Beware the Apple iPhone iHandcuffs

Nrbelex writes "Randall Stross makes a fresh and surprisingly accurate review of one of the biggest "features" in the upcoming iPhone and the iPod in general, 'fairplay'. Stross writes, 'If "crippleware" seems an unduly harsh description, it balances the euphemistic names that the industry uses for copy protection. Apple officially calls its own standard "FairPlay," but fair it is not.... You are always going to have to buy Apple stuff. Forever and ever.' Can mainstream media coverage help the battle over DRM or will this warning, like those of the pas, continue to go unnoticed?"

Comments

"Fresh"? More like -1 Redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing new for a Slashdotter here.

Just rip your CD's fool

[bobalu]

I really don't understand the repeated efforts here to brand Apple as the devil over "FairPlay". I'm no fan of DRM, and don't use it because it's entirely unnecessary. I've bought about 6 songs and one video off of iTunes in the last 3 years. I just don't get the freedom-threatening nature of ripping my own CDs.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[CrackedButter]

At least the article didn't blame Apple, but the music industry. Then again, why didn't he just talk about how the music industry shackles Apple and the other online music stores? Well, if he did that there would be no fan boys to rile up would there?

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[Zonk (troll)]

I deeply despise the idea of DRM, but with the iPod it is completly options. Don't like the DRM, don't buy from the damn store. Just like when competeing stores complain about Apple "locking them out" of the iPod, all they have to do is sell non crippled AACs or MP3s. Personally, I rip all my music from CDs, encode them with LAME, and then use GTKPod to copy them to my iPod. I buy most of my CDs from local used stores or used from Amazon or Half.com. No copy protection and the RIAA doesn't get additional money*. As a plus I often pay only $5-$8 including shipping.

* I know the artist doesn't either, but if they signed with an RIAA label fuck 'em. I only buy new if it's and independent artist.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Apple in 2000, because my work Dell laptop running MS Windows would lock-up with blue-screen of death 3-5 times each workday -- while running mainly MS Office applications (including Visio and MS Project). My Apple computers have *never* locked up the whole operating system in 6 years. I have only had a very few application lockups. It is exactly why I own a Honda, not a GM car. Apple computers are just more reliable, and they are not more expensive than comparably equipped Dell, Gateway, HP, or other branded computers. As long as Apple remains more reliable and gets the job done, why fix something that isn't broken by changing ??

I have had an iPod for about 2 years now. I've been using iTunes for longer than that (e.g. to listen to live Internet radio) or to get the free iTunes downloads (e.g. from BBC Radio, CNN Radio). My iPod has over 9GB of music -- 100% of it from CDs that I own. Apple's DRM has ZERO impact on me, because I don't buy ANY music from Apple. The iPod also has my Calendar and Address Book, sync'd using iSync from my Apple laptop, which let me stop carrying a Palm when travelling.

• Nothing makes anyone BUY anything from Apple's ITunes Store.

• MOST iPod users NEVER BUY anything from the Apple iTunes Store.

• Buying music online is a choice. America is all about having choices. No one is pointing a gun at anyone.

So what, exactly, is the big hangup with Apple here ??

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[_KiTA_]

Well, there's 2 camps here.

1. The actually genuinely concerned consumer activists, who don't realize Fairplay is really as good a DRM system as we're probably ever going to get, consumer-wise.
2. The people who are royally pissed that THEIR DRM isn't the stuff being shoved down everyone's throats.

Of course, #2 has some sub camps, based on motivation.
- There are the people who are just royally pissed that they aren't getting the online music sales or MP3 player sales they "deserve" since they're "in the industry", so they obviously deserve a competition free environment. Forever. (The "real" music publishers.)
- There are the people who are royally pissed that the DRM doesn't include a rootkit, doesn't cost $5 a song, allows you to play the songs more than once, allows you to move your music onto normal CDs, onto multiple players, etc. (The anti-fair use people.)
- And there are the people who are pissed that the iNdustry (iPod, iTunes, etc) seems to be propping up Apple, which they thought they had killed off so long ago that no one would notice them borrowing features and themes from OS X for their new big name Operating System release... (The Windows die-hards, not all of which are centered in Redmond.)

All 3 of these camps can easily afford to pay for an astroturfing campaign, so... Who knows?

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[MicrosoftRepresentit]

Its all about agendas...if the agenda is anti-MS, anti-DRM or anti-warez then the story always flies as fact, no matter how sensationalist it is. Its hilarious that the headline says this story is 'fresh' and 'accurate', when the complaints are the same tired arguments we've been hearing for years, and a number of the points mentioned aren't even accurate- for one, the iPod will play music from *every* online store that provides music in DRM free format. That includes AllofMP3, EMusic, and plenty of record label sites like WarpMart.

Its also quite funny how EMusic is held up like its the music nerds nervana simply because it doesn't have DRM. If its so great, why has it only had one 20th of the sales of iTMS? Mostly, because its music selection is, for the most part, utter pish. So how come iTMS has got such a good seletion of both mainstream (and independant) artists? Because they have the support of the major labels and distributors. How did they get support from the major labels? By implementing DRM.

