iTunes, One Billion Suckers Served?

Thomas Hawk writes "Apple is out hyping their one billionth iTunes download today, but is building your music library in a format that could be obsolete in the future really the best strategy? Will the consumer once again have to someday replace their iTunes track just like they had to replace their LP, cassette, and CD only to get their music on their hot new non Apple mp3 phone of the future? "

Comments

you can backup all your itunes purchases

[johnrpenner]

you can burn all your itunes tracks to AIFF or MP3,
and then backup that as many times as you would
ever want... so what's the problem??

Re:you can backup all your itunes purchases

[timeOday]

Name a format that will never go obsolete!

Sure, the physical media my data are on will go obsolete. That's the whole point: if DRM locks me down, I can't copy it over. Investing in a music collection only playable on one brand of equipment is a huge mistake. If it were anyone but Apple, it would be obvious to everybody.

No, the mp3 and ogg formats will not become obsolete in our lifetimes. Unlike 8 tracks and tapes, digital formats can store whatever your ears can hear and don't degrade when played or copied. The problem of representing sound is solved.

Not very likely

[Calibax]

I understand how media can be obsoleted when players for that media are no longer available. However, it's much more difficult to make a data format unuseable.

Surely that can only occur if the format can only be read by a non-open source application that is only available in binary format and where the hardware to run that program becomes unavailable. I suppose it could also happen if the media you use for your iTunes storage becomes obsolete and you don't remember to copy your music to another media format.

I think a billion downloads (and counting) will ensure that iTunes music will remain playable for a long time to come and will sound just as good then as it does now.

Re:Not very likely

[fermion]

Which is the key point and why the labels do not want music in non-DRM digital format. The problem is the youngsters do not realize the problem.

When the wax cylinder went awasy, people had to buy the same music in a new format. When the 8-track went away, we had to buy the same music in a new format. When the LP went away, we had a choice of listening to degraded music on tape or buying the same music in a new format.

With iTunes, this is the first time we can buy music, and, if the hardware does not become encumbered, with relitive ease transfer between many formats as we wish. Once we make a CD of it, we can put the music on player that accepts unencumbered music. We can make a DVD of it. If the furture meadia accept unecumbered music, we can do that as well.

The BS of this article, and I am trying to be objective here, is that apple has done something that is revolutionary. Legal music that is potentially transportable into the future. Even if you do not remove the DRM, As long as Apple makes iTunes for the general platform, or the technology is licensed, there will be no reason to buy other music because any machine can be authorized once an old machine is deauthorized. The labels want more money from the sales at iTunes because they know that is all they will ever get! Of course, Apple can be forced to changes the licensing, and the music might become obsolete, but as I have shown, that is nothing new.

Worst post ever

[xero314]

This post is just stupid. It's full of lies. How did this get onto the main page?

Pimp my blog

[MyLongNickName]

... and post something ranting about DRM.

Blogger admits he has never used service. Does not address the fact that you CAN covert to another format if you wish.

Is iTunes perfect? No. But I have purchased 20x more music than what I would have otherwise.

And even if iTunes shut down tomorrow, I would lose 0% of my music.

Only thing I wish is that it would serve up a higher bit rate....

Re:Pimp my blog

[middlemen]

no but if the computer from which you upload songs to your beloved iPod crashed, you would lose all the songs on your iPod as well because once you update from a fresh system, you have lost the songs already on your iPod.

Is this article baiting?

[fak3r]

Look, I have an iBook, but have bought very little from iTunes Store, however I think everyone understands Apple's decision to go with an audio format that would support a DRM; which they see as key to keep the people coming to them for tracks, and not to someone else who just bought them. It *is* annoying that you can only play the tracks on 'authorized' systems, and the other contrastrants, but people know this. By your arguement then people that bought games for Nintendo 64 were 'suckers' because they bought a game that was 'locked in' to a certain platform and wouldn't play on the Gamecube.

In this throwaway society of ours I really think that for most people the idea that something they buy might not always be around forever is OK. Hell, I guess we could start talking about other things too, cars, cameras, hot water heaters, etc...

Re:Is this article baiting?

[wootest]

Your argument is fallacious.

Apple went through hoops to add DRM to the files - it was a requirement from the **AAs - whereas N64 vs Gamecube was just a fact of progressing technology. AAC (MPEG-4) being incompatible with MP3 (MPEG-2, Layer 3) because of technological advancements would be a more apt comparison to N64 vs GC here.

I was going to bring up how, with DRM, we'd need to repurchase the same damn songs on new media, but in fact that's just the way it's always have been, even without DRM. Media, regardless of it being books, music, movies, games, etc, is consumed and will always come out in new forms, just like any other case of consumption. (However, DRM and crummy quality is most likely the labels' way of making sure they can continue to resell you the same stuff tomorrow, despite how they could actually do something that we could conceivably play, no problem, on a computer in 100 years.)

