Slashdot Mirror
BusinessWeek on Opening Apple's iTunes DRM
hype7 writes "BusinessWeek is running a very interesting story on Apple's foray into music, with a different bent to everyone else's. BW suggests that, instead of opening the iPod up to the world, Apple should instead license its DRM - 'Fairplay' - to anyone who wants to start up a music store. The upside is obvious: it would mean that Apple's music format, AAC, would become ubiquitous; Apple could quite feasibly make money on licensing fees (say 1 cent per song sold); and, it would just happen to stick it to Microsoft and the Windows Media Format. As the iTunes Music Store isn't running at a profit (or forecast to make a big one), having the Music Store clones eat into Apple's existing market share wouldn't be a problem; all these stores would be doing is building a bigger potential market for the iPod."
...that is a novel (and arguably appealling) tact for Apple to take, it certainly would not be true to their typical behavior (at least not while Steve Jobs is at the helm). Apple likes the 'go it alone' route, regardless of any benefits to other routes.
And of course, one has to wonder if 'ubiquity' would actually happen regardless...
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
The only reason iTunes has DRM in the first place is because the major labels insist on it: they like their paying customers to have more restrictions than the folks that are getting it for free, makes sense right?
Every fumbling attempt the record companies make to control and restrict music blows up in their face. Case in point, the new, bannedmusic.org which is using a BitTorrent installer packaged with a specific torrent to spread music that's run afoul of the current copyright regime. They could have made money licensing this stuff, but now there ain't nothin they can do about it.
Make it so players can use the codec for FREE.
this will make the AAC format as common as Mp3 and take over the world like a wildstorm.
But, I highly doubt that apple has the leadership that would make such a smart decision.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The obvious problem is that what incentive is there for someone to open a music store with encrypted songs that are only playable on the iPod?
Musicians already have ways of submitting their music to the iTMS.
Any large conglomerate opening a music store online is generally stupid or on the "music store" bandwagon, or both. Apple pretty clearly does it because it's a selling point for iPods, and with their early appearance on the scene, they have a good chance to dominate the market until such time as it does become profitable.
So what earthly good does licensing FairPlay do for anyone?
This is wise-wise-wise advice. However, why stop there? Why not make the entire DRM system a sub-set of QuickTime and get acceptance for other non-audio formats as well? QuickTime is the high-end standard and with the new Pixlet format apple already has a HD leg-up on other folks.
-_-
DRM is essential to the iTunes music store. the RIAA wouldnt agree to it without some DRM. apples DRM is only mildly restricting and it is the iTunes music store that is helping to move their (already sex) iPods. being able to get music for your iPod from multiple sources should encourage more people to buy one (apple makes money) and the dont loose money becase of the compitition since their music store isnt going to make a whole lot.
hell eventualy they could back out of selling music all together if other people will do it for them.
also, you can use an iPod for data storage. as for your sexuality, youll have to talk to an expert, i have no advice on this matter
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
I'm going to guess that Apple probably legally can't license the Fairplay technology. I imagine that the RIAA probably has Apple locked into some super restrictive contract that makes it so only Apple can use Fairplay, even though they made it.
After all, (outside of Apple being Apple), why wouldn't they have done it already?
for the one millionth time: apple is a hardware company.
remember when apple tried license the os to clone makers back in 96 or so? total disaster. that's because gil amelio forgot the basic tenet of the apple business model:
"software is written to drive hardware sales".
the mac os exists to sell mac computers. itunes and fairplay and itms and all that exists to drive ipod sales. period.
2 1337 4 u!
Someby please mod this up. It's kind of a crucial fact.
As far as I can tell anyone can go and license FairPlay just like Apple did. How this works specifically with the iPod, I'm not sure, but unrestricted AACs and MP3s work fine as well...
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
And as everyone has discovered who uses the service, iTMS isn't for buying albums. It's for buying singles. This way you get the one song you wanted on the album for $0.99 instead of $15, and that *is* a hell of a discount. Even if you find CD singles, they're much more than $0.99.
So for the majority of the world that (by definition) buys pop, iTMS makes sense. My wife just got 12 songs for $12 that would have cost over $100 in a store. I don't use it because I like older rock where 90% of an album didn't suck, but the service helps a large segment of the population.
With all the uproar over file sharing, do you really think that the labels are going to allow non-DRM protected music to be sold?
Like Apple's DRM is worth a shit. It's as effective at protecting songs as my goldfish is at protecting my house. When anyone can defeat it by burning & reripping, what's the point? Really, why even bother? And who in their right mind would actually license this worthless technology? Would you pay for a team of officers to protect your house if anyone off the street could bribe them with doughnuts? "You saw nothing. Here, take this maple bar."
This stupidity is precisely why I have yet to sign up with iTunes. Sure, I can have my music the way I want it by jumping through a hoop, but I shouldn't have to.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Really? So you can boot your Windows machine off of your Dell DJ, and troubleshoot your computer? Can you also transfer music and charge it at the same time off of one cord?
But you know what the real beauty of the iPod design is? It anin't much bigger than a cassette. How much longer before someone comes out with a car stereo that accepts your iPod like a tape? They're gonna get my money.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
Except that you typically get price breaks on the iTunes Music Store for buying entire albums. Albums typically sell for $9.99 on the store, which is way cheaper than buying each track individually if there are more than 10 tracks on the album. Also, some tracks are not available for individual download; one might argue that this is a ploy to force customers to buy the album, but typically such tracks are either bonus material or songs that probably wouldn't sell individually.
The latest trend on the iTunes Music Store is to give price breaks on buying an entire EP as well. In those cases, the cost of the EP is even cheaper than a full album, and often cheaper than buying the songs individually off the EP.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am a (satisfied) iTunes Music Store customer. However, I buy most music on CD and rip it the traditional way still.
"Adding WMA to the iPod is ludicrous "
Why? Every music outlet other than iTMS sels WMA. So you're saying it's ludicrous to give customers a choice as to where they can buy songs online for their iPod? Isn't this the same mentality that has condemned people who want to run MacOS to be forced to buy Apple proprietary hardware, with the result that Apple only has a niche market? Apple should learn from their mistakes, or their iPod sales may drop to the market share their Macs currently have, when people figure out there are lower cost alternatives to the iPod, that support songs from every other music download sight on the planet.
Vote for Pedro
And for the one billionth time, things change. Even Apple. The best point of the article is that the iPod is cool now, but how long will it stay that way? And how long will Apple be able to maintain the premium to buy in?
I'm not generally a fan of Salkever, but I think he makes a pretty good point. The only thing that I would add is that Apple should re-negotiate their contracts with the labels and get themselves a better deal, so that iTMS could actually generate some profits for them. Right now, they're the Walmart (**shudder**) of the music download world, they should flex some muscle as the market leader to get a lower wholesale price. And if they really wanted to change the world and actually support the music creators, their contract would include a better cut for the performers and writers (I would think a 40% Apple, 25% label, 20% performer, 15% writer/composer cut would be about right).
fuck you.
they pay Apple a license fee
This is no longer true. There used to be a $0.50 per-port charge for using the name FireWire - which is why you see IEEE 1394 all the time instead. A couple years ago, Apple dropped the fee. Unfortunatly, I think the 1394 name is probably going to stick at this point. (Sony calls it iLink, I think, but its still the same thing.)
Oh wow, I hadn't thought of that.
If it's true that anybody can license FairPlay...then in theory, anybody COULD make their own iTunes competitor.
Which is something I've been thinking about a lot lately...how the loss of MP3.com has left a lot of artists with no money and no deal in the shitter, and there's nobody left in the void to take their place other than Windows-only files or unrestricted downloads. Some of these -- like Weed -- are pretty nice, but using fairplay could be a pretty nice solution that's compatible with the best device in town.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Interesting. However, I notice that there is also an iTunes-wma.icns, as well as the iTunes-ogg.icns you mention, and I don't think adding WMA support to the iPod is very likely...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I definitely think that Apple should license FairPlay to other online music stores, but not other hardware or software players just yet. Why? It's a matter of perception. I'm sure there are people out there who won't buy an iPod because they learn that it can only play iTMS songs (out of all the other legal download stores, ignoring any MP3 stores). If Wal*Mart and any other "me too" store also sold FairPlay music, all of a sudden this wouldn't be a problem--iPod users could buy online music from any number of places. iPod users would have a choice.