Now, before some elitist nerd points out some obscure band he loves so much that isn't on iTMS, or says that mainstream music is shit and everyone who uses the iTMS is a 'good little consumer', well thats not really a counter argument; maybe you're just not part of the iTMS's market, and everyone is perfectly happy for you to keep shopping at EMusic or wherever it is you go (and stick their music on your iPod too). ie this whole article is a giant non-sequiteur.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[jrothwell97]

But you forget that eMusic can only sell unrestricted music from those labels that consent to it (very few). If Apple tried to sell things without DRM, then many (the vast majority of record labels) would tell Steve Jobs to stick it up his... erm... posterior and stop allowing iTunes to sell their music.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[samkass]

The week just wouldn't be complete if Slashdot didn't bash Apple for DRM again. Can we just tag all future similar articles as a "dup"?

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[Anonymous Coward]

The same music is sold by Apple in the iTunes Store with their fairplay DRM. It seems that in theses cases Apple's assertion that "we have to use DRM, otherwise the labels would not allow us to sell the music" is not true.

I think you misunderstand what the major music labels are saying to Apple: "You must sell our music with effective DRM and you must sell our music on equal footing with all other music you sell." This means that were Apple to sell some music without DRM, the major music labels would not allow Apple to sell their music.

But there is good news: Since eMusic is selling some songs in MP3 format, you can buy those songs and put them on your iPod. It is a win-win.

Does anyone know how to browse the eMusic catalog without signing up (i.e., giving them your credit card info)?

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[cayenne8]

"But you forget that eMusic can only sell unrestricted music from those labels that consent to it (very few). If Apple tried to sell things without DRM, then many (the vast majority of record labels) would tell Steve Jobs to stick it up his... erm... posterior and stop allowing iTunes to sell their music."

Well, apparently, from an earlier poster...Apple sells these same songs on iTunes that are sold by eMusic (without drm), but, Apple puts DRM on these songs just like from the 'majors'.

I wonder why Apple doesn't see the songs that are ok'ed to be sold without DRM, without DRM? I think Apple would lose a lot of flac they get over iTunes if they did sell some content without Fairplay on it...as long as it was authorized by the labels to do so.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[7Prime]

To a certain degree, I can understand it as a part of Apple's "One Size Fits All" marketting (which I happen to think is damn effective). Currently, when you download a music off of iTMS, every file has the same restrictions, and allows the same freedoms. On the public front, this is simply to make it "easier for the consumer". But in actuality, it is a cover, a little trick to keep record lables from ever pushing more severe DRM... if they put up an umbrella specification on their files, and make a big stink about how it is for user-friendliness, the recording industry just flat out can't argue with them.

Apple's DRM reflects their pricing: 99cents per song. Sure, maybe there could have been a few songs here and there placed at 75cents, but it makes sure that no songs are priced at $3. Their DRM policy is invasive, to be sure, but on the scheme of things, it's the least invasive that ever has been, but it keeps the record industry to go any further.

The bottom line is, DRM has no benefit to Apple. The iTMS is a loss or "break-even" leader, in order to sell iPods... and it's possible that not having DRM would result in a FEW more iPod sales. They have no personal reason to ever want DRM on their material... but they gotta, according to the recording industry. People act like they're not fighting it. They're fighting it like crazy, but they know that they can't win without some form of compromise. DRM is simply one part of the music industry's grand scheme of controlling media. Apple put their foot down when it came to pricing, and they came up with one of the least invasive DRM schemes ever. And the reason they've been able to keep with both of these is because they are completely unwavering in their support of this system. If they were to start selling a few non-DRM tunes, the recording industry would see this as a new-found flexability in Apple's infrastructure, and try to take advantage of that.

This might sound fanboyish, but there's a lot of psychology going in to play here. By setting one universal standard, and utterly keeping with it, it creates a rock-solid wall in which the recording industry can't touch.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[ArtDent]

I think you misunderstand what the major music labels are saying to Apple: "You must sell our music with effective DRM and you must sell our music on equal footing with all other music you sell." This means that were Apple to sell some music without DRM, the major music labels would not allow Apple to sell their music.

I think you are imagining what you would like to believe the major music labels are saying to Apple. Unless, of course, you have some support for this claim.

Do you really believe that Apple is above practicing lock-in? Why won't they license FairPlay for use in competing digital music players or digital music stores?

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[RedWizzard]

The bottom line is, DRM has no benefit to Apple. The iTMS is a loss or "break-even" leader, in order to sell iPods... and it's possible that not having DRM would result in a FEW more iPod sales. Apple's DRM locks people into Apple's products: they have to have an iPod to play that music on a portable device (unless they want the hassle of the burn/rip hack). Once that iPod breaks down or becomes obsolete they have to buy another one, or lose access to the music they've paid for. There is no way that is not a major benefit to Apple.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[Kjella]

I wonder why Apple doesn't see the songs that are ok'ed to be sold without DRM, without DRM?

Because consumers would see that as 99% of the music is crippled as opposed to 1% is free? Despite what you might be led to believe, iTunes isn't taking particularly much flak. Most people have their iTMS music on a an authorized machine or two, and sync it with their iPod or burn a CD if they need. They don't see it, they don't care about it. Just like most people put a DVD in the DVD player, and never see any of this DRM. The vety few you would please by doing it, would greatly be offset by all the attention it'd draw to FairPlay. i'm sorry, but it'd be just stupid of Apple to annoy 99% of their customers to please 1%.

