“The iPod’s dominance in the portable digital music player market has some of Apple Computer’s key competitors singing the blues,” Scott Morrison writes for The Financial Times. “In the latest sign that the iPod is overpowering rivals, Japanese electronics maker D&M Holdings said last Friday it would close the portable digital music player division behind the Rio brand.”
“Rio’s exit was also seen as a blow to Microsoft, RealNetworks, Napster and other Apple rivals that operate internet music services based on Microsoft standards. These music services have looked to groups such as D&M, Creative Technology and Samsung to provide music players that operate on Microsoft standards,” Morrison writes. “Consumers have been confused by various standards and brands – and the perception that not all of them are compatible with each other. On the other hand, Apple’s iPod and the iTunes online music store operate on closed standards based on the company’s own technology. ‘It’s certainly a loss [for the Microsoft camp],’ said Michael McGuire, analyst at Gartner. ‘When one of the early leaders in the space exits the market it definitely has to be a concern.'”
Full article here.
So what was on the “one hand,” Mr. Morrison? We’d love to read your description of Microsoft’s music format which is completely proprietary, sold only by niche music services and Windows-only. Or is your phrase, “Microsoft standards,” the full extent of your description? Apple uses the Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format, which is MPEG-4 Audio, the successor to MP3, and Apple’s iTunes and iTunes Music Store are available to both Mac and Windows PC users which account for the vast majority of personal computer users. We’re guessing that your editor cut out lines of your article haphazardly. Either that, or you can’t write; which is certainly possible since we already know that you can’t report. Spitting back propaganda from Microsoft and/or Napster and/or the music labels that “consumers have been confused by various standards and brands” without a shred of proof is not just shoddy journalism, it’s yellow.
Consumers aren’t confused. The numbers prove that consumers know what they want: Apple iPods+iTunes+iTunes Music Store. The only screams of “confusion” anyone might be hearing are those emanating from Apple’s roadkill via media outlets willing to amplify them.
“Unless it acts soon, Apple could see its commanding lead in digital music disappear,” Scott Morrision, The Financial Times, July 7, 2004. That would be, of course, about 20 million iPods and 400 million iTunes Music Store tracks ago.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Music lovers make Apple’s iTunes Music Store AAC format the de facto standard for online music – August 28, 2005
Financial Times writer: Apple must act soon or lose its lead in digital music market – July 07, 2004
Financial Times on Apple Computer’s results: ‘only a matter of time before this apple falls’ – July 14, 2005
iPod, iTunes, and iTunes Music Store competitors lack Apple’s ‘seamless integration and ease’ – August 28, 2005
Apple’s roadkill whine in unison: ‘incompatibility is slowing growth of digital music’ – August 13, 2005
The New Zealand Herald serves up a steaming pile of iPod FUD – August 11, 2005
FUD campaign against Apple’s iPod+iTunes fails to stick – April 08, 2005
Apple’s iPod and iTunes competitors continue whining about FairPlay – February 07, 2005
The de facto standard for legal digital online music files: Apple’s protected MPEG-4 Audio (.m4p) – December 15, 2004
From the Internet News article:
“Officials from RealNetworks could not be reached at press time to confirm the contents of Glaser’s e-mail. Apple spokespeople did not return calls.”
So no confirmation. Nothing but Glaser’s word that this would be “his proposal.” And we don’t know if he ever actually put that proposal on the table.
Not even close, realist. Try again….
“First of all, I already posted the link”
well, you didn’t read the first, second, or third paragraph then.
“Apparently refused” does not automatically mean any negotiations took place over FairPlay at all.“
Virgin’s lawsuit against Apple is based on the failed negotiations.
And we don’t know if he ever actually put that proposal on the table.”
NYTimes had a copy of Glaser’s email to Jobs.
Now you’re talking about a lawsuit. That’s not what Virgin is doing; they have “formally asked France’s competition watchdog to rule that the iPod maker has abused its dominant market position by not allowing other companies access to FairPlay.” They’re going to a tribunal, not a court of law.
