Slashdot Mirror
MSN Music Purchases Not Compatible with Zune
lewiz writes "The BBC is reporting that music purchased at MSN Music will not play on the new Zune music player." From the article: "The problem has arisen because tracks from the MSN Music site are compatible with the specifications of the Plays For Sure initiative. This was intended to re-assure consumers as it guaranteed that music bought from services backing it would work with players that supported it. MSN Music, Napster, AOL Music Now and Urge all backed Plays For Sure as did many players from hardware makers such as Archos, Creative, Dell and Iriver. In a statement a Microsoft spokesperson said: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"
One word, and that is: Hah!
Plays for Ruse, since there are a lot of people that are feeling tricked at the moment.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
One would think Microsoft would do their best to retain their customer base from MSN Music.
Plays For Sure Maybe.
...and claim that "plays for sure" is an advertising claim that Microsoft has now failed to live up to. :-)
-JMP
People keep saying DRM isn't inherently evil. Why?
Over the past week, I've heard a number of people claim that there's nothing inherently evil about DRM: that it's just a neutral tool, and you can do good or evil things with it. I'm always a little surprised to hear this. After all, the media cartel calls it "Digital Rights Management;" that kind of Orwellian doublespeak makes it hard to think positive thoughts about it.
The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that. It's certainly bad when it keeps me from putting my music on all my devices. It's bad when it keeps me from recording the TV shows I watch, too. And even when it has potential security applications, I think it's bad. Sure, a company could use DRM-like technology to keep its internal correspondence away from competitors and journalists. But do we want to live in a society where the New York Times can't get a copy of the Pentagon Papers?
If DRM isn't inherently evil, it certainly doesn't have anything going for it.
The Zune is 100% DOA
Go buy a Sony Walkman, now with free DRM any spyware!
why, if I do, I still buy normal CDs.
Different player? Doesn't support my current format. Well, if everything breaks, I can always re-rip them and do not need to re-buy them.
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
That's why I don't buy DRM'ed music. But instead copy music legally for my personal use, using my right to private copying (see the Canadian Copyright Act).
Supporting the Apple Monopoly on Music doesn't sound like such a bad idea, eh?
(Pointing at MS Plays-for-Sure)
"Ha ha - you've been usurped! That's right, I said usurped."
"Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices"
yeah.. but the question is why Plays For Sure content is not supported on Zune players
Oh sure, it plays for sure on these four devices, but not those. The new thing is better anyways, it surely plays for real for now! Click this button and agree to the hidden contract, don't you love living in the future?
sure..
-
Anyone need a batshit insane realtor?
-
Aim at foot...
Pull trigger...
as "Plays Who Knows the Hell Where?"
Where were you when the voynix came?
Microsoft has a compatibility issue?
"The BBC is reporting that music purchased at MSN Music will not play on the new Zune music player"
and
"Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"
what? is ZUNE content not supported on PLAYSFORSURE devices, or is PLAYSFORSURE content not supported on ZUNE? or both??
Now, who exactly is the target audience? People too stupid to know better?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This would of course be a huge problem...if MSN Music had any customers.
gameDB
I'm sure they will sell some to parents this xmas. Get tedy to hear kids groaning from coast to coast.
It's doublespeak - like Windows Genuwine or Darl telling us how licensing will 'get you clean...' DRM in any form is a scam - this is proof of the obvious.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
You fail to understand that "Plays For Sure" and all the OEM suckers that bought into it were simply a part of MS's larger experiment.
Zune is, practically speaking, a DRM 2.0 for MS and entertainment mega-corps.
Which goes to show you how much MS actually values companies using their platform in 2006.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Not so sure.
"Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices... We will not be performing compatibility testing for non-Zune devices, and we will not make changes to our software to ensure compatibility with non-Zune devices."
I fail to see anything the article says being backed up by anything Microsoft said.
It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
I'm sure Zune is not a Plays for Sure product so Microsoft could convince their partners that Zune doesn't compete with them. Any PfS user would be unlikely to move to Zune due to the cost of refilling the library. Of course, PfS subscription users would be OK - assming Zune has a subscription feature of its own (does it? I'm not sure).
The thing is, the same could be said for iPod users: they're unlikely to switch to Zune if they can't move their purchased songs...assuming that they actually bought their songs.
However, the third party device makers (and DRM'd music stores) are probably looking at the writing on the wall right now, and not liking what they're reading. There are only three DRM formats in widespread use: Apple's, Microsoft's, and Audible's. As a third-party licensee, why would I license my DRM from a competitor? Especially a competitor like Microsoft, who has a long history of being anti-social...and the ability to blow $5.4 billion dollar for years on products with no thought of return (MS home & entertainment cumulative losses, FY 2002-2005).
Apple doesn't license its DRM, and even if it did it's unclear if it would do any of the other device makers any good. Audible, well, it's unclear if audible would license its DRM or not. It actually is supported on pretty much every device, including iPods. It could be that its distribution agreement with everyone precludes licensing, but if not, audible could actually stand to make some money as the Switzerland of DRM.
As for the PfS crowd, it must be lonely when your competitors are Apple and Microsoft. I suppose that means that everyone will be herded into their little niches, and turn into iPod and Zune accessory makers?
There are all sorts of excuses out there about why people copy music. There are so few good CDs out there, the artists make enough money, the studios are ripping people off. Obviously there are so many more, but here's the thing. The artists worked to produce that album, the producers took a risk to produce that album. Damn people, no one expects you to work for free, and to give away your life's blood for free, so why should artists do it for free?? They have families to support, and lives to live just like everybody else, so what is the problem?
Having said that, I don't like the RIAAs heavy handed tactics and draconian tactics when it comes to enforcing their views on everybody. I don't like how the studios are ruining the new HDDVD standards, and I think it has great potential to ruin the new formats.
But here's the thing people, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Dang - another hole in the foot!
Only Sony could mess up a launch worse than Microsoft. The Zune is just going to piss off all of the Microsoft Allies (Creative and so on) AND piss off the consumers by not letting them play music that they already now own.
I had a chance to ask Robbie Bach, the president of Microsoft's entertainment & devices division, why the Zune wouldn't support PlaysForSure DRM'd songs. His answer was actually pretty heartening. PlaysForSure has to support a wide range of players, because the specification for PlaysForSure players is somewhat loose. Regardless, they want a very tight system with the Zune -- you buy music from the Microsoft store, and put it on the Zune, and It Just Works®. Allowing PlaysForSure music on the device would break this system (similar to how fairplay'd music only comes from iTunes) and they don't want to focus on supporting a wide range of different devices. They want to make it work for the Zune, and they want to make it work well -- he recognized that this is why Apple's system was so far ahead.
DRM = Defective Recorded Media
DRM = Digitally Restricted Media
DRM = Definitely Rented Media
DRM = (Customers) Don't Really Matter
DRM = Don't Rewind Movies
Anyone else?