Re:Just rip your CD's fool

[abonstu]

WTF?

of *course* DRM has benefit to apple - that was the entire point of the article. every track/movie they sell is another step closer to FairPlay becoming the ubiquitous DRM standard and when only apple devices (ipod, iphone, etc.) are capable of using this standard - thats a very powerful position.

regardless of record label mandates, apple would *love* the idea of controlling the mechanisms in which content can be used.

Had to happen

[wallyhall]

I guess it was always gunna happen at some point. They've had such a hit with iTunes and the iPod with their own audio format...

This is dumb!

[N8F8]

The suit contends that Apple unfairly restricts consumer choice because it does not load onto the iPod the software needed to play music that uses Microsoft's copy-protection standard, in addition to Apple's own.

As far as I'm considered, this is a stupid argument. Slam Sony instead. How about a $400 DVD plaver that won't play MP3 file.

Article is about iPod, not iPhone

[phozz bare]

The iPhone is mentioned in the first paragraph and in the headline, perhaps to grab the reader's attention. The rest of the article is about the DRM restrictions in music purchased from iTunes. While this will also apply to the iPhone (as it includes iPod functionality) I really can't see why this article is remotely interesting or newsworthy. I was expecting to read something about the 3rd party software lock-in on the iPhone, but there really is nothing to see here.

phozz

Re:Article is about iPod, not iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

This is newsworthy because it appears in the New York Times, a publication read by millions of iPod-owning, iTunes-buying Americans who've never heard of DRM -- also a publication with typically nothing but repeated praise for Apple. The usual tech articles in the NY Times relating in any way to Apple Inc. read as advertisements or press releases, not journalism.

Give them some time, and we can hope for an article on 3rd-party software lock out. Meanwhile, the next time you read an NY Times article/advertisement written through apple-colored glasses, write them a letter.

Don't buy it if you don't like it...

[stewbacca]

So people want to force Apple to make Microsoft formats work on the iPod? Those same people blame Apple for iTunes purchased songs not working on a Zune as well? I don't get the double standard. If Apple should be forced to make iPods play Microsoft DRM, then isn't it the responsibility of Microsoft to make Apple's FairPlay work on Zunes? I think I'll go buy a Zune then sue Microsoft because my iTunes songs don't work on the Zune. I hope this case gets thrown out and the woman has to pay the court costs.

Re:Don't buy it if you don't like it...

[okoskimi]

Not a double standard. Apple does not allow other companies to use FairPlay - if they would, every MP3 player would support it. The whole point for Apple is to support iPod sales and customer lock-in. And Apple does not enable other DRM systems to work on iPod either. They are using the fact that they have the dominant online music store and dominant MP3 player to lock down iTunes users to iPods (because only those can play iTunes music) and to lock down iPod users to iTunes (because only iTunes can sell DRM'd music for the iPods, and major labels currently only sell DRM'd music).

Also, to those who say that it doesn't matter because you can rip CDs: you are being elitistic. That means you expect every user to have the technological savvy to understand that the song collection they bought so easily and conveniently online is just a worthless bunch of bytes if they ever want to use another brand of MP3 player. Didn't someone say iTunes has two billion downloads by now? That's an awful lot of users. Entrapment of users is not more acceptable just because it is possible to evade the trap if you are smart enough. If it were Microsoft doing this, they would get chewed out quickly enough.

Re:Don't buy it if you don't like it...

[tiny-e]

erm... Apple was required, by the recording industry, to put DRM on the ITMS content in order to get them to agree to let Apple sell the tracks. It's always been there.. in one flavor or another. The ITMS was designed to augment the sale of iPods -- as Apple is a hardware company -- to give the iPod users a place where they could buy music that would integrate seamlessly with their iPod management application (iTunes).

The success/volume of the ITMS is directly tied to the fact that the iPod is the most popular MP3 player -- not the other way around. Nobody really cared about FairPlay when they were all betting that ITMS would tank in the first place.

Saying that expecting the average computer user to be able to click the "import" button on their iPod management software (again iTunes) is not being an elitist. It's showing a realistic alternative to buying the DRM'ed tracks are available to the ITMS. Burning CD's in iTunes is pretty-much a 1-click experience as well. So we're looking at four not-so-difficult steps: Make Playlist of DRM'd files to be burned, Click "Burn", Click "Import", archive old files in case of future need (optional).

The ITMS is not entrapment... you can EASILY choose not to use it and do just fine. Now WGA on the other hand...

If Microsoft were the key player in the market... the other competing services would already be dead.

Before I get all "fanboi'd down"... I should probably mention that own both Windows and Apple systems, and even play around with Linux from time to time. I like Apple's products because they work well for me, and I'm impressed by the level of fit & finish of the hardware. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Don't buy it if you don't like it...

[okoskimi]

Of course the iPod is the reason iTunes is so popular. But once a music service gets to be the dominant player it doesn't matter how it got there, it still has the potential to be anti-competitive. iTunes has the biggest selection of music, it has TV shows, and is the most well-known brand. Previously people used iTunes because they bought an iPod; now some people already buy an iPod because they want to use iTunes.