Still no direct evidence. Just because Virgin claims something doesn’t make it so.
Just because Virgin claims something doesn’t make it so”
So even if I had a soundclip of the CEO of Virgin saying that he tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a license for the use of Fairplay, you would just dismiss it as an unverified claim?
Motorola has obviously reached an agreement with Apple otherwise how their phones could ever use iTMS tunes, download them, play them and allow to transfer them to the iPod.
Tried unsuccessfully to negotiate might as well made an out of the wall proposal to Apple. Motorola did it. Has the thought that Virgin and Real simply made unacceptable proposal – flirting with being ridiculous – ever made through?
Real simply wanted Apple to open up Fairplay, they even went so far as to try to crack it stating it was their right to do. Hardly business practices that could ever in any future allow them to be allowed around a table with Apple representative to negotiate whatever.
Virgin CEO – “We proposed Apple to open up Fairplay and if they refused we would have gone to the French tribunal to force them to. They refused.”
interviewer – “Ahh, yes. And what did you offer Apple in order to open Fairplay, exactly”
Virgin CEO – “We told them we would have not gone to the French tribunal. Fair offer from our point of view”
interviewer – “As you all can see, Apple is still trying to enforce its monopolistic position in the market to force competitors NOT to use Apple technology. Apple representative have not returned our calls”
MDN “evidence” – This MDN magic word is truly scary.
Sorry, realist, but I think your sparring opponent has a point. The following does NOT equate to “negotiations”:
Competitor: “Let us use Fairplay!”
Apple: “No.”
If Apple is to allow others into their party, they need to be given a sound business reason to do so. So far, none has been given. The competitors are acting like spoiled children who want to play with somebody else’s toys. Give me something in return and I’ll let you play.
‘When one of the early leaders in the space exits the market it definitely has to be a concern.'”
Ummm… What? When was Rio a leader?
MW: Rate, as in, “cut-rate” reporting.
The argument started based on the comment by PC Apologist:
“more credit belongs with Apple for their (brilliant or anti-competitive.. you make the call) refusal to play ball with other device makers and content providers.”
…which prompted the response:
“Can you show a single entity that has even tried to negotiate with Apple to allow them to use the FairPlay DRM?”
which prompted the response:
“Real and Virgin for starters”
iPodder stated:
“Has the thought that Virgin and Real simply made unacceptable proposal – flirting with being ridiculous – ever made through?”
This is a valid point. We don’t know what proposals were made. Perhaps nothing was offered to Apple in which case it would be ridiculous for Apple to procede with negotiations. On the other hand, these competitors were trying to offer a broader scope of customers to Apple (Real offered customers of music subscriptions, Virgin offered alternative music player customers). Whether these would have amounted to anything is pure speculation. Thus, as PC Apologist stated, whether this can be considered brilliant or anti-competitive is up to the consumer to decide. In the mean time, I think I have proven my assertion that other companies have at least tried to negotiate licensing Fairplay with Apple.
If you really think burning ITMS songs to CD and then re-ripping them without DRM so you can get them onto another player is an acceptable solution, you’re nuts, frankly. The vast majority of users out there probably wouldn’t even know how to do that. And then what? They have two copied of all of their songs. Which one has DRM and which one doesn’t? do you then expect them to re-name all of the non-DRM music?
<b>hairbo,</b. there is hardly anything here that is accurate. You can’t assume that just because you don’t know how to burn a CD of your purchased music that anyone else is as ignorant. In fact, it’s ignorant not to burn an audio CD backup.
Songs converted to MP3 will have that suffix, easy to tell apart from the originals. Even Windows users can figure that one out.
