Slashdot Mirror
Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far
Graff writes "This was found on SiliconValley.com. In an article for the Mercury News, Dan Gillmor talks about how Apple is still standing firm against the Digital Rights Management (DRM) efforts which the entertainment industry is trying to force on the public. There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress."
Should DRM become so bad that users can't do some of the most basic actions that would fall under fair use, I really think Apple would be missing a major opportunity if they did not start advertising their lack of DRM. As long as Joe Average knows that not every platform restricts you in such a way, there will be a strong temptation to switch.
:)
"Step 1: Insert CD
Step 2: Click import
Step 3: There is no step 3..."
Like I said in one of the previous articles, I think that the only way Apple would include DRM is if they become legally required to, or are forced into a situation by the entertainment industry that could cut Apple's users out of the picture...that is if they were to only release material in a DRM approved format. Now I know that there would be computer saavy folk who can work around the DRM, but Apple's average user won't. (heh, unless that simply requires a magic marker)
Regards,
Sean
One day Apple is lauded for bringing unix to the masses.
The next they're hated for keeping Aqua closed.
A week later, they're lauded once again for making development tools free.
Then they're hated for pushing specific look and feel.
They're loved again for ignoring DRM pressure.
But only a day before, they're scoffed at for keeping people out of the GUI cusstomization business.
And to top it all off, they're even disliked for having a monopoly in their own segment.
Either Apple doesn't know what one hand is doing while the other isn't looking, or we're a bunch of really fickle damn people. With me, it's come down to a comparison between Apple, Microsoft and Linux on the areas of usability, who has whose best interests in mind, and price.
Apple is by far the most usable. Bar none. Linux may have more uses, and Microsoft owns the market. But neither Linux or Microsoft actually seem to develop intuitive interfaces and software that Just Works.
Apple is only slightly more expensive than a comparable PC. Your typical linux box is kludged together from parts and duct tape, or built significantly cheaper from new parts. Linux wins this hands down, but is it enough?
But the real key is the question of who has whose best interests in mind. There's no debating the fact that Bill Gates wants your first born. MS EULAs are so easy to find fault with that it's become a hobby here. Microsoft wants to control your computer and accepts no responsibility when things break. Linux is all about freedom, your software, your gear, your control. Great in theory, but things just -break- on Linux as soon as you start installing post-distribution software unless IT is your life. Great for professional IT guys, but Linux seems to continue failing to make mom and dad comfortable.
Steve Jobs on the other hand, is a very odd type. He wants things his way, but he's utterly convinced it's' because it's better for everyone else. And oddly enough, he's usually not too far off. Apple makes their entire reputation based on making the system something anyone can get into and take the reins of. With XServe, they're on track to some badly needed credibility in the IT segment. They might be a scary monopolistic bunch in some pretty noticable ways, but despite it, they've got the best system for anyone.
I wish I were of enough stature to suggest a truce. I'd suggest this. Apple should open up the interface for a bit more customization, expose the API's and maybe work in some kind of X11/Aqua hybrid feature so X11 applications can run on Aqua without extensive modification to the Aqua look and feel. In exchange for this, Open Source advocates can shut up about how Apple isn't entirely Open Source, and accept the fact that Apple's survival counts on them having the exclusive control of their own interface.
Sound fair?
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Apple's real business is selling Macs, the iPod is simply a Mac accessory. They hope that cool toys like the iPod will sell more Macs. Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers. If DRM was good for their computer business they would dump the iPod faster than you could say "Newton."
They want people to see the Mac as the platform for folks who are making their own cool mix CDs, and that are making their own movies. DRM would put kinks in these kinds of uses, and so Apple opposes DRM. Besides, they have seen the writing on the wall, a lot of people actually like getting on Kazaa (or whatever, I have never really gotten into P2P) and sharing music, videos, and other assorted files. For many people that is their primary reason for owning a computer. The last thing Apple wants is to be cut off from this market.
but it's pronounced Digital RESTRICTIONS Management.
I'm not sure who originated the term, I first saw it attributed to RMS.
Digital Rights Management is total Orwellian double-speak.
Absolute statements are never true
The day CD-DA disappears because "everyone" has magically switched to Windows Media, I will eat my hat.
Sure, I mean this isn't the industry that forced us all to transition to LP's from 78's, or that convinced us to rebuy all our music on cassette after that, and then 20 years ago convinced us all to upgrade all our music to CD again. Is it?
Tried getting hold of any mainstream music on vinyl recently? Even cassettes are pretty hard to find now, and the sound and cassette assembly quality of pre-recorded cassettes is at an all-time low. Of course, you probably don't notice this, because chances are, you buy everything on CD.
The content industry has proved at least 3 times that it knows exactly how to get us all to upgrade our media formats, whether we like it or not: the transition from LP to cassette was in all sorts of ways a step backwards, but it still happened. Cassettes didn't last too long in the mainstream either, because they allowed you to record. The content providers pushed for a more desirable format, and up popped CD, which you could only copy to analogue cassette for the first 15 years of its life or so, significantly downgrading the quality.
Today we face a situation fairly similar to how things were in 1981 or thereabouts: a recordable, fairly open format (Then: cassette, Now: MP3/Ogg) is going mainstream, and is slowly killing off an older, more cumbersome, more expensive but arguably better-sounding format (Then: LP, Now: CD). The content industry is unhappy about this, because they feel that the recordability/copyability of the newer format is going to affect their bottom line. So they lobby for new laws in the US (Then: 1976 Copyright Act, Now: 1998 DMCA) to give them some legal standing, and to enable them to clamp down on those encouraging copying, and then they push for a new, virtually uncopyable format (Then: CD, Now: Windows Media/Palladium) with their technology partners (Then: Sony/Philips, Now: Microsoft/Intel/AMD). The new format has benefits for the consumer (Then: better sound quality and robustness, Now: no more trudging round music shops - entire catalogues available for easy download, all with pristine encoding and no blatant P2P spyware/stealware included).
The parallels are stark, and it only took 10 years for CD to dominate and for other formats to start dying, niche markets aside. If the content industry and Microsoft gets the marketing right, I fully expect exactly the same to happen with WM/Palladium - it will come to dominate in 10 years and CD will die.
The situation isn't entirely identical - the evolution of digital technology has made the stakes higher for both content provider (free P2P distribution is their worst nightmare) and consumer (breaking strong encryption on trusted systems seems a lot harder than simply waiting for recordable CD technology to become available and affordable). So you can expect much more of a battle than was the case with CDs. Nonetheless, I still expect the content industry to win this one - they are the ones with all the strings to pull. We don't have to let them walk all over us though - if we make noise now, we should be able to at least get some concessions towards fair use. If we shout loud enough, there is still the outside possibility that we can kill it dead.
However, if you simply sit tight and see what happens, maybe buying a Mac rather than a PC in a token gesture, then I hope you've got lube and an unwanted hat (not a red fedora by any chance?) because you'll be bending right over for the content industry and you'd better be hungry.