Of why they cant be trusted, and with luck THIS will get to the common man and be noticed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In Soviet Russia.... music plays you!
is so bad that not even MSN music wants to be played on it
Way to go Microsoft. You took the gun, loaded it, aimed it squarely at Apple and the iPod, and then turned it around and shot yourself in the foot.
I'm not an MS basher any more than saying I don't like most of their software. I don't think they're utterly evil... But wow, that takes a special commitment to poor business decisions. Launch an system called "plays for sure" and then manufacture a incompatible product. I'm impressed.
What's sad is that they'll still probably sell a few to people who can't see passed the advertising and MS hype.
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
a Microsoft spokesperson said: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"
Just when you thought microsoft could not pull anything stupider than they had lately... I mean really, what is this? Yes we have here a standard and we are backing it and we are making it the universally compatible technology, but wait, except for this major new product we're releasing. Doesn't this just incredibly piss off everyone - the customers, the manufacturers, the retailers? What on earth could they possibly be getting in exchange for all this horrid customer ill-will?
Bad Bill! No cookie!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
How would that break the system? The iPod supports other music formats, not just Fairplay. The Zune could support PlaysForSure, which Microsoft pushed onto *other* PMP vendors, *and* Microsoft's PlaysForZune (or whatever). Then this wouldn't be a slashdot article at all.
This is really a bizarre move that makes it seem like Microsoft just wants an iron fist, to make sure the Zune only works with their music store and doesn't work with anything else at all, forcing customers to their music store.
This is why the whole system is fucked, and needs rebooting.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
FTFA: Microsoft has said it will stop selling music from MSN music from 14 November, when Zune goes on sale in the US.
...
From 14 November, customers on the MSN Music store site will now be redirected to Zune Marketplace or, as part of a 2005 legal settlement where Microsoft agreed that no music service would receive greater promotion than RealNetworks, Real Rhapsody.
MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
All depends on whose Kool-Aid you're drinking.
I find it impossible to not believe that one of the key selling points of DRM, is that it forces a consumer to re-purchase the same content over and over and over.
You want to listen to a track on your portable player? Sure, $1.
Want to listen to it on your cell phone? $2.50.
Want to burn it to a CD, maybe another $0.50.
Want to stream it over the internet, so you can hear it from your office/friend's computer/wherever? You're S.O.L.
You say it's to prevent "illegal distribution" but I'd argue that it could just as easily be to prevent format and space-shifting, since the 'loss' due to format shifting (if you consider the income that they wouldn't receive as a result of space and format-shifting a 'loss') is probably equal if not greater than the losses due to interpersonal sharing. With 'ideal' DRM, you could charge consumers per-track, per-listen, and then charge for every format and every possible way to enjoy the content. The revenue possibilities are unimaginable. Only the shortsighted see it as just a method to prevent seventh-graders from swapping discs.
At the end of the day it's academic whether the intent is to prevent "piracy" and it also prevents format-shifting, or whether it's intended to do both from the vary beginning. In most implementations, it does do both.
In my mind, regardless of what effect it might have on piracy, if it curtails established consumer rights or Fair Use, then it ought to be unacceptable. My ability to listen to the same piece of legitimately purchased music in various locations and in various formats is not an 'acceptable loss' in some epic battle between the valiant protectors of Intellectual Property and the American Way and the Evil Pirates.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Its because of idiotic, selfish moves like this that Microsoft, Sony etc will eventually lose the whole digital rights battle.
Companies like AllofMP3.com offer the consumers what they want - simply to pay a fee (ok, a small one!) and as a result have a file they can play on whatever products they have that support that common file type.
Unimpeded MP3 is enough to keep most of the world happy....but the major greedy companies just cant cope with the concept. Its not THAT much to ask for.
I still reckon a flat monthly fee to get access to everything is the way to go - and I would pay it. And in case MS and Sony are reading this, the average person would expect that fee to be LESS than their rent or mortgage payment.
There is no denying that getting a fee like that from just about everyone is likely to earn them more revenue than getting a little bit from some people - and encouraging a thriving trade in royalty free MP3 files where no-one pays a cent.
This is the kind of crap that made IBM so hated in the old days. They would partner with some (usually much smaller) partner and offer a joint product. The partner would be a specialist in an area where IBM didn't have an offering. Then, after a few years IBM would drop the partner come out with their own competing product. Often they would get sued, and sometimes they would loose, but the partner would amost always be knocked out, and if they didn't go out of business, they never got over it.
The only real question is if Microsoft will ever go through the kind of change that IBM did, and stop being such a bad business player.
From the article Microsoft said that its Windows Media Player will recognize Zune content which might make it possible to put the content on a Plays For Sure device. However, it said it would not provide customer support to anyone attempting this.
They just say that they won't provide support for getting the music on the device. Its clear from the statement that if they were on the player it would work.
I really don't understand why people want to make up stories about microsoft. There is enough about microsoft to make fun of with out making stuff up,
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I don't know about you, but if I had just been screwed like this I wouldn't pick the Microsoft option...
They had their fingers crossed when they made that promise.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"legal" or "illegal" has nothing to do with DRM.
DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use".
Perhaps, DRM attempts to prevent "unauthorized" use or distribution.
Yes, I know the marketing with pirates and stuff, wants you to think that this is a natural way of preventing illegal activity similar to robbing boats.
But DRM is a distribution and use control mechanism.
DRM does not prevent activity according to legal code. It prevents activity according to what use the DRM'er allows.
You cannot really say what the point/purpose of DRM is, as the true purpose may not match what is stated.
You can only say what DRM does. And that is to prevent certain use of material.
Try wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Manag
MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program.
How much you wanna bet Apple licenses FairPlay to Creative and others within the week?
Just thinking that it'd be a nice idea.
Nope. Apple makes money on hardware. They won't open up fairplay and risk iTunes people buying something other than an ipod.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
...realize that if you give douchebags, er, sorry, capitalists and habitual defectors, a mechanism for screwing you over (e.g. DRM), they will screw you over. And that's basically what RMS has been fighting against. And this little scam is yet another proof of that.
How about supporting your local CD store? Call me nuts, but I'd rather spend my money locally, insteasd of with some large, faceless corporation that's only interest is in my wallet.
Dramatic Irony
n.
3b - incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play
On the stage that is consumer electronics, with the observer that is the consumer, and the actor that is the manufacturer - when the manufacturer creates a market paradox in which its service and product are incompatible... Awww hell,
What in the name of Sam Hill was Microsoft thinking!?!?!?!
Normally I'm not the type of person to ask this question. But the Zune looks like some really interesting hardware that just isn't being used right, especially with regard to its wireless capability. Is there any chance to get linux on this thing so I can just do whatever I want with it, or is DRM implemented in hardware?