The strict coupling between iTunes and iPod allows Apple to use discriminatory policies to maintain its dominance in the music service and MP3 player market. If you create a better MP3 player than iPod, it will still be crippled because it cannot be used with the most popular music store. If you create a better music service than iTunes, it will still be crippled because it cannot be used with the most popular MP3 player. If it were just a question of Apple vs. the competing companies, I would say Apple won fair and square; to the victor go the spoils. But it is also a question of Apple vs. the consumer. A market where one player dominates the field is seldom a good thing for the consumer, and we are witnessing this now.

The elitist thing is not in assuming everyone can rip their CDs. Yes, it is simple enough for non-technical people. The elitist thing is that you assume everyone realizes the implications of buying music from the iTunes shop. It is not as if there was a big sign saying "Warning! Any music you buy from iTunes can only be played on iPod brand players, without an iPod player the music is worthless. If you want to be able to use also other players, rip CDs instead."

Re:Don't buy it if you don't like it...

[hehman]

It is not as if there was a big sign saying "Warning! Any music you buy from iTunes can only be played on iPod brand players, without an iPod player the music is worthless. If you want to be able to use also other players, rip CDs instead."

Music purchased on iTunes is not "worthless" without an iPod. I purchased music on iTunes and happily used it for 18 months before finally buying an iPod. I listened to it on my laptop, or burned a CD to play in my car.

Perhaps the sign ought to read:

Warning! Back up any music you buy from iTunes onto CD. If you have an iPod, you can sync it directly from iTunes. If you have a non-iPod music player, load it up with music from your backup CD.

Apple picked the least evil option

[gravesb]

Apple had to produce a DRM that was acceptable to the music industry, or else iTunes would never exist. MP3 players would still be gimmicks, much like minidisk players, and the advances we have seen across all brands of MP3 players never would have happened. Instead, Apple came up with a solution that appeased the music industry, and which doesn't remove that many rights from consumers. The really brilliant thing Apple did was allow FairPlay to be so easily cracked by burning the music to CD's. I find it interesting that the article complains about Apple locking in consumers, but the far more interesting thing is how they have locked in the music industry. The music industry would love to raise prices, make all services subscription, and restrict our rights in more and more ways. Instead, Apple is strong enough that not only can it maintain the status quo (which they improved by allowing us to buy single songs, instead of CD's with a decent song and 9 crappy ones), they are extending it to other music labels and now movies. They have created a means for more independent artists to make a living without giving into the labels (not as good as eMusic, true, but they had to give up something to get the major labels.), allowed consumers to buy music ala carte, and are changing the face of the industry. There are the vocal few who claim that all DRM is evil, and refuse to buy anything from the music labels. I admire both your stance and your dedication to it. However, most of the public do not understand the issues, and they provide enough revenue for the labels to ignore you. Apple is a middle ground now. Hopefully in the future, we will be able to move to an even better situation. However, without this middle ground, we would all be talking about buying music in a hopelessly outdated, unfair manner, or stealing it.

Re:Apple picked the least evil option

[Afecks]

Just because you can't remember a time before iPods doesn't make pre-iPod mp3 players gimmicks. Like it or not, all these so called advances (what advances? the touchpad stolen from a laptop or flash stolen from USB sticks?) would have happened eventually. Only there would be a different name on the box. It's really sad when I am in Best Buy and I hear this guy say "but I thought they were all called iPods"...

NOTE: I've owned 4 iPods, 2 still alive

Re:Apple picked the least evil option

[VidEdit]

The reason Apple doesn't let artists skip the Apple "Fair Play" DRM is simple: Apple wants you locked in. As long as Apple has customers locked in with its DRM they can't ditch their iPods for another competing product. An Apple lawyer has even stated publicly that Apple wouldn't stop using DRM even if the labels no longer wanted it.

DRM is not about piracy, its about controlling the customer for life. It is digitally enforced brand loyalty. Oh, sure, you can leave if you really want to but you'll have to leave your music behind if you want to switch to another portable player--and don't even bother pointing out that you can rip from a CD because you'll need to re-compress the ripped file to put it back on a portable player and you'll loose the original quality of the initial iTunes purchase.

I'm confused..

[ack154]

How is this fresh? That is... we knew it was an iPod, right? Did people think it would not have DRM just because it was a phone this time?

This is the same argument every time a new iPod comes out... "hey, it only works with songs from iTunes" and "iTunes only works with iPods." No shit. We know this by now. This article really has nothing to do with the iPhone specifically, it's just another DRM bashing article. Which is fine, I'd love to see it gone as much as the next guy... but as far as DRM goes, Apple's is pretty "fair" IMO and definitely simple.

I spend almost 2 hours yesterday trying to get my little sister's Sansa to work with some songs my mom bought for her from the Walmart music store. Now THAT is some crappy DRM. Crappy software. Crappy everything.

Re:Anti-Apple week

[mccalli]

Geez, the iPhone must have scared the crap out of everyone in the industry, seems it's Anti-Apple FUD since the iPhone was announced.

Allow me to present my Apple credentials. An original LC owner from around 1993 (I think), then skipped out but back in for a 12" Powerbook when Jaguar was released. Our household has a MacBook Pro, a MacBook, a dual G5 tower, an (Intel) Mac Mini and an SE/30 for nostalgia. Pro-Apple enough perhaps? Well then, I think that as announced so far, the iPhone is a poor product.

