me a dual 2.7 GHz PowerMac for $199 (or even $499) is in my (the consumer’s) best interest but certainly not Apple’s.
OpJ and diamond: I think we all agree that licensing FairPlay is seemingly in the consumer’s best interest because we would likely have more products to choose from. But if doing so puts Apple out of business, then it is not in a Mac or iPod owner’s best interest, especially given that the alternatives are Microsoft (monopolistic) or Real (crappy intrusive software) or Sony (DRM kings, no MP3). We have had ample opportunity to check out their anti-consumer behaviors.
Apple’s “fanatical” support and loyalty from its users is because we trust Apple to do what’s best for Apple and for us based on the wonderful experiences we have had with Apple’s products and services. Today, Apple has the highest brand loyalty of any computer company, and possibly, any company in any field. Maybe your not understanding that causes you to call us sycophants. But if we found that Apple was really screwing us, this loyalty would disappear fairly quickly.
So make a good and reasonable argument why licensing FairPlay is also in Apple’s best interest and then maybe we could talk.
They have tried and tried to compare Apple to Sony’s “Betacam” debacle. The funny thing is, look how successful Sony has been even despite losing to the “VHS” machine? And look at where VHS is today…going the way of the 8-track! Too funny. Every time I hear the “death knell” I just want to buy more Apple stock.
Andrew Hamilton
Hamilton International Productions
http://www.hiproductions.com
It’s easy to put a Napster track on a iPod and you don’t even have to pay for the music!
First get a PC and a Napster subscription account
fill your hard drive less than half full with as much as the good songs as they will allow you to have. (good ones you have to pay for, just forget those)
Now get yourself a slightly older copy of WinAmp and the plug in OutPut Stacker. Now play all the crapster music through winamp and the plug in will make a nice copy of the subscription music without paying for it or any DRM.
(you can easily fin instructions on dozens of web sites)
tag it and bag it, trade cd’s with your friends and rip it into iTunes and then onto your iPod.
A little secret is Napster is allowing multiple PC connections to the same subscription account.
But it’s just eaiser to buy iTMS if you got the money.
In digital music sales they not only are trying to leverage the market’s choice of the iPod as a mandated choice of iTMS as the only music store, but also aren’t letting anyone have any other way to get copy protected tracks onto the iPod.
It’s because selling music online makes just about no profit, it’s a loss leader for the iPod. Plain and simple. And the iPod is a carrot for a Mac, plain and simple.
That’s Apple’s buisness plan and they are not going to mess with their perfectly working program.
Let the vast amount “devices” and “services” come up with a truly innovative and creative product and they can run the program like they wish if the public decides they want it.
Right now they don’t, Apple is the choice because they were first and they are the oldest, they treat their customers right.
Hmmmm… be right back. Think I will visit the iTunes store and buy some more music!
justified said,
that Apple was not beginnning monopolize the music download business because, “Can you say Napster? AOL? Yahoo? RealNetworks? Virgin? FYE? Wal-Mart? Not to mention the music mega-stores.”
You sound like a Microsoft anti-trust lawyer justified. Windows doesn’t have a monopoly. You can buy a mac, linux, amiga, unix…etc.
justified said, “If your concern is Apple monopolizing the business, don’t purchase from iTMS. Support Virgin instead. You’ll be supporting choice AND a record label.”
it is not MY concern it is the recording industry’s concern. as for not buying from iTMS.. I have never bought from iTMS and never will until they use Apple Lossless. Why would I pay 9.99 for a poor sound quality download when can get the real CD for a few dollars more? I don’t care about iTMS. I care about future DRM on CDs that may not be playable on my iPod because Apple won’t license FairPlay for CD playback. It seems like a no-brainer to me. What does Apple have to lose?
justified said, “there is no “recording industry.” There are separate record labels. And they are each in competition with one another.’
all the labels are united against illegal copying.
MCCFR said, “Please try to understand…Copy-protected CDs are not real CDs!!”
Do you really think Sony, Warner, etc. care what the definition of ‘real CD is more than protecting their sales from illegal copying? Grow-up!
MCCFR, “Sony BMG, who appear to be the worst culprits = that we know that they are trying to subvert a format that has stood for nearly 25 years”
and they will try to subvert the the four year old iPod too unless Apple licenses FairPlay. The most recent releases with DRM have sold well despite not being able to be ripped on Windows computers. So any belief that consumers will boycott these CDs in large numers is pure fantasy.
If Apple licenses FairPlay, one thing they lose will be the ability to make arbitrary and quick changes. Today, all they have to do is offer a software download of iTunes and the iPod player software. And with the coming Motorola phone, the iTunes player software.
Instead of licensing FairPlay, Apple might and should be more willing to extend its new iTunes player software to run on other complementary but not competing products.
Another darker possibility is that Apple is working to tie FairPlay into a trusted hardware module, so no licensing until that’s accomplished.
There was a report out today that said the reason Apple is refusing to license FairPlay to the music labels for CD playback is because they feel iTMS is in competition with CD sales. Apple doesn’t want consumers to buy CDs but rather buy their music through iTMS.
diamond,
Can you post a link to that report? Did Apple release that report?
Badly need your help. Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.
I am from Albania and too bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Find and book cheap airline tickets, hotel rooms, vacations and rental cars with cheap flights, airline tickets, cheap airfare discount travel deals.”
With best wishes
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />, Tobias.