Microsoft: I can't believe you fell for the oldest trick in the book. What a goof. What's with you man? Come on. You know what? No, here let me give your music back to you.
Microsoft: Oh, look. You fell for that, too. I can't believe it man.
Microsoft: So, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
The ______ Agenda
If apple makes $20 on each iPod, why would they turn down making $20 from each creative zen as well? Once their market share gets chipped away a little more, they will license it.
JON
Because they wouldn't make as much. By making the ipod the only thing that can use itunes, they get 100% of hardware revenue from all itunes users. If they open it, they get 100% of hardware from N% of itunes users, and a small fee from 1-N%. Unless N is extremely small, they make far far more by keeping exclusive control.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Aww cut em a break, people! They're, you know, redefining themselves. Being hip and cool-like. Like the next Apple! Or those crazy Linux and open source people, all get to do it, wether it's a new distribution or waay out in left field with the *BSD fruit. Why don't you all find another mega billion dollar company to pick on!
FLR
Microsoft: Product development managed by a large but finite number of monkeys. Apparently this is not enough to produce great works. Their solution? Add more monkeys.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
That word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
For that matter, neither does "Plays for sure".
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Just watch, soon Zune will play play-for-sure but other players won't play zune format music.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Looks like another legitimate use for FairUse4WM.
:)
MS should make it available to their old customers as a way of selling more Zunes.
(That said - Why can't MS make a utility or service that relicenses/reencrypts PlaysForSure content as Zune content?)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
It just goes to show, if a standard isn't open, you can't trust it. If it's not open, it's not a standard. It's just the lock-in cage of the week.
I can tolerate proprietary software, but proprietary data and data formats are, quite frankly, a bigger problem. This is precisely why. It is also logically impossible to have DRM that does not do this, by nature.
Boycott DRM. All of it. Microsoft's, the **AA's, even Apple's. Yes, that means stop giving money to the pro-DRM campaign by buying iPods, even if it is weak DRM.
Even if there were 15 competing open formats for media that had decent market share, you could easily build a player that supported all of them at negligible marginal cost. With proprietary formats, and especially DRM, you get to pick which company is going to get the right to fleece you, rob you blind, take away your ability to use your own data, and then pull a bait and switch like this on you and make you do it all over again.
I choose "None of the above". You should do.
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
You're right, they did just fire a round into Apple's foot.
This appears to be an economic battle much like every other that Microsoft has gotten into. And most of the time they've managed to win.
Apple will likely become another Netscape, at least within the digital media market. Don't forget that Apple has nowhere near the 97% marketshare that Netscape had at their peak.
The iPod will likely become another Netscape Navigator, WordPerfect, or Borland C++Builder. Those three products were highly liked and massively popular during their heydays. But then Microsoft came along with their alternative, and completely destroyed the incumbents.
Three letters: XCP. And why do such stores that sell CDs charge $16 for four decent songs plus eight uninspired pieces of crap added solely to avoid the lower "single" and "EP" pricing tiers?
"But it says 'Plays for Sure!!!' "
"I have altered the agreement.
Pray I do not alter it any further."
(whoooooohhh, haaaaaahhhh. whoooooohhh, haaaaaahhhh)
Yo PC music download!
Blah, blah, blah...whatever... We're all such losers for caring so much about this stuff in the first place, right?
Both of MSN Music customers knew what they were getting into. And since they now have some experience with being a MS customer, what are the chances that either one will decide to buy a Zune, anyway? This is a non-issue.
A QUOTE IN THE ARTICLE: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'
Indicating that in fact PLAYS FOR SURE DEVICES can't play ZUNE CONTENT
Got that?
It does not indicate, as the title suggests, that ZUNE DEVICES can't play PLAYS FOR SURE CONTENT
It also fails to indicate anywhere else that this claim of incompatibility between plays for sure content and zune devices is warranted. Other incompatibilies are shown to exist, that is all.
Can't we all just get along
Interesting when there is a chorus of people suggesting that Apple needs to license fairplay that MS is pulling back from that very approach and doing it the Apple way. Zune is not only a deliberately closed system but closed to MS existing partners.
Zune - the whole widget.
WTF
They used to at least work at dominating new markets, and used to succeeding, they've stopped trying and just expect markets to roll over for them now...
Here they obviously have decided that the Zune will be the killer player and they don't need their former partners because "they're microsoft". They screw over existing customers and partners, to bring forth a product that may or may not be adequate (the iPod is sure as hell adequate by the market behavior), all the while not even bothering to undercut their competition in price. Considering that the iPod has, to use their terminology an 'ecosystem' of OEM support (perhaps most notable umpteen different car stereos that can take an iPod and interface intelligently with it). Consumer wise their strategy seems to be fairly boneheaded and assumes success.
Another good example of late is their HPC move 'Compute Cluster Edition'. Here they are trying to enter a market absolutely dominated by linux. Linux proves invaluable to HPC configurations because of the sheer flexibility and power of the system, with either home-grown support with absolute zero licensing fees, or working with vendors that get their licensing fees, but don't enforce things in a draconian fashion. Now an associate of mine has their 'solution' demoed and was expecting that it would work okay, but probably miss some of the point, but it worked like crap on what it did do on top of *completely* missing the point, with the MS person just shrugged and said "it's our initial release, we will improve." I fully expected they would have done better, and also expected that they would recognize the competitive landscape and aggressively price. I didn't expect them to give it away, but their per-node licensing exceeds even the 'entry server' licenses of RH and Novell, and experience teaches that commonly clusters go no higher than the 'workstation' pricing for nodes.
MS has turned into a company expecting success to fall into their laps, and I hope this complacency will bite them in the ass.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Anyone stupid enough to buy DRM infested material deserves to get screwed.
MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune
Well, since I don't know a single person who is interested in buying a Zune, sounds like this move doesn't make sense...
With proprietary content format controlled by the RIAA and Microshaft I will not be buying one anytime zune!
I submitted this story 5 DAYS AGO :( and it was rejected .
But it is a Shame that the Microsoft has found yet ANOTHER renewable Revenue.
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story." - Lionel Hutz
man, I think the Zune will be the best thing to happen to Apple in a long time... microsoft screws everyone else in the mp3 market with PlaysForSure, then releases a crapbox that can't possibly compete with iPod.
Damn Rotten Music
Gay Martians... who like brown...
... and then they built the supercollider.
I don't know about you, but if I had just been screwed like this I wouldn't pick the Microsoft option...
I can imagine that most people won't pick the M$ option if they do so much as hear about "Plays for Sure", which is practically unavoidable if you bought anything but an iPod. The majority of MP3 player owners did just that in the past, but M$ seems determined to change things in the future. WMP is a steaming pile of dog poop, their players don't let you buy an keep music online, what more can they do to make themselves and DRM look bad?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
in latter news Micro$oft goes out of bussiness?!