• No 3G. A killer in Europe for something at that level. I'm assuming this won't be a problem by the time of launch though, because I simply cannot imagine anyone trying to launch a 2.5G smart phone here these days.
• No video calling. Minor league problem for me and directly related to no 3G.
• "First proper browser on a phone" says Jobs in the keynote. Err...no, no at all. My phone is happily running Opera, as are plenty of others.
• No user-replaceable battery. No spare batteries? Are they serious? Not a problem with an iPod, you just lose your music for a while. Annoying but liveable. For a phone however, that's a much bigger hassle.
• No third-party software. Err...no. Won't fly for me.
• Can't use your "iTunes music" as a ring tone. Now admittedly the source I read for this didn't make it clear if they really meant iTMS-purchased music or just any old MP3 but either way that's pretty poor.
• No GPS (that I'm aware of). I'm spending that amount of money, I'd like a GPS-enabled phone please.
• No radio. For the love of god, what is it that Apple have against radios? Even the built-in Radio function of iTunes is utterly useless. I don't want to carry around an add-on for that, it should be built into the phone like damned near every other phone.
• Fixed capacity - I can't move my own flash cards in and out of the phone.
• No video at all - not just lack of video calling but also it's unclear if that camera will actually shoot video for storing on the internal memory and transferring off later.

I love the look of the interface, though in practice I do wonder how well it's going to stand up to daily use (smears on the screen etc.). Right now though, the hardware itself just looks too weak to me. Not enough features for the cash - my N70 already does functionally more than the iPhone, and that came as a freebie with my contract. I'll admit the Nokia interface is terrible in comparison, but for me at least the OS X interface isn't enough to compensate for the lack of capability in the phone. Not asking for the moon on a stick here - everything I've mentioned can currently be done by other phones, all but GPS in already done by my freebie N70.

Roll on v1.x please.

Cheers,
Ian

Ugh sundays...

[Internet Ronin]

Sundays on /. always reminds of Ed Norton's monologue in Fight Club, when his boss discovers the rules for Fight Club.

It ends with him saying maybe his boss shouldn't bring him every piece of trash he happens to find.

This, and most 'Sunday' driver stories on /., seem to be the same piece of trash.

Really the issues is that PlaysForSure DRM doesn't work on the iPod. That's almost always what the bitchin' is about. Well, it doesn't work on the Zune either. And on the flip side, FairPlay doesn't work on their media players. It's not the Mp3 (or in this case iPhone) player's issue. In this case, Apple doesn't support PFS because 1.) MS has never been very forthcoming in sharing and 2.) When Apple is totally and completely dominating a single market they just don't need second rate technology.

The good news is that the iPod plays Mp3s. First and foremost. Playing a DRM-ed song is just an annoyance that people have to put up with if they want easily acquired legal digital music. I told people for years that the reason I used Napster was because there was no effective alternative. When Jobs opened the iTunes store (before anyone else mind you), I had to pay the piper. If I continued to steal my music at that point, I could claim no moral high ground, and I would have been robbing the artists just as much if not more than the RIAA. So, I started buying music from the iTunes store. Yeah, it's DRM-ed, yeah I'll probably be stuck buying iPods for a long time. What a shame. Fortunately for me, and everyone else, iPods have really been popular and easy to come by.

Stories like this just make me wonder WTF we even show up here for on Sundays. Go back to bed. Wake up later. Watch the playoffs.

article about ITMS, not iPod or iPhone

[fermion]

The article summary is bad. First, it is quite amazing how we can get an accurate review about a product that doesn't even exist, at least not in any real sense. The products on display and in use are preproduction prototypes, and reviewers at most have seen in for a hour, perhaps some have used a prototype for an hour. At this point, the iPhone is cool, but until we have massive quantities shipped, it is vaporware. Until it sells, it is nothing more than an interesting concept.

Second, fairplay is not the primary format of the iPod, or even iTunes, and presumable not the primary format of the iPhone. The songs are not translated to a Fairplay format, or any other format, when copied to the iPod. Songs are not by default imported into iTunes as Fairplay files, and there is not even an option to so do. I do not think Apple marks files that are imported in iTunes at all. And while the default import format is the is ACC, is it easy to change it to MP3 which is compatible with most players, except maybe Sony.

So fairplay will only effect users that buy songs from iTunes, and only those songs that are bought from iTunes and not burned to CDs. This is all covered in the article, but not the summary

The article is really about the fact that Apple will not license fairplay. This is really indicates a sad state of writing. First the author decries Fairplay as crippleware, and then complains that it cannot be acquired universally. This is like complaining that polio is a horrible disease, but innoculations means most of us won't get it. The article is correct that if you use the iTMS, you must buy apple stuff. The logical response to this is not to use the iTMS, and fight for non DRM online formats.

Then the article goes onto say that MS is better because it does license formats, but then has to admit that the Zune does not use the format. What the article does not admit is that this situation indicates that there is no money to be made in licenses DRM formats and thus compete with walmart on price instead of locking consumers in to an optional online format.

The point that the article does get to, after losing all credibility, is that consumers may end up with songs a product they cannot use. They may buy Play for sure, and then buy a zune or an iPod. They may have a collection of iTMS tracks, and then buy a Sandisk, in which case they will have to butn all the tracks to CD and reimport then. What the article does not mention is that we did this all before when we copied all our vinyl to tape, and even worse when we replaced all our vinyl with CDs.

