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."
Apple knows that as the little guy they have to actually make their users happy. DRM doesn't make for happy users, but "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercials do.
"Then, one day, I tried to burn a mix CD on my PC, and it wouldn't let me. That's when I bought an Apple."
Seriously, though, that's the best argument I've heard so far to buy a Mac.
Finally, well, if Apple pisses the studios off enough, we will see some OTHER brand of computer in the movies besides Apple!
;-)
Yes, I know about the "guest appearances" of SGI in "Twister" and others, but this may lead to more "reality" in my action movies. Like using a Cpmpaq to upload a virus to aliens
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Remember that Microsoft is the one that A) voted AGAINST legislation for DRM and B) has opted to make it a consumer choice as to whethor or not you want Windows to boot in "DRM" mode or not. If you're not in DRM mode, you simply can't play purchased digial music. Big deal - I'm not buying crippled music. However, you can still play all of your "insecure" MP3's and WMA's.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
... to see the day when (non-IT) people say, "You're running Windows?! Why would you want that? You can't do anything with that!"
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
One of these two things will happen:
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress.
You gotta fight... for our digital rights... in Connnnnn-gress!
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Trust.
Intel, AMD, and Microsoft basically believe that we are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy. Even when we prove it, it's only for that exchange.
Apple believes their customers are trustworthy.
Which company would you rather do business with?
Mox
Pixar is /not/ owned by Disney. Pixar has a 5 film distribution deal with Disney. But it is it's own production company.
The thought that Microsoft "voted" for or against any legislation at all is kind of unnerving. I thought that's what we had legislators for.
That was worded inprecisely. It should have read 'Microsoft's Senators and Represnetatives' instead. Unfortunatly they're up against Senator Disney and Representative Sony.
I read the internet for the articles.
Apple is setting themselves up as the computer to own if you want to work with multimedia, and installing DRM (which restricts fair use on a host of multimedia types) gets in the way of that vision.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
DRM is coming -- it's too useful not to catch on.
define useful. Draconian? opressive? interfering? sure...those are "useful" to a small handful of people. But to the masses it makes something utilitarian become considerably more difficult to do anything with.
The question is not will we be able to resist DRM, but rather, who will be empowered by it? With the right laws, the answer could be "the public". It will be hard to get the right laws, given the evil influences of Microsoft and the entertainment industry, but it's not a physical or moral impossibility.
That's where you're even more wrong. Resisting the use of DRM is important. Your comments remind me of the people who are just accepting any restrictions of fredom and "guilty until proven innocent" legislation or motion made since 91101. What we need is a serious revamp of copyright laws to expand fair use and decrease the time of copyrights. Joe Musician creates music in his computer these days or his garage and can make his own music to distribute easily. Therefore, pandering to the music industry, for example, and begging for their table scraps is stupid when there are lots of bands out there who are as good or better who just don't get airplay. Your defeatist attitude towards the future of freedom from DRM systems is not helping.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
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
Yay Microsoft.
Seriously, though, the notion that Palladium is okay because you're not forced into booting into it is a joke. Microsoft built a billion-dollar industry by understanding that there are many kinds of forces, and some of the most powerful are market forces.
Once a large installed TCPA compliant processor base exists, you're going to find yourself forced into booting into Palladium mode because you won't be able to access the content you need without it. Your boss will send you e-mail, for instance, which will only be able to be read in Palladium mode. So you'll have to boot into it. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft is counting on it.
That's why it's so important that we refuse to upgrade to TCPA chips. We know from the DivX debacle that consumers have the ability to reject bad choices. We need to draw the same kind of line in the sand with TCPA chips. If AMD and Intel take a massive economic hit on the Trusted Computing architecture, they'll reject it. My fear is that a shallow understanding of the Palladium future by consumers + naive, buzzword-driven purchasing by PHBs will enable Trusted Computing to establish a market foothold. The battle lines are being drawn and I think we have a lot of work to do.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
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.
This is fairly ridiculous.
Yes, Apple is a business. The business isn't there to make us happy and protect our rights. However, it does happen to believe that doing these two things is in the company's best financial interests. So they are doing great things such as this shunning of the DRM. Why does it make a difference if Apple is doing this out of love for humanity or because it just makes sense? It doesn't change the fact that it is a Good Thing, and seems to be a trend with Apple these days.
It's just like with legislation. If our Congressmen voted against DRM, I wouldn't care if it was purely out of the desire for votes in their next election and didn't care a whit about actually helping people. So long as they are motivated to do the best thing for the people.
If you found out some major app or utility for Linux was made by a programmer who didn't give a crap about freedom or rights, but just wanted to have that app for free (read: motivated by money), would you discourage people from using it?
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Apple is very sensitive to both its own copyrights and such, remember the recycle/trash bin discussion and the lawsuits of the 1980s, but Apple was started by hardware freaks, and not software freaks. Steve knows the work-arounds are too easy, that's why Apple never really bothered with copy protected software in the first place.
Bill Gates is focused on software, and since the mid 1970s he has been obsessed with preventing programmers, uh, oops, consumers from copying his programs bootleg style.
This is a very old difference between these two camps. DVDs, CDs, digital media, whatever, for Steve it's all the same. Hardware has a much greater profit margin, and he wants to sell primarily hardware. See how much of the current i-Suite is bundled or downloadable free of charge?
It's to drive the sales of hardware units.
