Steve Jobs is the latest guru offering up a solution to a perceived problem, that would cost his company absolutely nothing.
Given that iTunes doesn't own the rights to any of the music they provide, just manages the digital rights management, to suggest to content providers to offer up everything free of those restrictions costs Apple Corp. very little.
What would be more impressive coming from Steve Jobs would be to open up iTunes to non-Apple players media players. I'd believe in his commitment to a better consumer experience with digital entertainment if he instead offered to provide, for free, firmware and software upgrades to rival players.
If Apple wanted to, they could let Microsoft Zune users, Creative Zen users, Toshiba Gigabeat users, and all the other countless rival devices, use of DRM managed iTunes content. They could pay to have their software engineers write the code to make this bit of translation happen (it's possible there are hardware limitations involved that can't be easily overcome, but I doubt it, there are no rival AAC players, not for technical reasons, but because Apple doesn't believe in licensing their tech out to anybody else, they've historically been the least 'open source' company of all the big hardware/software firms, even worse than the reviled Microsoft).
I doubt any of their rivals would refuse entry into the large user base of iTunes customers, and presumably, if ease of use for consumers is the goal, then this would please consumers as well as the content providers (given DRM would remain).
Edgar Bronfman of Warner already rejected this idea presented by Jobs, and given Doug Morris' campaign against something as mostly harmless as YouTube, we could imagine that Universal won't be on board anytime soon.
So instead of trying to get other folks to give stuff away for free that they feel is against their motivated self interest, why won't Mr. Jobs take one for the team and offer up something of perceived value for Apple (their monopoly on iTunes users) and let their competitors at their customers and their customers at their competitors.
If the Apple branded players are so clearly superior, then they'll have nothing to fear, and by doing this move unilaterally, it will put pressure on Microsoft to do something similar with their DRM'd content on a reciprocal basis.
If my URGE subscription also gave me access to iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster and Zune Marketplace, and vice versa, then I think the market for these sort of services would skyrocket. Also, instead of competing on exclusivity, they'd compete on price and service, and isn't that where the competition should take place?
It would be better for everyone, content providers, consumers, and hardware makers alike. The devices are smart enough, and computers fast enough to make all these competing formats work seamlessly on each other's systems, it's only a matter of having the will to make it happen.
It will take a big player like Apple to make a unilateral move, one that would seem to be a sacrifice of their own market share at first, to cause the floodgates to open.
UPDATE: (09 FEB 07, 6:26pm)
Bill offers up some good criticism (and factual corrections) to my rant in the comments. Also, if someone on a webpage run by Rolling Stone (via slashdot, where there's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on regarding M$FT not being the evil-est corporation in the world) sort of agrees with me, then I'm probably on the wrong track.
Let me sum up my ownself, shorter version of above, "I hate Steve Jobs".
And speaking of anti-Apple rants, this one by Charlie Booker printed in The Guardian this week, is incandescent with rage, snark, and British goodness.
When something needs a good slagging off, it's hard to find a writer outside of Britain who can do a better job at the slagging.
Most likely audio devices already on the market couldn't be retroactively made compatible with all services, that I acknowledge readily, but Apple's talk of tearing down DRM for everyone is most likely a response to Euroweenie governments possible efforts in forcing Apple to open up their DRM unilaterally (Eurocrats hate successful companies, no success comes without some sort of evil monopoly according to a dedicated Eurocrat).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I assume you're talking about the iTunes store and not iTunes the library software. I know plenty of people with non-iPod music players that use iTunes to manage their mp3s.
Other than that, did you read his statement? He was quite explicit why opening FairPlay won't work: The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.
I also recommend reading Reading Between the Lines of Steve Jobs’s ‘Thoughts on Music and Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly. Both, among many other points, expand on the nonissue of competition and iTunes store downloads. People don't buy iPods so they can download music, they buy iPods to listen to the music they already own. iTMS is a bonus feature, not an essential one.
there are no rival AAC players, not for technical reasons, but because Apple doesn't believe in licensing their tech out to anybody else
AAC is not a proprietary Apple standard. AAC is an open standard that anyone can use. AAC wiki lists Zune, SanDisk, PSP, and Palm PDAs as other AAC players. You are confusing AAC, which is the default for ripping CDs in iTunes--but you can easily use other formats--and includes NO DRM, with buying songs from iTMS--those are AAC with FairPlay DRM. Just like Napster and Marketplace sell DRM'd mp3s that can't be played on iPods (don't know about Rhapsody.) But if you never buy tunes from iTMS and still rip all your CDs as AAC there is no DRM on your iPod.
You said If my URGE subscription also gave me access to iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster and Zune Marketplace, and vice versa, then I think the market for these sort of services would skyrocket. Also, instead of competing on exclusivity, they'd compete on price and service, and isn't that where the competition should take place?
Completely ignoring what Steve Jobs said: So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
Most of your argument completey sidesteps the argument Steve Jobs proposed. That is DRM is broken, always will be broken, and is a bad idea.
Having said all that, I'll throw you a bone with now that Jobs has laid all that out there, it is unconsciencessable that he doesn't sell straight mp3s from independent labels that do not want DRM. If he is serious, he needs to fix that.
. They could pay to have their software engineers write the code to make this bit of translation happen (it's possible there are hardware limitations involved that can't be easily overcome, but I doubt it,
This reminds me of a brilliant (I mean that completely nonsarcastically--he was a certified genius) owner of a company I worked for who would pop into development meetings and scream at everyone: "I don't know what the problem is, it's just coding, so get it done."
Sure, as long as it doesn't violate the laws of physics it's technically/theoritically possible. Doesn't make it a good idea.
don't know where that came from:
unconsciencessable = unconscionable
Let me sum up my ownself, shorter version of above, "I hate Steve Jobs".
I'm cool with that.
Post a Comment