I really believe that this article is the case of an uninspired writer cribbing from old articles. The lesson learned, and probably needs to be taught to the masses, is if possible buy a used CD and rip it to your computer.

Not redundant at all

[JeffElkins]

Sure, everyone who reads /. is up to date on the DRM wars, but I guarantee you the majority of NYT readers aren't. Anti-DRM publicity in the pages of the national "paper of record" is an excellent step forward for the good guys!

Re:Locked music? What about locked OS?

[jezor]

My point is that a lot of little niche markets make up one honkin' big one, and whether or not Apple is encouraging 3rd party development, if every app has to pass through Apple's screening process and be distributed (read: priced and sold) through Apple's own structure, it will significantly discourage niche products.

As a long-time PalmOS user, I look to Palm for both negative and positive examples. Palm's success was built not on the PIM applications, but on 3rd party tools, and while Palm offered certification for software programs, it didn't require certification in order for programs to run. Not only did that drive innovation by 3rd parties, but many of those 3rd party developments put pressure on Palm to extend the basic OS accordingly. Tapped drop-down menus, fullscreen Graffiti entry, running apps off SD cards, full backup (not just PIM apps) and hard button reassignment all began as 3rd party innovations, and were later adopted by the PalmOS. At the same time, though, Palm's uncertainty about whether it was a hardware, software, or OS company has led to stultification of the underlying PalmOS, to the point where the iPhone has a real opportunity not only to get Treo users but non-smartphone users like me (I use a T|X) to cross over, if it's done properly by Apple.

I'm not counting Apple out by any means, nor am I assuming that 3rd party developers won't be able to create homebrew apps that will load and run on the iPhone, Apple-certified or not. That said, I hope that Apple is looking at the PDA rather than cellphone market for inspiration. Otherwise, this Newton 2007 may rot unpicked. {Prof. Jonathan}

People seem to be missing a big distinction.

[Matey-O]

Apple's DRM sucks _the_least_. IS it there? yeah. Does it impact 99% of the people that use the iTunes store? Not really.

Okay, you're stuck with Apple's iPodlike devices. So what? They're really good. I realize the people I'm talking to in this form: The Apple Haters and the DRM freedom fighters, but as a well educated IT person, my impression is:

Apple has managed to negotiate with folks that can't be negotiated with. Further, they were able to do so in a way that greatly benifits the customer. In doing so, they managed to jumpstart the current, DEVELOPING, download industry.

Do the permit renting the music? No. and I can see why: Rentals rely on the end user getting complacent and 'forgetting' that $15 a month fee. Once it gets past their notice, and they fall into complacency, the bult of that $15 is free money to the vendor. (Assuming they don't get bought or go out of business, or whatever)

DRM may be an unnecessary evil, but Apples done a lot to make it hurt as little as possible. I can't say that alternative has _ever_ acted with the consumer's interests in mind.

I've got absolutely NO qualms with sticking with Apple. Their products mesh extremely well with my needs.

DRM Jail

[Doc Ruby]

Microsoft has now proved the most popular reason to dump DRM: the Zune player forces users to rebuy their legit content, because its DRM conflicts with the old DRM.

I bought Pink Floyd's _Dark Side of the Moon_ on vinyl, on "audiophile" vinyl, on cassette, on CD, on "remastered" CD, and again a few times to replace worn-out copies of those (but never on 8-track, smartass - that was my copy of _The Wall_). But then I scanned my audiophile CD to HD/WAV, and have transferred it a dozen times: to backup CD in a closet, to mobile devices, to new HDs that aren't worn out, to SHN, then FLAC compression, to MP3 for streaming to my remote locations. I own that content, and I'll do whatever I want with it that's fair. If I want to prop up a wobbly table leg with the audiophile CD, I'll do it if I damn well please, even if the "license" I bought doesn't specify that use.

These record companies make most of their money from "catalog reissues". Records they made (usually cruelly unfair to artists) deals to sell decades ago, when they profited on their balance sheet. The biggest hits, that already paid for themselves many times over, are naturally the ones most desired to be played today. Because last generation's pop culture is this generations' folk culture - that's why we call our parents our "folks". The corrupt "copyright extension" monopoly laws are bad enough. "Enforcing" them beyond the publisher's rights, destroying rights and purchased privileges of the owner, and the public, is a culture-destroying crime.

And now, Microsoft has painted the picture for everyone to see. Make your player equal "Microsoft", and you'll pay for the privilege of using your own property as often as they "upgrade" their predictably buggy and inconvenient equipment.

Now is the time to make "DRM" as dirty a word as is "censorship". Kill it now, before it's permanently rooted, while people are still surprised to hear we have to dump our "old" content just to play it in some incrementally newer way.

Anything new?

[Midnight Thunder]

Given that:

  - the iPhone is likely to use iTunes for the synching
  - this limitation of only supporting Fairplay DRM and Audible DRM, has been around since the iTunes store came out
  - iTunes allows you to use your own none-DRMed music

I don't know why the fuss is being made over the DRM on the iPhone, since this argument applies to any iPod out there, and therefore is neither new, nor iPhone specific.

/. becoming anti-digg?