Now, would Apple lose some iTMS revenue? Probably, but big deal. iTMS is a loss-leader for selling iPod, which has been pointed out many times here before. I bet, though, that Apple would continue to be the industry leader in terms of selling songs to iPod users because they have such a clean, easy-to-use interface and seamless interoperability between the player, the store, and the iPod.This is something the standalone FairPlay licensee stores would not be able to offer. They could compete on price, or selection, which Apple competes based on ease-of-use and style (which would not be Mac vs. PC all over again because Apple would still control the iPod hardware).
So it would be win-win. Apple would have more stores selling music for its iPod, which would make consumers more comfortable in committing to iPods, and Apple would be able to maintain the near-excellent user experience for customers who stick with the iTMS.
Your favorite sig sucks
What if Apple not only licensed the DRM, (= more music = more iPods = more $) but also sold it in bundled with Xserve technology?
Make it so an Indy music producer just has to copy songs to a "publisher" program which encodes and makes available on-line.
They could spec a Xserve Music Server that an Indy music producer could buy (Xserve RAID etc) all pre-configured and easily managed (even sell remote management support so Apple supports the thing). They customize the variety of e-Commerce templates and copy music to a program that will encode it and add it to the library.
Now Apple can support Indys AND keep their own music library "clean".
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
What, you mean like the new one from Alpine?
;)
Or something like what I'm working on with my Beetle . I'm integrating the dock into the dashboard
Hey freaks: now you're ju
And Apple also licenses the MPEG-4 file format, which is based on their own QuickTime file format.
My video compression blog
And what makes that guy an expert?
When the iTunes store first came out, Apple's website linked the word Fairplay to the veridisc website. I'm not sure when they removed that link, but it was there at one point. It probably can be found in the way back machine.
Like Apple's DRM is worth a shit. It's as effective at protecting songs as my goldfish is at protecting my house. When anyone can defeat it by burning & reripping, what's the point? Really, why even bother?
this is actually a point Steve Jobs made to the music industry execs (according to an interview with Jobs online somewhere, I forget where). He told them that any DRM is basically useless, anything that can be encoded can be cracked. they told him to piss off, a year or so later he came back when all their drm schemes were cracked and he said "See?!" Then they listened.
so apple put in a bare minimum protection scheme, but more importantly made the terms so loose that nobody really wants to or needs to crack it. the restrictions are pretty insignificant (can't burn the same playlist more than 10x.... but change it slightly and keep going. But who's going to burn the same playlist that many times anyway?). the whole setup basically a fig leaf so that the industry can *feel* protected while raking in the bucks.
the real protection here is the easy terms that don't stop you from doing what you want to. iTMS is excellent competition to Kazaa & crew: faster, better, more reliable, decently tagged, good catalog, cheap. Apple got tired of waiting for the industry to figure out how to do it right, and did it for them.
so what exactly is your problem with iTunes?
So the fact that FairPlay is an Apple trademark means what?
http://www.apple.com/legal/appletmlist.html
They have trademarked the name of someonelse's technology they are using?
What happens to your DRMed music collection if and when the server goes to the Big Junk Pile, like the Circuit City DIVX server did? Even if existing computer authorizations didn't immediately expire, eventually people would be unable to play the DRMed files on replacement computers for lack of a Big Brother machine to approve the replacement computer.
Burning Red Book Audio CDs of iTMS purchases is only a partial answer because the resulting AACs will have lower fidelity than the purchased AACs.
My problem is that I don't have an interface to it. I'd love to see Apple release an iTunes for Linux. Short of that, I'd like to see a web interface to iTunes that supported Mozilla well. Short of that, I'd like to see someone license iTMS and build a third-party web interface to iTMS.
Doug Alcorn