Sony and BMG have their own problems. BMG bought Napster to try to outrun this problem. But it's not Steve's problem.
Even for his Pixar films, he controls the rights to the lucrative movie theatre sales. Again, to really see a movie, you have to have a large screen and a popcorn machine. Bill doesn't work that angle, Steve does. Steve makes his money without worrying if some kid is going to copy his digital wares, because he has already turned his profits.
Let's not see Steve as an altruist, but simply someone who knows how to pick profitable models, that don't require unnatural market protections.
Remember, DRM is not only a pain in the @$$, but they will also have to raise taxes to reinforce it with police and the courts. FUN. ;-(
"Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers."
The margins on the iPod are likely much higher than the ones on the PC because you can get away with higher margins at lower prices. A lot of people see a candy bar for a dollar and will pay for it, even if the candy bar takes 5 or 10 cents to make. That's a 100-200% markup. Most retail stores need a 50% markup over costs of merchandise to cover expenses of staff and make a nice profit as well (after all, if you're not turning a profit, you are going out of business soon).
The iPod has some plastic, a few chips, software, and a laptop HD. Total cost to Apple is probably 40 to 60% of the price of the device at the store because of their volume purchasing power. The store takes in maybe 10% of the price, the rest is divided between Apple and the company that ships things to stores.
Ever notice how the 10gb and 20gb models are only a little bit apart (compared to the 5gb and 10gb models)? That's because they could probably sell the 20gb model for very close to the price (if not the same price as) the 10gb model and still make a profit similar to that of the 5gb model. The extra cost to them of making it a 20gb drive instead of a 10gb drive is small enough that they want to make it look more attractive to buy the 20gb version, because they make ~99% of the price difference between it and the 10gb model straight into their pockets. That's why FastFood places will "supersize" meals as well -- an extra 5-10 cents of cola and fries to gain an extra 60 cents of money is a very smart thing to do if you want more in your margins.
What about computers? Computers aren't as simple, and the parts cost more overall. Most places have very, very slim margins and rely on economies of scale to give them a healthy profit margin. That is how Dell is so succesful(their margin is larger because you pay it all to them, with no $$ going to the stores or other middlemen). That's why VA systems got out of the computer hardware business --- teeny, tiny margins, even on server hardware. That's why Compaq and HP merged (slimmer margins mean more must be shipped). That is also why white-box computers flourish (speciality shops charge more, but give more in terms of selection and control). Electronics Boutique charges more than Wal-mart on games, but they have a much wider selection, and they will buy back used games (as well as sell used goods).
So keep in mind that the iPod is a very smart move for Apple, not just a Mac accessory designed to push their computers. Just because something costs more, doesn't mean they're making more.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
MS would be strongly against a government mandated DRM system.
Why?
Simple, standards. If the government says how DRM will work then everyone will be able to write to that and have DRM. If MS gets to make their own DRM system they'll be able to ensure that only the companies they want can play along.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Just because Apple doesn't actively support altering of Aqua doesn't mean you can't, or for that matter, that it's not allowed.
DualityApple has pursued those who create an Aqua style theme for other computers because the LOOK and FEEL does belong to them. They paid artists and graphic designers to come up with it. Using it elsewhere is like using the Apple logo elsewhere, and Apple has the right to keep what's theirs theirs.
X11 already runs on Mac OS X, in the same screen space as Aqua (if your turn the option on), and personally I feel as though it's a Good Thing(TM) to have X11 not look like Aqua. After all, it ISN'T Aqua and thus I am made aware of the enviromental differences simply by observing what kind of window it is. If I'm the type of person who can't handle that, why am I running X11 in the first place?
XDarwinIf you're talking about doing screen drawing, Aqua is meerly the look and feel (interface philosophy, if you will), it doesn't HAVE an API. You may be thinking of Quartz, QuickDraw, and QuickTime, which are pretty extensively documented, as they always have been. For free, too. If you're intrested in what Aqua actually is, read the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines.
As for Aqua, anything you need to do to make Aqua windows/widgets when coding are there. Check out the Window Manger documentation, or the Cocoa flavor, if you liek that sort of thing ;-)
There are no "hidden APIs" (unlike M$ Windoze). There are however, system internal functions for performing tasks that need to be done (Window widgets, double buffering, etc), for which there is no need of programmer intervention.
Claiming those functions are a "hidden API" is like being pissed you can't call functions in a library because they where only implemented to assist the programmers while writing the library. In fact, that's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Hmmmmmm.....
This is one of the ways Apple is achieving greater system stability, through abstraction of the OS and hardware to the programmer. MacOS 9 (er..."Classic") was hacked to shreds by anyone and everyone, and there where all kinds of problems with INITs and CDEVs and such running amok on everyone's system. I have no less than 175 INITs and CDEVs on this machine right now (yes, a Classic box, 8600/250) and I use most of that functionality. The OS sometimes gets slow, sometimes crashes. A clean install of MacOS 9 will be damn quick and DAMN stable. Throw all this crazy hack-job business in the mix and it's easy to hose your whole system in no time. With Mac OS X, Apple has abstracted many things and it keeps programmers from being naughty and say, writing directly to WindowDef structures, which reside in system memory space. So should it be allowed? Imagine a loop with a bug which, under certian conditions, will write forever to that WindowPtr. Now remember it's in the system heap. Oops.
I can put it better with a quote from Super Troopers: "The less you knew, the less you could fuck up."CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?