[peterjhill]

What is up with all the anti-iphone stories.. they seem a bit overblown. If this was digg, I would have to label it flamebait.. the previous story about the iphone as "wildly inaccurate"

I don't want this to sound like flamebait, because it represents my actual feelings.

The story this links to is just a typical anit-drm rant. Why is this tied to the iphone? because apple makes it? yeah, give me a real story.

Re:Anti-Apple week

[roard]

er... the iPhone is possibly not the miracle that some hailed, but it's difficult to be sure until they actual sell it :-) In particular, most of your "problems" are misleading:

• No 3G. A killer in Europe for something at that level. I'm assuming this won't be a problem by the time of launch though, because I simply cannot imagine anyone trying to launch a 2.5G smart phone here these days.
  Well, THIS model does not have 3G, only 2.5G. But Steve Jobs specifically said they were working on a 3G model. Considering it's only supposed to come in europe around september (so, likely introduced at the paris expo) I frankly expect that it will be a 3G model.
• No video calling. Minor league problem for me and directly related to no 3G.
  As you said, without 3G, video calling is useless anyway. Beside, video calling is more a gadget than something useful, really... did you ever try videoconf with your webcam ? do you use it regularly ? most people in then do not use it apart from an initial "wow it's cool". And with a webcam there's still a few occasions where it is useful (showing kids to grandparents, business conf..) but these uses are anyway quite impractical for a frickin mobile PHONE. Now tell me that Apple would let you plug an iSight on their new AppleTV, and do videoconf in your living room, and here it would be interesting.
• "First proper browser on a phone" says Jobs in the keynote. Err...no, no at all. My phone is happily running Opera, as are plenty of others. Er, I have opera on my 3G mobile. You can't seriously compare it to what was shown on the iPhone. The only vaguely comparable browser on a mobile device I know of is opera, but running on the nokia 770, eg with a high res screen. Certainly not the mobile browsers you have on mobile phones.
• No user-replaceable battery. No spare batteries? Are they serious? Not a problem with an iPod, you just lose your music for a while. Annoying but liveable. For a phone however, that's a much bigger hassle.
  Yes, that sucks. The autonomy seems fairly good though, and there was this talk about using two batteries, but still, it would be better to have a user-replaceable battery. At first I even thought that this black part on the back was here for just that...
• No third-party software. Err...no. Won't fly for me.
  There WILL be 3rd party software -- jobs said it, and if you think about it, why mention Cocoa and Core Animation if not ! The question is not that. The question is that apparently Apple wants to "control" the software that will run on the iPhone; how THAT will work is unknown yet (eg, could be a compliance test your app will need to pass, or could be more closed -- we just do not know. Wait for the developer conference this summer...). I admit, as a cocoa developer I'm quite pissed about it, I would have prefererred an open access. Though if it's just a compliance test it will be ok for me (depends of course if it wil be costly or not, or if the compliance test will apply to all apps or only the ones using the GSM chip, etc.). As you see, there's a lot of possible combinations on how that will work, and we can only make conjectures for the moment. But there will be 3rd party software, they said it, and it would be moronic to not have them.
• Can't use your "iTunes music" as a ring tone. Now admittedly the source I read for this didn't make it clear if they really meant iTMS-purchased music or just any old MP3 but either way that's pretty poor.
  First time I hear that rumor. I frankly doubt you'll have a problem to set your ring tone... anyway, it's only a rumor. Wait for the real device.
• No GPS (that I'm aware of). I'm spending that amount of money, I'd like a GPS-enabled phone please.
  Far from a deal-breaker. Sure that would be a nice addition.
• No radio. For the love of god, what is it that Apple have against radios? Even the built-in Radio function of iTunes is utterly useless. I don't want to car

Re:Anti-Apple week

[nordicfrost]

>No 3G. A killer in Europe for something at that level. I'm assuming this won't be a problem by the time of launch though, because I simply >cannot imagine anyone trying to launch a 2.5G smart phone here these days.

Well, as an owner of a 3G phone for more than a year, the absolute killer app of the phone is... ...killing battery time. I can count on two hands the times when 3G has been useful to me. Also, a 3G version is on the way according to Jobs.

>No video calling. Minor league problem for me and directly related to no 3G.

See above

>"First proper browser on a phone" says Jobs in the keynote. Err...no, no at all. My phone is happily running Opera, as are plenty of others.

I love Opera on my 3G phone, but it is not anything like the browser Safari on the iPhone. And it does not attempt to be, since it is made for the small screen. IPhone Safari is apparently a full-page browser on a small screen, and uses some tricks to get around that limitation. Not to mention Opera Mini, that effectively alter the pages sent to the browser.

>No user-replaceable battery. No spare batteries? Are they serious? Not a problem with an iPod, you just lose your music for a while. Annoying >but liveable. For a phone however, that's a much bigger hassle.

So? For me, a person that charges the phone when it gets low on battery, rather than carrying around spares, that is a non-issue. I had a spare battery to my Nokia 2110 in 1996, but never since. Loose batteries are much more annoying than hard replacebles. Ever since i lost a minidisc recording of a full concert due to a loose battery on my Sony MZ-R50 (The battery door unhinged when I picked it up to press "Stop" and the TOC on the minidisc was lost, also the recording) I have not seen the virtues of replacable rechargeble batteries. If you mean replaceable as in connecting to the standard dock port in the iPhone, I'll agree. But having another, main battery built in will mean that I won't lose another call due to faulty or dirty contacts again. I'd actually view it as a minus for the phone if it has a easily replaceble battery. Unless they did somethng really brilliant about the connection system, but I doubt that.