Sure, backing up music is just fine, whether to CD or whatever else. But you’re still trying to say that it’s okay to then re-import those songs in order to play them on a mobile device that isn’t an iPod? So then as I said before, you’ve got two versions of the songs–an .m4p and .mp3 version. Most players, like iTunes, disguises the filepath information in their interface, opting instead to just showing the title, artist and so on. So, in iTunes, you’d have what looks like two identical songs. To figure out which is which, you actually have to do a get info on each, then decipher the file path, and then pick the .mp3 version for your Rio or Creative device. I’ll repeat: that…totally…blows. Perhaps you don’t mind managing different file types in iTunes for different players, but you can’t seriously be arguing that other users are also okay with that.
Bobby: I’m telling Momma!
Stevey: Go ahead.
Bobby: Momma! Stevey won’t give me a bite of his cookie.
Mom: Well Bobby, it’s Stevey’s cookie.
Bobby: He won’t share! I’m hungry!
Mom: Bobby, where’s your cookie?
Bobby: I ate it. It was mine!
Mom: You won’t share anything with Stevey, yet you want me – to make Stevey share with you?
Bobby: Yeah.
Mom: Bobby, why do think that that is fair?
Bobby: I want it, that’s why!
Mom: Bobby, people will share something good with you, if you will share something good with them.
That’s an interesting story. Too bad you left out the consumer, which I feel is the most important part. A more appropriate variation would be:
Bobby is selling cookies while Stevey is selling both milk and cookies. Stevey’s milk and cookies are great when bought from Stevey, however, Stevey’s milk causes other competitors’ cookies to dissolve. Similarly, Stevey’s cookies cause other competitors’ milk to evaporate. Consumers feel that it shouldn’t matter where they buy their milk or cookies, they should still be able to be mixed. When asked about it, Stevey says that it’s fair for him and that Bobby should try to create his own closed system. What about the consumers? They’ll just have to choose one or the other because Stevey doesn’t understand that as long as his product is the best, he has nothing to be afraid of. If anything, he would attract more customers because of the compatibility of his products.
Actually, you left out the fact that Bobby has sworn to the Microsoft Cookie format, which is not compatible with any of Stevey’s products; milk or cookies.
Actually neomonkey, It’s not that hard. You can make smart playlists by kind.
Djenurm,
Sorry, that last comment was mine.
Anyway…ick. You want to create a smart playlist for ALL mp3 files? What if you really only want to look at a particular album or artist? If/when you push that playlist to your iPod, you’ve just got the playlist, not everything broken down by category. Granted, it is a way of keeping mp3 and m4a files separate, but it’s still kludgy as all hell.
By the way…
Virgins case got thrown out months ago!
“access to the Fairplay DRM isn’t indispensable to the development of legal platforms for the downloading of online music.”
According to them, the market is “in rapid expansion… and very dynamic, in France as well as in other European countries and the US”.
hairbo,
DRMed WMA and Janus are also proprietary and closed systems. If I buy any such songs or subscribe to any such services, I’m limited to using a Windows PC.
If I want to use a different operating system like the MacOS, I can no longer use my songs (excepting the same pain-in-the-ass burn-and-rip method) or my subscription.
Why doesn’t someone fix that? Why doesn’t someone investigate why no one will fix that?
You’re agreeing with me. I’m not saying the other systems are better–I said Apple did it best so far. But the closed/proprietary/incompatible/whatever systems that all of these companies offer right now suck for the consumer.
I guess my point is that these articles need to point out both sides, which they haven’t been doing, because they’re all working off the same PR sheet handed them by the greedy and unhappy music labels.
See http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Back to the consumer point, we basically have a standoff. At this point, though, if both sides get “ordered” to become open, Apple has more to lose than to gain, since the MP3 player market is still small, young and growing, while the PC/OS market is larger, older, steady-state and clearly monopolized. So it’s in Apple’s best interest to hold out longer, until it can extend its AAC/Fairplay format into more complementary products, making it more likely that consumers will stick with it.
See http://www.daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay and daringfireball.net/2004/08/2004_wont_be_like_1984
Poor bastards.
Apple has been the underdog (and very much still is ) ever since it first started. Now it’s finally king of the hill at something and nobody likes it.
Poor bastards.