At the end of the day, DRM sucks, and we all know this. However, I'm also confident that Apple's one of the vendors least tied to DRM, because Apple only offers 'buying', and not 'subscribing', which literally hinges on DRM - otherwise you could just keep the music, like with 'buying'! Apple's simultaneously the most and least likely to speak up against DRM: most because they use DRM, hate it and could say "all these sales we racked up for you? we could make them stop coming unless you offer DRM-less music"; but also least, because they know the labels would just make up a new store and Apple would lose profits itself (and it actually does make a slim profit on the store).

It's a dollar. Or twenty. Or two hundred. So?

[ScentCone]

I always find it amusing to hear people use the word "sucker" when talking about a person paying $0.99 for a bit of portable entertainment they like from a musician they respect... as they drive in their car - which they'll never fully own, on which they'll pay thousnds in interest - to a friend's house, where they'll talk about how smart they are ("Ogg Vorbis, dude!") while they drink $2.00 imported beers that will only be in their collection for about an hour.

Lame.

[d3kk]

"Personally I've never bought an iTune and I don't own an iPod."

I stopped reading right there. It's kind of hard to criticize a service without actually ever using it.

How is apple's DRM "terrible?"

[LupusUF]

Maybe this will cause me to get nailed by mods, but I feel that it needs to be said.

The blog rant that is linked to complains that apple's DRM is "terrible." I simply don't understand the argument. The DRM is as lax as possible while still keeping the music industry from having a fit. Sure there are limits to how many times you can burn a playlist, but if you change the list by only one song you the counter resets. How many times have you burned more than a couple copies of the exact same playlist anyway? Perhaps the sound isn't exactly the same as a CD, but it is good enough that it really doesn't matter on most sound systems. What the blogger really misses is the fact that itunes gives you what you can't get at the CD shop. The ability to buy just one song off of a CD. If an artist makes one good song and the rest crap, you only pay .99 and get that one song.

Since you can burn your ACC files and then rip them to mp3 if you want, there is no danger of not being able to play your music in the future like the blogger claims. Yes you have to pay for the songs, yes there are some restrictions to prevent piracy, but itunes is still a great thing. It should be something that slashdot readers support, it gives us cheap music and DRM that has plenty of flexibility.

Re:How is apple's DRM "terrible?"

[NutscrapeSucks]

Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial.

(A) It's not trivial compared to dealing with music files. Let's see you do this with 100s of songs and see how long it takes.

(B) It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible. RIAA/DRM tracks (iTMS) are intentionally low enough bit rate to make this an unattractive option.

"awful DRM" ?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I think Apple's DRM is awful and represents a major step back for us all.

Got something better[1]? If so, don't just bitch...do it!

[1] Something that meets the needs of both the user/consumer and the creator/owner.

Re:Obsolete?

[sdo1]

128 kbps lossy (which is sucky quality no matter how you slice it) to CD. And then you can rip it and compress it again (or even if you don't compress it, you're still stuck with that or original 128 kbps crappy sounding file, but now it's the size of an uncompressed file).

No thanks. That's a non-solution.

-S

Re:Welcome...

[abbamouse]

I seem to recall that copyright law allows you to convert any digital media you purchase from one format to another

Then you haven't looked at copyright law since the mid-1990s. Prior to the DMCA, US law worked as you remember. But post-DMCA, the mere act of decrypting your own files or any other way to circumvent a content access control is illegal. You have the right to copy, but not to break the DRM to do it.

The analogy I give my students is that when a friend has your CD you have the right to get it back. You do not, however, have the right to break into his house to get it. The analogy is imperfect, since the DMCA bans you from breaking into your own house, so to speak. But you get the point: No bypassing copy protection ever, for any reason, without explicit consent from the content provider. Oh, and it also turns out that simply downloading the tools to break DRM ("trafficking" in the law's terms) is also a felony, even if you never actually crack the DRM.

It's a brave new world, folks.

Not Lame

[sdo1]

DRM is DRM. Apple's may be one of the more palatable ones to the masses, but it is still RESTRICTED. The fact that they are DRM'd is all some people (myself included) need to know. I've purchased $1.98 worth of music from iTunes. Then I realized that I can't stream them to my Roku Soundbridge in another room. I'm certainly not going to build a music collection only to have some company or computer service dictate what I can can can't do with it.

Screw that. Even if a new service pops up, if it has any level of DRM I know all I need to know about it. So no, it's not unreasonable to me that this person commented on Apple's service even if they haven't used it.

-S

Re:works half as well...

[geodescent]

Try saving a JPEG at 85% quality. Then open the saved copy. Then save it again. Repeat about 10 times over and get back to me.

Re:How is apple's DRM not "terrible?"

[sdo1]

Every digital music device on the market today (with a smattering of minor exceptions) will play MP3. Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial. If you can't afford the media, get a CDRW. The whole rant is "you'll be locked into Apple's proprietary format!!!" and that's bullshit. Even if Apple *doesn't* provide a way to migrate forward, the aforementioned "work around" is very likely to be sufficient.

And burning a sucky 128 mbps file, ripping it, and recompressing it makes a SUCKIER sounding file.

So no, this isn't viable workaround to rid the file of the DRM.

The SOLUTION is to refuse to buy DRM'd files in the first place. If everyone would friggin' wise up and do just that, Digitally Restricted Media (DRM) would be history. But they've convinced the world that a little DRM is OK and your comments show that you've bought right into that too. It's just a little DRM now. And then a little more and a little more and a little more until 20 years from now, you'll look back on your comment and wonder how on earth transporting media that you purchased to another format or another player was so easy and FREE those 20 years ago.

But 20 years from now you won't be buying music with any expectations at all of being able to move it from one device to another without paying more. You'll be licensing it and maybe it will be inexpensive to play that album in your car, but it'll cost you a few more cents. Play it at work... a few more cents.

But that'll all feel fine and dandy because you never noticed the rights you once had creeping away. And Apple's oh-so-friendly DRM is step one.

-S

Re:Doesn't work quite so well

[bcrowell]

I think what people lose sight of in the discussion of DRM is that even with DRM, you can still have some, but not all, of the following: cheap, easy, high quality. For example, no DRM scheme is going to stop me from pointing my camcorder at the screen of my TV and copying a movie, and if I'm doing it for my own use, I'm not even violating the law; however, it will be a pain, and the quality might only be good enough to keep my kid happy on a long plane ride. Likewise what you've done by converting your itunes stuff to ogg was cheap, and high enough quality to satisfy you, but it sure doesn't sound like it was easy.

The reason to be opposed to DRM isn't that it totally prevents you from doing things. It doesn't totally prevent it, it just gives you a worse selection of choices in terms of cost, ease, and quality. The real reason to be opposed to DRM is that it moves us further and further down the slippery slope to a world in which there is no commons, and it takes control of technology out of the hands of individuals and puts it in the hands of big corporations that buy a politician like I buy a quart of milk.

Re:works half as well...

[X0563511]

A true lossless encoder would produce the same bits in output as it recieved in input. If your "lossless" format is introducing artifacts, better make sure it compiled properly.

That blog's comments made me cringe

[TubeSteak]

Literally, I cringed at how many commentors thought they were soooooo clever for burning to a CD then re-ripping to MP3.

I remember (when I had just discovered MP3s in 9th grade) re-encoding them to a higher bitrate. I thought I was clever, I mean, higher bitrate right?

Fark I was stupid & so is every n00btard who says "burn it and re-encode it."

I think part of the problem is that people now have something 'invested' in iTunes or their iPod and because of that, they'll defend it. Even if you give them proof they may have made a bad choice.

Remember folks, denial is the first step.
Then comes anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

I'm not saying iTunes is bad, but the people who have invested money/time/credibility into Apple will have a lot of trouble stepping back and looking at their decision objectively.

Re:That blog's comments made me cringe

[protohiro1]

Why have I made a bad choice? I am not trying to create some sort of enduring music collection. I just want songs, its super easy to find them on itunes, the price is right and i have an ipod. If I cared that much about having a collection of music I could listen to ten years from now I can still buy cds. I think people know what they are getting into with itunes, really. I think it is an instant gratification thing, not an objective "what is the best format for me" thing. The songs are lossy encoded already.

This guy is looking down on ME for buying iTunes?

[balloot]

I think it's stupid to pay $15 for most new CDs. I think it's stupid to pay for an entire CD when you want only one song. I think it's stupid to have to clear out a lot of physical space in order to hold your CD collection. I think it's stupid to force yourself to either a) go to a store to buy a CD or b) wait days in order to receive your purchase when the whole process can happen instantly. So I buy songs online. The DRM isn't really an issue to those of us that have actually used iTunes and know that it is very possible to get mp3's out of your m4p files.

Oh, and about the author's brilliant scheme of buying CDs and returning them the next day - if I wanted to get music while screwing the artist out of any money, I would just download the song for free.

Sweet lord, No!

[Marc2k]

When Vorbis first came out, a large portion of files available online were conversions from 160kbs or [usually] less MP3s, and thusly, everthing sounded like crap. Seriously, the last thing we need is the impending threat of obsoletion to goad everyone into converting their lossy-compression files into a different lossy-compression format with different properties, and brings out the worst in both formats. Don't do it!

Re:Worst post ever - In other news

[Tim Browse]

/sarcasm

You mispelt '/cluelesslymissingthepoint'.

HTH.