My intent wasn't to fatally shoot him. It was to put a bullet in the wall directly behind him. Remind me not to hire you as my lawyer.
-On the internet, no one cares if you're a dog.-
The next thing you know, Microsoft will announce that Zune will only be initially released in the US and not in, say, the UK until 2008. That would be just unbelievable!
They are copying the ipod model and want to crush it. The problem is more than ever people are getting tired of the whole one manufacturer/style bit. They want variety. All microsoft is doing is making sure the zune doesn't have a chance. If people want a player locked into one store, they will get an ipod. Microsoft should release the zune to be compatible with all stores and even set up a team just to crack itunes drm so they can continually make the zune itunes compatible. Then the zune would have a chance. Hell they could strike deals with the media companies to be allowed to strip fairplay from a file and lock it with their own drm all in one process.
To be fair, Microsoft never exactly was known for making good competing products, only products that work "eh" enough, most of the time "eh", and products that people only know exist.
Sadly for Microsoft, most people i would say know of ipod, but not of zune. The game has changed a lot, but they are still playing with the same strategy, one that relies on them being the only thing people hear/know of.
I think it could happen, but only to a very limited degree. Assuming that apple makes a very solid profit on each ipod, they definitly won't license it cheap, which would make it unfeasible for putting on, for example, all zen vision M's, or all Zen V's, even if apple was willing to license it.
So, sticking with creative labs as an example, they could sell just a limited number of itunes compatible zen vision M's. There would be a hidden advantage for apple in allowing this: since ipods are so common, batteries for them are relatively easy to find, even though they're not supposed to be user replaceable, but since zens are much less common, I don't think you can find replacement batteries for them; so someone who bought a itunes-zen would be more likely to buy a new ipod or a new itunes licensed device when it dies. But since, AFAIK, ipod nanos have the battery soldered in, that's not so much of an issue anymore.
Or, the expensive license fee could be made easier to stomach by only licensing itunes for much higher end devices, like those players with the bigger screens that are more geared for video. By doing so, they'd also be able to test the water to see if it would by any chance be a good idea to make such a product themselves.
I don't think the chances of it happeing are very high, especially of the first scenario. It could be a good PR move though.
I liked the iPod HW, and might consider it again. The nanos look nice, but right now a Sansa looks like the best alternative for a flash player.
Costco shows 30GB hdd Zune players for $240. That seems like a good price-point, IF I can ignore all on-line services and just play my own MP3 files. I assume it plays MP3 without issue.
Does anyone know if I can just connect a Zune to a Windoze PC and drop files in a folder. I really don't want to load a bloated app that connects to some online-service I will never use to buy DRM music. Cheap but good Microsoft subsidized hw is fine by me.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Perhaps they've realized (from the history of PSP) that if they keep a bunch of features in reserve, they can keep forcing customers to 'upgrade' their firmware and progressively closing software loopholes which would otherwise let customers use their own device in useful but uncommercial ways.
In other words, you can expect the PlaysForSure 'upgrade' to be released as soon as the first crack of their current DRM becomes public.
The headline says "MSN Music Purchases Not Compatible with Zune." The summary says "Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices," which is completely different, akin to saying "Nintendo DS games are not supported on Game Boy Advance systems," which is true, while the converse certainly is not... but so what? Zune may still support the old format, it's just the new Zune format won't work on old devices.
Has Microsoft actually made any statement even remotely supporting the claims in the headline?
I am the man with no sig!
I think the writer of the article is either stupid or deliberately FUDding MS. And I'm not an MS supporter, but isn't this obvious? ...
FTA: In a statement a Microsoft spokesperson said: "Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices."
Repeat, ZUNE content not support of P4S devices.
In other words, Zune can play the old (play for sure) stuff, and then some. However, older PlaysForSure-only devices won't be able to handle the added extras that Zune supports. MSN Music is changing names and moving to the Zune-ized PlaysForSureAndThenSome. So, MSN music will always be compatible with Zune, but possibly not other devices.
This is the OPPOSITE of what the article writer has decided. He/she thinks that you won't be able to play MS-bought music on an MS-bought device. That's not the case at all.
GLORX 3:16
I've been trying to figure it out for weeks, and I haven't seen an actual quote from J Allard addressing it -- Yes, we know PlaysForSure hardware will NotPlayForSure music from the Zune store, but will Zune, despite this misleading headline, play PlaysForSure content?
If not, Leo Laporte's soundbyte from late in the summer about the Zune being "self-clobbering" will be right on the mark.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Also, they keep full power over the iPod/iTunes brand. By having some cheap crap clone player with "Made for iTunes" that is of lower quality than an iPod, they hurt the iTunes brand because it is associated with something that isn't as good as their stuff. That happened with the clones, where Apple's clone manufacturers basically used cheap parts and put together crappy computers in a lot of instances, and then sold them at lower than Apple's prices, which hurt Apple's bottom line and also had busted crap out there being associated with Mac OS 7.5 - 8.x
Dear Bill,
you've tried hard, cool. Some even believed we would throw out iPods en masse, after all brown is so hip (billions of flies can't be wrong). But in all honesty, no... I'll stay with my shiny iPod... no matter how hard you try, you've never had a chance with me.
Yours,
e
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Sometimes it is harder to deprive oneself of a pain than of a pleasure.
/. story's headline beside it.)
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
(Quote of the day on google.com/ig, juxtaposed with this
You fail to understand that "Plays For Sure" and all the OEM suckers that bought into it were simply a part of MS's larger experiment.
All I care about is "Does it attach as a flashdrive?" and "Does it play MP3's placed in the drive space?"
I prefer a device which uses drag and drop file management and does not require a platform dependant application.
My kid picked up an RCA Lyra player. Unless you want to do DRM, it attaches as a flash drive and plays MP3's. It is a MS Plays for Sure device, but since we use Ubuntu, using the included software was out of the question. The only complaint I have with the device is the lack of playlist management. You toss on a couple dozen albums and it appears all mixed together in one menu.. Other than that, it's a fine MP3 flash player.
Does anyone know if the Zune will play MP3's by dropping them on the device without using a Windows only interface?
The truth shall set you free!
For very small values of 'for sure.'
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
No it doesn't...
DRM is simply a subset of the uses of encryption.
DRM is not evil, that term is way overused nowaday and is a simplistic way of declaring you don't like something without having to go to all the bother to think, or explain why.
No, the reason you should be upset with DRM is not because it's evil, or the uses to which it is being put is evil. The reason you should dislike DRM is much simply really; it's inherantly unworkable to do what it is trying to do. You are giving someone an encrypted payload, and the key, and then expecting that payload will never be decrypted by anything other than your "magic box" that holds the key. This is obviously foolhardy, and doomed to failure.