> No third-party software. Err...no. Won't fly for me.
Agreed. It'll be a minus, but not a showstopper for me.

>Can't use your "iTunes music" as a ring tone. Now admittedly the source I read for this didn't make it clear if they really meant iTMS-purchased >music or just any old MP3 but either way that's pretty poor.

Meh, minor issue for me. I'm not big on having music ringtones.

>No GPS (that I'm aware of). I'm spending that amount of money, I'd like a GPS-enabled phone please.
Well, then buy one. There are some out there.

> No radio. For the love of god, what is it that Apple have against radios? Even the built-in Radio function of iTunes is utterly useless. I don't >want to carry around an add-on for that, it should be built into the phone like damned near every other phone.
Some people have a fetish for having their music, talkshows and other programming laid out for them. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I prefer to listen to my music, on my terms when I choose. I like my podcasts of radio shows at the time of my leisure, when I'm in the mood for them. I like my language courses in the evening, not at the whim of a radio programmers schedule.

> Fixed capacity - I can't move my own flash cards in and out of the phone.
As I watched the horrid expression of a colleagues face when he lost all his pictures due to a bad SD card in his Nokia phone, I'd have to disagree. I actually went down from 15 GB storage on a former iPod to 1 GB on a Samsung player for a while. It made me more selective, but I still had room for most things important to me. I got an iPod nano 8GB for Christmas and it also grows to satisfaction.

>No video at all - not just lack of video calling but also it's unclear if that camera w

Re:Anti-Apple week

[ppp]

No user-replaceable battery. No spare batteries? Are they serious? Not a problem with an iPod, you just lose your music for a while. Annoying but liveable. For a phone however, that's a much bigger hassle.

Bingo! This the *potential* deal breaker for me. After less than one year my cell phone battery has significantly less batterly life, and needs replacing. Unless the iPhone has some kind of uber-battery technology, this seems like it could be a real problem. In other devices, like an iPod of Palm for example, this is a minor issue since these devices are used significantly less than a cell phone. But with an hour or two of daily phone use, in addition to being left in a constant state of stand-by, a year-old iPhone may be facing rapidly diminishing batterly life. The less-impressive yet highly functional Treo has a user-swappable battery.

Am I missing something here?

FairPlay is like a virus...

[w3woody]

Apple officially calls its own standard "FairPlay," but fair it is not.... You are always going to have to buy Apple stuff. Forever and ever.'

Yeah, because the moment I take my MP3s ripped off my music CDs and play it on an Apple device, this dreaded FairPlay thing takes over, steals my credit card, and automatically orders stuff Apple thinks I will need forever and ever. And the FairPlay thing infects the MP3s, reprogramming me so that I feel irrational joy everytime Steve Jobs speaks, causing me to wake up the next day three thousand dollars poorer and tons of empty Apple boxes surrounding my bed from a purchasing binge that I had the night before.

And God Help Me if I should ever even think about buying a Zune and burning the few songs I bought through iTunes onto a CD then re-ripping them for the Zune. Hell, even typing in the four letters 'z', 'u', 'n' and 'e' in that order is causing me incredible amounts of pain and suffering from the FairPlay mental virus that Apple planted in my brain. And besides, if any of my FairPlay ripped CDs ever get into the Zune, it will cripple the Zune forever with a horrible user interface and turn the Zune a crappy shade of brown.

Please. Do you think Steve Jobs gives a flying flip about DRM--outside the fact that it was the only way he could get the music industry to allow him to sell music via the iTunes store? Hell, the DRM lock-in isn't even applied on the iTunes servers--it's applied after the song is downloaded, which means the microsecond the music industry allows Apple to sell DRM-free music, it would take a simple upgrade to iTunes to remove DRM.

Besides, FairPlay is an odd duck--has anyone with an iPod noticed that DRM locked FairPlay music just plays on any iPod without having to register the device first? I mean talk about a weak form of DRM--I suspect it's a slightly more sophisticated version of the bozo bit used in MacOS System 5 or earlier, which was a file attribute bit which told the finder not to copy the specified file. This is unlike every other DRM-enabled device which requires that the device be registered with whatever ID you're using so it can read those files.

Forever is not in the cards

[rssrss]

"You are always going to have to buy Apple stuff. Forever and ever."

If our experience with iPods and with cellphones is any indication, these puppies won't last quite as long as the 24 month phone contract they will come with. Buy the insurance.

*shrug*

[Peganthyrus]

Nothing about the iPod stops you from loading MP3s onto it.

For that matter, nothing about the iPod stops you from loading non-DRMed AACs onto it.

So if you don't want limited AACs, go buy a physical CD and rip it yourself, or buy cheap unlimited downloads from other sources like EMusic or the artists themselves and throw them into iTunes, and from there onto your iPod/iPhone/iWhatnot. When Jobs dies and someone else fills the niche of 'computer company that gives a shit about the user experience and style', move your MP3s/AACs/etc onto there.

So much for "always buying Apple". Yeah, if you buy music from the iTunes Store it'll be DRMed. So don't do it.