The reason to dislike DRM is because it is technologically foolhardy; the reason to dislike most companies use of DRm is because they arbitrarily attempt to restrict what you do with media purchased from them. Unlike you however I realise they have the right to try and bar the very consumers they sell to from accessing content - it's stupid if you want to get people interesting in the content you have to offer, but I support the ability of people and corperations to make choices that bring harm to themselves. If you do not like it, consume media on better terms such as through eMusic or directly from the artist.
Personally for some one-off songs, I find the ability to escape the DRM jail that Apple offers to be sufficent enough freedom that I will buy some songs from them - but only because they have weakened the DRM enough that I can free the media myself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course if they license it, at the *same* price as their current profit, they make the same money (or more if they get a bigger market) at no loss, and without having to go through the whole process of manufacturing something.... (This is what the grand parent said!) I'll run through an example so this is clear (numbers are arbitrary examples): Apple makes $20 profit from manufacturing ipods. They make $20 per player from 100% of the ipod market, and $20 per player from 0% of the non ipod market. They license fairplay for $20 a player (they can tell the competing manufacturer to take it or leave it). They now make $20 per player for 100% of the ipod market, plus $20 per player for x% of the non-ipod market (where x is the percentage of players licensing fairplay). Since they make $20 whenever someone buys a licensed player (ipod or not), they don't care if they sell no ipods, if people buy as many licensed players as they were selling ipods. So they need to try to get as many manufacturers to license fairplay as possible (at the right price). They can then kick back and drink margaritas instead of running factories, and still get paid.
Microsoft creates "standard."
Microsoft convinces competition to rally behind "standard."
Competition invests obscene amounts of money, marketing, and technology to deliver the "standard."
Microsoft releases a competing incompatible product, ignoring their own "standard."
Truly this is the beginning of a new era. Now Microsoft isn't content with breaking industry standards, they create them just so they can have fun breaking them later, driving everyone crazy! :eek:
(And coincidentally locking the competition out of the "updated" "standard".)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Perfecto! LOL
A cute little BSoD(Blue Screen of Death) on that tiny little LCD. Oh it will look so cute.
There's still major negatives even if they take no profit loss, due to loss of control. But even ignoring that- do you have any idea on the margins on those things? You wouldn't be talking about $20- you'd be talking twice that or more per unit. No other manufacturer would pay that, they couldn't compete.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I was stupid enough to buy music here and there from a couple of MS associated music sites in Australia. Files that would play on practically nothing other than the PC I downloaded them on, despite the assurances from WMA device vendors that this would not be problem. Three different WMA players and a Neuston MC-500 later and what do you know? DRM protected WMA files are the most useless format ever invented.
It turned out to be no problem at all once FairUse4WM turned up. I switched off automatic updates, converted everything over and won't be buying music online with DRM ever again. emusic gets my money now.
The very player that will play the MP3 files I rip from the Zune files.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
This is disturbing on so many levels. At the very least companies that have made PlaysForSure plays like Creative/SanDisk should sue saying Microsoft has deserted them. Essentially Microsoft has convinced them all to sign up with their proprietary format claiming its the way of the future only to abandon them and come out with an entirely different format for their own private player leaving them in the dark. As for customers, thats even scarier. I remember hearing that the Zune didn't play PlaysForSure previously only to think "God I hope thats a joke" but now I pity anyone who bought previous players as I do the company that made them. This along with lack of online purchasing through the player doesn't lead me to think the Zune is going to have a successful launch.
So why should I buy a Zune? Suppose I buy a Zune and spend money on Zune-compatible content, how will I know that, by the time the Zune Extreme (or whatever) is released, it will still play my content? For Sure. Not Maybe. For Sure. Not by using hacks, or re-ripping or whatever. For Sure.
What this would do is that as companies released music, more and more people would be sharing it, and with time, the value for that music would go down to zero.
uhmmmmm. I think that you mean "in no time" the value of the music would go down to zero. A company is not going to invest any time at all in making music if they can know that as soon as they release their tracks it is available at no penalty or risk on a file sharing network to any granny who wants it. There is no distribution delay on the internet to create a value curve that falls over time as you suggest. If it were legal there would be a music site along the lines of UTUBE where new music is instantly available. Nobody would buy music ever! Maybe you think that would be a good thing but I doubt you would see your plethora of new music. And my guess anyway about the people bitching about the lack of new music from the studios is they have a total lack of imagination. There is more music from around the world in thousands of different genres available for your pleasure than at any time in the past.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
Quite frankly, all this does is prove that the only viable "drm model" from a consumer perspective is a rental/subscription based one. Purchasing content that only exists in the digital realm for "ownership" is going to be a backwards proposition for quite some time, perhaps indefinately.
Spend 10 seconds reading a Zune article on engadget. You'll see people wetting themselves over the thing.
How is DRM different from Access Control? DRM in my opinion is ONLY evil if it's on files you own. That would be equivalent to purchasing a file that only gives me read access. It might even have a side effect of only working on computers running a particular OS with specific hardware. If it's a file that I don't own, then if someone gives me limited rights to it, then what's the problem? I mean if I have an http server and gave people read access to an audio file, I can easily revoked anyone's read permission to it through access control.
One place I can see DRM work is for a rental system. You do not own the content that you rent so I can see DRM working perfectly fine in that scenario by revoking your access after x # of days. Of course there's a bunch of side effects of DRM, such as limiting which players can play it, but DRM's purpose to to give certain permissions to a user on a particular file (just like access control). Maybe the media giants like the side effects, but as DRM goes, it's purpose is NOT to limit you on specific devices.
Another similar system is MMS or RTSP, which allows streaming of video, but won't let you save it. Of course there's programs that allow you to hack the protocol and save the data, just like there's programs which have cracked DRM, but similarily, owners of these the video content only want you to view and not save. That's why they are using such protocols, also limiting you to # of players.
HD Trailers
...but everything they do goes pear-shaped.
From an engadget interview 2006/09/14 with an MS Corporate vice-president (whatever that is) :
He tries to slime out of actually answering the question, but if you read the whole interview, the answer is quite clear - Zune won't support their so called 'PlaysForSure' at launch. Engadget has been used as a promotion tool for everything Zune for a while, so you can probably trust this is the party line. While it might seem so monumentally stupid that there's no chance Zune won't play 'PlaysForSure', that's exactly what they are planning. Perhaps after a month or so's backlash, they'll change their mind, or perhaps this is just a feint so that they can say to their PlaysForSure partners (now totally screwed either way) that they had to add PlaysForSure to placate outraged customers.The popularity of the iPod is not due to iTS lock-in, on the contrary, it's in spite of iTS lock-in. As usual MS are copying the wrong thing - 'Give me a brand experience' - pah
It's a stupid tax. Like the Lotto.
Deleted
During the clone aera Apple lost the most money on high-end systems. The fastest Mac machines you could get were usually clones. But it was and is on the high-end model they made the most money. Of course there were also crappy cheap clones, but this didn't hurt Apple financially as much.
When Apple licensed iTunes/iPod to other manufacturers, this could happen again. Only this time Apple has absolutely no reason at all to do this. iPods dominate the market.
You toss on a couple dozen albums and it appears all mixed together in one menu.
This is probably stating the bleeding obvious, but have you tried sticking each album in its own folder and copying the folder to your MP3 player? This works fine for keeping the tracks grouped together on my basic drag-and-drop players (two different brands). Also, to keep the tracks in the right order (album order not alphabetic) I do have to append a track number on the front of the file name, but my ripping software (Grip) can do this automatically.
This is probably stating the bleeding obvious, but have you tried sticking each album in its own folder and copying the folder to your MP3 player?
Yes. The original layout is a folder for each album. The player ignores any folders and merges them.
The truth shall set you free!
Apple failed to open the Mac and has managed to keep 100% of 5% of the market, down from ~50% at peak. Contrast with the very open Intel x86 standard. (not just the chip, the whole architecture has competition)
Sony has introduced countless (now) irrelevent proprietary media types all of which either failed to ever get traction or started with a bang, but dropped off until they disappeared. Contrast with the very open CD media standard, and even the very licensable DVD standard, and the semi-open MP3 standard.
So basically, over time, the market tends to reward the most open standards, and relegate the most closed standards to the history books. Various levels of open survive for different terms, and various outside factors play into specific examples, but in general the most unencumbered standards tend to win.
The company that makes and publishes an open standard (read: the next 'CD', like Phillips did) will topple Apple, and will make a %age of the profits, while Apple's share will drop.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
I wonder how much of this the public really understands? Considering the /. crowd is bit more technical than the average PC owner. How many people downloaded songs from MSFT thinking they'd be able to play them anywhere. Going to be a rude surprise to find out all the music they purchased is in a format MSFT is moving away from. Nice. All that money you invested...gone.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This might be what the market needs: something to make the consumers realise once and for all that DRM is no good.
So far, MP3 players are still a bit secondary, a bit gimmicky. Many people still use portable CD and cassette players, because you can buy CDs anywhere and cassettes are easy to replace if they get damaged. Minidisc has less of a following, but an my experience it's a loyal one -- everyone I know who has a minidisc recorder uses it all the time.
What I'm really surprised about is that nobody has yet made a set consisting of a portable CD player and MP3 player which can be used independently but fit together neatly, share a recharger/mains adaptor, and -- when plugged together -- allow you to create your own MP3s from CDs without a computer. You know, like the way you already can do with cassettes or minidiscs. Is MP3 encoding that much harder than decoding to implement on a low-power processor?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Money, of course.
As 'miro f' wrote it, this person was thinking about "vendor lock in" which is a scheme to get more money for less work and also a scheme to keep others for getting "rightfully yours money" by doing "your" work (presumably better than you). :)
hany
I agree.
My MP3 player is actually my Motorola RAZR V3i Mobile phone. I got it on contract for £0, to which I added a pair headphones (£12) plus a 1g Micro SD card (£28), for a total of £40. Its a certainly capable phone, with class 1 bluetooth which pairs well with my car bluetooth handsfree, and email capabilities. Its small enough, and has Drag and Drop MP3 playback - It has a standard Mini USB port, and can be set to appear as a USB mass storage device with no need for drivers, under Windows Linux, and MAC. It charges up when connected to USB. Its MP3 playback is of very good quality, though a little quieter than some players. Only drawback is it doesn't handle VBR files, though there is a firmware update in the works to fix that. As far as i know, there is NO capabilities to play DRM files.
Although there is an iTunes version of the phone, I didn't bother getting that, as Apple put a limitation of either 50 or 100 songs only can be transfered via the iTunes interface. The iTunes version still supports normal MP3 via drag and drop, with no limitations.
When I am also carrying my iPaq, I just take the transflash card out, and slot it into my iPaq via an SD adapter, and I get the same tunes on my iPaq (and I can place VBR files in a separate directory, which the iPaq CAN handle)
I believe the SonyEricsson Walkman line of phones also support Drag And Drop MP3 (my old S700 certainly did). They have DRM available, but its not mandatory.
Considering the heavy promotion of mobile phones here in the UK with MP3 capabilities, I wonder sometimes, if iPod/iTunes may be defeated this way (the SonyEricsson line, and the V3i was very popular, as well as Symbian Nokia, and Ericsson phones)
Have a nice day!
I think the description of the article is wrong: It sounds like MSN Music content WILL play on the Zune--it's just that Zune content won't play on other players. "Plays for sure" music should play for sure.
... and the winner is: MP3
sooner or later everyone pays the price.
DRM will hurt everyone, consumers and corporations.
For a society so consciousness of the value of freedom,
it truly surprises me that we're selling it out so quickly.
Words to men, as air to birds.
No way. Apple's in the business of selling hardare, not software. The hardware is where they make their money, so they'd be more likely to open up the iPod to other music stores than to license other placers to work with iTunes.
In the end, though, they won't do either - Apple's raking in cash hand over fist, has a virtual monopoly on digital music and digital music players and has no reason to change anything. Messing with their business model is only likely to make them trip themselves up, not make things better for them.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
The key point here is over time. This is why untimately, in a free market, MP3 or Ogg Vorbis would be the format of choice, making the player manufacturer irrelevant.
However, the market isn't free, because every market player involved is trying to tie users to his device or his music service - nobody's offering an authorised, legitimate MP3 download service, and nobody's allowing people to transcode their DRMed formats to MP3.
If Apple wants to retain market share "forever" then they're better off sticking with open standards. If they want to survive until the point where open standards are actually a viable choice, they'd better stick with proprietary solutions for now.
In a heavily-networked environment, ultimately, eventually, open standards seem to win out. But any company that goes straight for open standards exclusively is dead in the water when they're competing with financial and marketing giants with their own walled gardens.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
I'm sure Microsoft will compensate both customers adequetely.
Seriously, is there a single person in the world who doesn't shrivel with revulsion when they see the letters "MSN"?
Either that or the years and years of ignoring/closing windows with "MSN" at the top will have created a subconscious filter to block it out.
No sig today...
There are authorized legitimate MP3 download services...they just don't have the music you and most other people want.
There is so much great unencumbered music around these days.
For example, my current favourite : http://www.sonicsquirrel.net/
So why do 90+ percent of desktop computers sold to the public ship in such an insecure state? Do most people know how to turn off autorun in Windows 2000 and Windows XP, or that it is even possible? Hint: Microsoft's solution requires registry editing.
Because people don't know how to go to My Computer and run Setup.exe when installing a program from CD.
DRM is a (moronic) form of encryption, not the other way around.
And there I was thinking DRM was an encrypted form of moronics! Thanks for that!
[UID-HeinzIntel]
DRM is no more inherently evil than p2p networks.
I have long been intrigued by the community of people that protest at how the distribution "paradigm" has changed and that media companies ought to get on board. What intrigues me is that these same people have not realized, or refuse to acknowledge, that the usage "paradigm" has changed as well. In the past, controls on copying and distributing intellectual property built into the distribution media. Before taping, it was basically impossible to make copies of a record and distribute it.
Even with taping, the cost and effort in making a large scale effort at bootleg distribution was such that it was only a relatively small piece of the pie. In the digital age, the copying and distribution of copyrighted material, especially movies and music has become much more "economical". Starting with a single CD, there is an initial step of encoding that results in a slight loss of fidelity, but then the music can be distributed ad infinitum without further loss of fidelity and to a much greater market than taping or even copying CD's could have.
With the rise of the ability to redistribute content without royalty, the market has refused to police itself and reach a sensible medium. Those who argue that there should be no controls placed over their digital media fail to realize that those controls are not new, but they are now an artifice as opposed to a practical reality.
Until recently, the difficulties inherent in reproducing and widely distributing copyrighted material have made "piracy" a difficult, if impractical enterprise and has allowed for a reasonable copyright regime. In this new "paradigm", consumers must realize that copyright allows a creator to control the content for a period of time and if that "right" is not respected, copyright holders will seek any means of protection available. The concept of "fair use" shall only persist as long as consumers can be trusted in their uses.
The potential for abuse and its manifestations so far (i.e. Napster) are what are driving the current controls over digital media and until consumers can demonstrate their respect for the "copyright agreement", then the controls will remain. There is a new "paradigm" not only in distribution but in usage and the controls are now explicit rather than intrinsic and we are being asked to respect that.
For example, DVD-CSS doesn't prevent copying, or illegal distribution. It is intended to prevent perfectly legal cross-region distribution.
The reason the media industry pressured the US congress to make it illegal to bypass DRM was so that they could use DRM to grant themselves rights that the government was not willing to grant through law.
The correct statement of point would be that DRM is intended to prevent undesired use and distribution of digital media. The law has nothing to do with it.
MS is thinking ahead to the long-term success of this product line. They see the writing on the wall with PlaysForSure, and want to put up some serious competition to the iPod before it's too late. People are obviously more interested in a vertically-integrated media player with good customer experience. Whether Microsoft is physically capable of providing a premium customer experiences is highly doubtful, especially without a premium retail presence. Look for The Microsoft Store to open in major cities soon (NOT!). Going up against the iPod in major retail chains is going to be a huge challenge for MS, especially when you have customers walking in requesting an "iPod", not a "digital music player".
I digress, however. The point is that MS already knows PlaysForSure is dead, and they want to set themselves up to still be in the game in five years... That, and they can maximize revenues by running the whole thing themselves. Too bad for their "partners"...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Sorry - I assumed the bit about providing music a large number of people would want to pay for was kind of taken as read... ;-)
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
No fully copyrighted material has "come out" to the public domain since 1978. (From 1922).
The next scheduled release of material to "come out" to the public domain is 2018 (From 1923).
Chipped away a little more? Apple owns the market. There is no reason--none--for them to license anything until they have to They are nowhere near that point.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
The Compact Disc standard was developed jointly by Philips and Sony. Nice try, though.
Check out my foes list to see who is so retarded that they can't use the signature line!!!
That wouldn't happen, if it did, there'd be no going back for apple, and they'd be reducing the vendor lock in advantage. If they made ipods compatible with other music buying services, they'd have to keep doing that from then on or risk loosing lots of customers that have purchased a significant amount of music from those services, or at least loosing them partially.
On the other hand, if they licensed itunes to a few players, they'd be gaining locked in customers. This would probably work best in markets where apple doesn't have a huge foothold, like singapore and korea. Of course, there the big obstacle to this would be that creative labs and iriver would be unwilling to do this. But, perhaps cowon might be willing to to try to gain an advantage over iriver. And apple would be to back out of this if it doesn't go well.
And I bet they could charge $100+ licence fees for large screen mp3 players. Besides testing the water, that could let them make sure that the zune doesn't become a threat by gaining a foothold among customers who find video functionality very important.
Neither Apple nor Microsoft gets a musical dime from me. I deal in MP3s exclusively, I rip my own CDs at the highest sampling rate possible, and I play them on my laptop when driving or working in the darkroom. I rip with Windows Media Player because I prefer the interface, I play on my desktop or laptop with iTunes because I like the better control and the easier interace of the play lists.
I just wish iTunes had threshholds for playback so that you could tell it to play 3-8 songs by the same band before moving on, my wife accuses me of giving her musical whiplash.
My next MP3 player will most likely be a 30gig Creative because I really don't care for the iPod wheel interface and the fact that a user can't change the battery, and I won't consider the Zune.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
An excellent point, sir. (sorry, I have no mod points today.)
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
The zune has wifi, I mean come on! Apple can't compete. It's time to move on, or be left in the dust.
http://www.thirdrake.com - Best Webcomic of all time.
> nobody's allowing people to transcode their DRMed formats to MP3.
I have no trouble 'transcoding' my iTMS downloads to MP3. Apple allows me to burn them to CD, and Apple allows me to rip the newly burned CD to MP3s. Therefore Apple allows me to convert their DRMed format to MP3.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
No one makes unauthorized copies of DRM-laden files?
Hmm... I happen to know people who, wanting to make a point, *only* file-share stuff from rootkited / MediaMaxed audio CDs and CGMS-protected DVR_MS recordings -- after stripping the DRM, of course.
Just because most copies in the wild lack evidence of DRM does not mean that DRM was effective.
Pi Ran Out
Only through a loophole, and only by using a CD as an intermediary.
Phone up Apple and ask them if they mind you transcoding your iTunes tracks to MP3. Explain about PlayFair. Ask them when they'll have that functionality integrated into iTunes.
You'll get a "no", an expletive and a "never".
People want to be able to burn CDs. Once CDs are burned they can be transcoded into anything you like.
Just because Apple allows you to burn CDs doesn't mean they allow you to transcode to MP3s.
Kind of like if a homeowner leaves a key under their front doormat - it's to let them back into the house if they forget their key. Now, you might be able to use that to get into their house, but that doesn't mean they've "allowed" you to burgle their property.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
"[If opening up the iPod to other music stores] there'd be no going back for apple, and they'd be reducing the vendor lock in advantage."
They'd also be losing the MP3 player vendor lockin advantage if they allowed other music players to access iTunes, and they make their money from selling iPods. They'll never do either while they're leading the market, but it would be even more stupid to open up iTunes than to open up iPods - that was my point.
"On the other hand, if they licensed itunes to a few players, they'd be gaining locked in customers."
No, they'd be losing iPod sales. iPod sales are where they make their money. Not iTunes sales. If you read the article I linked to Robert X. Cringely has helpfully done the maths already.
Frankly, they could piss iTunes sales up the wall if they carried on selling iPods. They won't, but iTunes sales aren't important to their business model compared to iPod sales.
"This would probably work best in markets where apple doesn't have a huge foothold, like singapore and korea. Of course, there the big obstacle to this would be that creative labs and iriver would be unwilling to do this."
Are you crazy? Creative or iRiver could then offer the world's first iTunes-and-Windows Media DRM player - they'd make a mint.
"And I bet they could charge $100+ licence fees for large screen mp3 players."
Hah! No way. That'd push the production-cost of a third-party iTunes-compatible music player up by 25%-50%, making them massively more expensive even than iPods. It would be completely pointless for any company to sign on to this agreement, because Apple would effectively be pricing the third-party players out of the market.
Buy a third-party player to work with Apple's system for $X, or buy branded (and generally better) Apple hardware to work with Apple's branded online service for half the price. That's a no-brainer.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Rootkitted CDs are not examples of DRM in the context of this discussion and copy protection was stripped before copy as you said. The topic was what embedded DRM was useful for. Your example is meaningless.
"Just because most copies in the wild lack evidence of DRM does not mean that DRM was effective."
Examples where DRM never existed isn't proof that DRM isn't effective either.
The claim is that DRM is only useful for restricting the rights of content obtained legally. That is totally false. DRM's primary function is to discourage unauthorized copying. The relative lack of DRM-equipped copies IS a testament to that. You cannot prove that any unprotected content started out with DRM that was stripped along the way. It's certainly possible but there are far easier ways of obtaining content.
I know what you're saying, but I think you're splitting hairs. Apple knows you can successfully convert an iTMS download to an MP3 without requiring any other software or special hardware. They even give you instructions on how to do so. ("Here's how you burn a CD. We've made this easy for you to do." "Here's how to rip a CD to MP3. See, it's easy.")
Your house/burglary analogy isn't consistent because you're talking about an action that is illegal. Besides, if the homeowner has told me that he's leaving the house AND that there's a key under the doormat, but DOESN'T tell me that I am expressly not allowed in, doesn't that imply that I am empowered to use the key if I wish? I have never once read that Apple expressly discourages the use of iTunes to convert to MP3 in this way. Apple knows full well that their DRM is weak in this respect, they've known it ever since the service launched, but they don't change it because they know better than to disallow it (the ability to convert downloads to MP3). Their customers would revolt.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
No, they'd be gaining revenue from big license fees from each player, then when those players break down, they'd be making extra ipod sales.
Itunes sales are very important, they're crucial for lock in. Compare someone who spent $500 on on ipods to someone who spent $500 on itunes content, who has more incentive to keep buying ipods?
I said for sale in markets in which apple is not the leader, why would they want to pay huge license fees and help apple push their way into korea, singapore, etc? Even if the license fee was as low as $30, they still wouldn't want to do it.
50%? A 30 gig zen vision w, which is relatively cheap for a large screen mp3 player, is $300, an original zen vision and most archos players are more than that. Some of these are already massively more expensive than ipods, or at least they were until recently. What do you mean by "the third party players", that market is entirely companies other than apple.
Tell me, how is a player with a 320x240 screen made by apple better than a player with a much bigger 480*272 screen, for the functions the big screen player is intended for?
Technician wrote as part of a post:
I've wanted to see a player where you: (1) create a folder on your hard drive, (2) place your music in that folder, arranging it as you like, and (3) the player automatically mirrors that directory when connected to the computer. This would allow you to create and maintain several different music collections, and easily choose the one you want on the player.
"No, they'd be letting other companies temporarily make use of their lock in for however many players they licennse, but whenever they decided to stop licensing itunes, they'd have their lock in back completely."
What MP3 player-maker is going to licence DRM from Apple with a clause that allows Apple to break their compatibility at any time? It's commercial suicide.
And once Apple's allowed third-party players to play iTunes content they can't then freeze them out without changing Apple's DRM - otherwise players which have already been sold will continue to work.
Changing Apple's FairPlay DRM would also break any iPods they've already sold, so it's clearly a non-starter unless they can get people to flush their iPod firmware... and then put up with the floods of support calls when people don't know how to, forget to, or something goes wrong.
"No, they'd be gaining revenue from big license fees from each player, then when those players break down, they'd be making extra ipod sales."
You seem to be assuming that Apple could allow MP3 player makers to licence FairPlay, then break their FP compatibility without affecting iPods, thus forcing people to buy iPods in future... without the third-party player makers insisting on protection clauses in their licence contract, and without consumers boycotting Apple for deliberately shafting them. Does this sound likely to you?
"Itunes sales are very important, they're crucial for lock in."
iPods and iTunes are equally important for lock-in, because without either there is no lock-in.
Financially, the only important sales are iPods - Apple could almost give away iTunes songs without taking too much of a financial hit, but if iPods stop selling their whole digital music venture is in the shit big-time.
"50%? A 30 gig zen vision w, which is relatively cheap for a large screen mp3 player, is $300, an original zen vision and most archos players are more than that. Some of these are already massively more expensive than ipods, or at least they were until recently."
Ok, you're making my point even better for me - if the FairPlay licence would push the cost of the third-party player up even higher, it becomes even less attractive to the consumer.
And who's talking about big-screen players? You can still buy MP3 players which fit into a chewing gum packet for under £30 here in the UK. We were talking about iTunes music, not videos - screen size is irrelevant. Video is a whole other discussion (not least because Apple's making fuck-all on their video offerings, but are raking it in hand over fist on music).
"What do you mean by "the third party players", that market is entirely companies other than apple."
We were talking about "Apple and iPods" - the first party is Apple, the vendor. The second party is the consumer. The third party is any other company.
Hence, in a discussion about Apple, "third party" refers to anyone who isn't Apple or you, the consumer.
"Tell me, how is a player with a 320x240 screen made by apple better than a player with a much bigger 480*272 screen, for the functions the big screen player is intended for?"
We were talking about music. How is a larger, more expensive player with a huge screen better than a dedicated MP3 player?
And what I was trying to convey was that iPods are always going to work better with iTunes than third-party solutions, because they're both made by Apple. Why do you think Apple's kept its desktop hardware a closed standard? Because it values staying in control of everything, so it can ensure It Just Works.
Plus, Apple has a much better brand-name than any other manufacturers, more customer loyalty and (less a few manufacturing faults in individual batches) generally the hardware is better quality than third-party players. Not always, but generally.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself