Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Favors DRM-Free Music Distribution
Another anonymous reader tips an essay by Steve Jobs on the Apple site about DRM, iTunes, and the iPod. Perhaps it was prompted by the uncomfortable pressure the EU has been putting on Apple to open up the iPod. Jobs places the blame for the existence and continuing reliance on DRM squarely on the music companies. Quoting: "Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."
Dear governments, please Gang-Bang the big studios for us. (Which I believe would be a very nice thing to see)
finally, somebody in the business had a shot of insight.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
But make it in proportion to the Gates/Borg icon.
What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
With public relation statements like this coupled with the DRM 'ed iTunes how can Steve and Apple lose?
Vista Help Forum
Windows Vista Help Forum
I actually read the complete commentary by Steve Jobs.
He is dead on.
The music industry (RIAA and their cohorts in crime) have completely botched the distribution of music in an internet-enabled world.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
Here's the parts I found most interesting:
At least he understands what the rest of us understand, which is that DRM can never prevent copying. The most it can do is slow it down.
He does get one thing wrong in the article though: "No DRM system was ever developed for the CD". Not true. There are several DRM systems developed for Audio CDs. However, they all depend on the disc being placed into a computer that will pay attention to something other than CDDA tracks, which means they are ineffective on purpose-built CD copiers or computers on which the user has either disabled autorun or holds the shift key while the disc is inserted.
DRM doesn't have to be effective to be DRM...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apparently Apple was forced to put DRM up. If you remember correctly, a few years ago, Apple even promoted copying music as one of the things you could do with the (back then) new Apple with CDRW (G3's).
Steve Jobs and Apple have always been holding their leg stiff against the record companies as much as possible and now they're kicking back. I think the record companies and affiliates finally see that DRM is hurting them bad, worse than the so-called pirating going on.
I don't buy DRM'ed music, I refuse and I rather buy an MP3 from an indie artist or download a good song through BitTorrent. Well, I hope they finally start offering MP3's or any other codec (Ogg perhaps) without DRM.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Apple needs to give record labels the choice of whether they want their music to be sold with or without DRM on the iTunes Store. Keep the same prices, keep the same format and bitrate (128kbps AAC), and keep embedding the user's ID in the file, but give the labels the choice, and indicate it to the customer before they buy (a small icon next to the "Buy" button should be enough).
Obviously most labels will continue to choose DRM. That's OK. Let them. And let the market sort it out.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
It's probably ridiculous for me to say this, but dammit, this is Slashdot, so I'm gonna say it anyway:
Is it not possible, nay, probable, that this was Steve Jobs's plan all along with reference to interoperability? The iTunes/iPod Family of Devices gets locked up behind music industry DRM which we all know Apple would rather not have bothered with in the first place. They were slow to fix exploits of various versions of FairPlay, and fixed those exploits probably at content cabal insistence. On the side was a lack of interoperability with other devices/services that went along with FairPlay.
Now that people are up in arms about the iPod not playing fair with others, more and more Joe Sixpacks are starting to see that DRM is a bad thing. Here comes Steve Jobs, suggesting that if you want to point fingers at FairPlay's effect on interoperability, you should also be pointing fingers at the content cabal.
Could this have been his diabolical plan all along?!
Well.... Probably not. But it would sure make for a good conspiracy theory for all the Mac fansites out there.
That explains why they apply DRM even to music that is sold in DRM-less versions elsewhere...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
That's completely different, that's Apple's fault. Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Say what you will of Steve Jobs, he whole-heartedly believes in Apple's products, and in their ability to compete on a level playing-field. How many other companies, owning the sort of market-share that Apple has in digital music, would even countenance changing it ?
And, he's not insane - Apple make their money on hardware, not so much on the iTMS itself - the risk is relatively low for Apple, conversely so for the labels. It is in fact likely to give SJ *more* power in his dealings with the record labels - Apple are the entrenched brand, the shining beacon over the dark landscape of pirated music . Once DRM is gone, the labels will need Apple to be even more on-side than they do currently, because they'll have lost the small measure of control they currently have.
As far as Apple is concerned, it's a win-win. Steve probably expects to lose sales on the iTMS, but that non-DRM'd files would become more-commonly shared, raising the number of people who want a DAP, and given the public's current opinion on which DAP is the best, he feels confident Apple will benefit overall. Still takes some cojones to suggest it, though... A bit like when they cancelled their best-selling iPod model (the original mini) because they had a better version. A traditional business would have milked the mini for all they could, first.
I think the whole RDF is simply that Steve *really* *really* believes in his companies products, that belief shines through in his body language, his tone of voice, his whole attitude. People pick up on that and empathise with it. It's a great sales technique, but it needs products that really change the world to do it. Apple strives to make that sort of product.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
GPL Deconstructed
Apple provides instructions on how to deauthorize computers. I think from within iTunes.
GPL Deconstructed
The fact that a whole industry can press for something out a vendor is a sure sign of price fixing and various other crimes done by trusts. It's time to dust off the Sherman Anti-trust act, and use it on this horrendous industry.
It's called the goverment. It makes laws and can fight companies for you. People control it in most places.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have obtained a copy of "Thoughts on Movies," a followup to to "Thoughts on Music," from sources inside Apple. I present it in its entirety:
"With the stunning global success of YouTube, podcasting, Rocketboom and Zefrank, some have called for my other company, Pixar, to "open" the digital rights management (DRM) system that Pixar uses to protect its DVDs and online movies against theft, so that movies purchased from Pixar can be played anywhere in the world.
"These people also point out that doing so would be in keeping with the principles I called upon the music industry to support in my previous essay.
"To which I respond: Suck it, frigtards. Do you honestly think I got here by being a 'nicer guy' than Bill Gates? This is the real world, not 'fantasy la la land' where 1st gen Apple laptops don't burn your crotch and mysteriously shut down, or where you don't have to pay a bribe to go to the front of the line in the Apple Store.
"Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go backdate some stop options, inspect the dormitories at our Foxconn company town in China and sue the pants off a teenaged blogger."
It's government that has the power, not him.
Please read the friendly article. Jobs says that Apple have considered it before, but they're in an interesting position: if FairPlay is cracked, and remains unpatched for a number of weeks, then the record companies can simply pull their content from the iTS. Now, at present, Apple can simply patch FairPlay and push out a new version of iTunes and the iPod firmware. However, with multiple players and stores all using FairPlay, the problem magnifies: if any one of those links in the increasingly-complex chain remains weak, and FairPlay is still exposed, it leaves Apple vulnerable.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
That's actually a known way to get around Apple's DRM. The disadvantages are that you use a CD to do so (which you mentioned) and that there is a slight loss in sound quality since it is being re-encoded.
I'll probably do this with my two protected files sooner or later, when I actually get around to it.
Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
You are both right and wrong...but mostly wrong.
You are right in that Jobs could refuse to sell DRM'd music. However, he tried to do this from the beginning. Unfortunately, Jobs does not control the rights to sell the music, the record companies do. The record companies allow Jobs to sell through iTunes as long as he adheres to some conditions. The record companies did not allow Jobs to sell DRM free music. Jobs resisted as much as he could, and iTunes users ended up with one of the least restrictive of the DRM policies, but nevertheless, it's still DRM'd. If Jobs really wants to stop selling DRM'd music, it is not up to him. It is up to the record companies. This is why he is issuing this statement. He is hoping that the record companies will see it his way and allow him to stop with the DRM.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it.
Because everyone knows that unnamed lawyers quoted in Slashdot postings know a lot more about a company's internal strategy than the CEO quoted on his own damn website.
Or just plain old Steve Jobs RDF, but it's by far the most candid piece of "straight talk" I've ever heard from the CEO of a huge company like Apple. Well done, Steve-O, if that little piece doesn't sell an extra 10 million ipods, then I don't know what will.
Could their be an advantage to Apple by locking ALL the music to their iPod?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.
Actually, Jobs provides several alternatives, but says that banning DRM altogether is in the best interests of the consumer. Here's a question for you, what DRM scheme is used to protect most songs on people's computer's? Answer: PlaysForSure. There is only one reason for this, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OS's, with which they bundle Windows Media Player which adds that DRM when it rips CDs by default. Has any government stopped this illegal bundling? Nope. Now, however, there have been several governments trying to stop Apple from leveraging their near monopoly (possible monopoly) on portable digital music players, to promote their own DRM scheme, Fairplay, and keep it the second most common DRM scheme. Does anything about that seem odd to you? I mean MS was actually convicted in the EU of bundling this, but not stopped or punished in any meaningful way. Apple might have enough market to have a monopoly and government officials are making public statements about legislation and legal action.
Apple is the reason MS does not control the DRM market and use it to intentionally promote incompatibility. Apple's main concern was making sure this was not used to disadvantage macintosh computers. Now they have their iPod to defend as well. Making DRM go away results in a free market and both these products get to compete on their own merits in this market. Defanging Apple's ability to leverage the success of the iPod, while not doing the same for MS's ability to leverage the success of Windows has only one likely result and it is not good for anyone.
I completely understand why getting rid of DRM is good for both Apple and consumers. What I don't understand is why anyone would quibble about this and try to imly that just opening up Fairplay would do the same thing.
Apple will blame anyone but themselves and try to spin it so that they don't look bad.
Apple's CEO just said that they will make all the music they sell DRM-free if the labels allow them to. Where is the spin here?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
How many places besides the iTunes store can you get Fairplay wrapped music? None that I'm aware of. So if iTunes didn't sell it, it's going to be DRM free on the iPod. So his numbers do hold up.
Microsoft releases an OS that won't run software that ran on it's own earlier operating system, and also tends to corrupt a music device which is in competition with their own music device and it's Apple's fault? Microsoft has pushed multiple DRM setups and then stopped supporting it's own damn standards but Apple is the bad guy?
I don't buy any drm'd music, but Apple's is surely the least abusive...It allows you to burn it to a cd, which can then be ripped back into an un-drm'd format...Pretty obvious that they did the minimum amount of work that would satisfy record companies that were so damn drm obsessed that they were shipping cd's with a free rootkit included.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Okay, poor choice of words. I just meant that they refuse to license it for use in other playback devices.
And why should they? Steve Jobs is obviously a smart guy; things he's said and written elsewhere make me think that he understands the inherent problems behind DRM.
In short, DRM doesn't work. It works, sort of, only by keeping the mechanisms out of sight, and changing them all the time, as people catch on and figure out what's going on "behind the curtain."
The more people you let see behind the curtain, the harder it is to make work, and keep working, even in the shoddy way that it does currently. Licensing means that specifications and technical documents need to be written, and such documents can be leaked (and are far more likely to be leaked when they're being sent to some licensee in Europe, than kept within a particular technical working group inside Apple US). So if Apple licensed out FairPlay, it would mean that FairPlay would get broken more often, and they would have to dedicate more effort to fixing it, and those fixes would be harder to roll-out, because there would be more users, and multiple online music stores, run by various licensees who might take their responsibilities for updates more or less seriously, etc. etc.
DRM isn't a single technology that you can sell. It's not a word processor. It really is defective by design; that's not just some dumb slogan -- that is reality. Anyone who buys a DRM system, thinking that it's a product they can just use, and then forget about, is a fool. A DRM system is an arms race. It can only work when you're committed to throwing a lot of programmers behind it; programmers who are constantly shoring it up, as people pull the bricks down from the outside. And the work that it takes to sustain is directly proportionate to the number of people who are working to crack it.
Licensing out FairPlay would be a losing proposition for Apple on all fronts. It would force them to lose revenue from the iTMS, which isn't exactly a huge profit center anyway -- as others have pointed out, Apple makes a lot more money on an iPod than they do on the average user's iTMS purchases. Plus, it would mean that they would have to spend a lot more effort constantly fixing FairPlay, and it would create a huge logistical problem -- how do you roll out those fixes to users who may be using some licensee's music store? If Apple doesn't keep FairPlay's facade of security up, the music labels will use it as a bargaining point in negotiations, but they'll be dependent on their licensees, who they don't have total control over, in order to maintain that facade. It's a lose-lose for Apple.
Personally, I don't think Apple will ever license FairPlay. I think they'll pull all DRMed music from the European market, and close the iTMS there, before they'd open the can of worms that licensing would entail. Exactly what would happen at that point is anybody's guess, but there are a whole lot of iPod-owning Europeans who probably want some type of online music store, and Apple is pretty good at PR. They might be able to turn it into some sort of a victory against the governments mandating the interoperability, or against the music labels who won't sell DRM-free music. Or it might backfire horribly and cause a lot of people to run out and buy non-iPod MP3 players in order to use competing online stores (though I doubt it; I don't think that the presence or absence of an online store is a huge selling point of most music players, except those linked to subscription services like Napster).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Is it also the record companies that force Steve to sell OS X with DRM? Do not forget that OS X is tied to Mac hardware by a "Trusted Computing Module".
Have you considered checking your facts? The most recent Macs don't even have a TPM module and no version of OS X ever used it, although some third party utilities did, in order to do more secure encryption. Macintosh computers do check the motherboard to insure it is an Apple one, but no "DRM" is in use and if you look at the code that does that it contains a "please don't violate our license by installing on other hardware" message.
Did you even read the message from Jobs? Based on your response, I doubt it.
You're acting like people don't have any alternative to the iPod + iTunes ecosystem. They do. They've got plenty of alternatives. People buy into the iPod and iTunes ecosystem because it's well built, well maintained, and easy to use. The same goes for the Macintosh. There are alternatives. People aren't *forced* into buying iPods, songs off the iTunes Store or Macs. People buy these products because they work well and are intuitive.
Oh, and I've *never* felt "locked in" to the iPod + iTunes ecosystem. Why? Because most of the songs I've got on my iPod came off of CDs I own, and the ones I purchased off the iTunes Store have been ripped to standard Audio CDs, ready for reimport back into whatever format I choose. Even formats compatible with non-iPod digital audio players.
The lock-in FUD you keep trying to spread doesn't exist. It's that simple.
Take your FUD and go home. Nobody here is listening.
Actually, that's only if your Mac has a PowerPC chip in it, and since Apple doesn't (to my knowledge) sell any PPC Macs anymore, this statement is untrue. Your sentiment, however, is absolutely correct. The operating system itself supports (through a virtualization layer) nearly any properly written application released since System 6; it's the hardware that makes the difference. (Rosetta itself is a compabitility layer to allow PPC apps to run, so piling Classic on top of Rosetta would be a marvel of softwrae engineering.)
Nevertheless, it is incorrect to state that you can natively run OS 9 applications on any new Mac. As Apple has wanted to phase out OS 9 for years now, I do not forsee this changing any time in the future.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
It sounds like you didn't read Steve Jobs' original message. He explains why licensing DRM to other companies would not work due to the stringent contractual requirements that the music companies have placed on Apple in regards to maintaining the integrity of the DRM system. He also explains that only 3% of the music iPods are capable of storing are DRM'd/from the iTunes store, the other 97% is likely pirated or legally ripped from CDs or other sources. So most people are not locked in since most if not all of the music on their iPods is not DRM'd.
Apple's CEO just said that they will make all the music they sell DRM-free if the labels allow them to. Where is the spin here?
But there's already music on ITMS that's sold DRM-free elsewhere.
Why doesn't Jobs sell some DRM-free music right now? (hint: to shackle you to future ipods).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Did you, by any chance, read the actual article? It discusses exactly the ideas you suggest, and presents a reasonable case for why those would not allow them to keep their obligations to the music publishers.
If you read TFA you'll see that Jobs explains exactly why they don't license their DRM. It's because a requirement of their license to sell the music of the record companies is that any holes discovered in the DRM are patched within a certain time limit. He says that by licensing the technology to a bunch of 3rd parties, that there is more chance of a particular implementation of FairPlay leaking out, yet it would still be Apple's resposibility to fix the holes - but this time for more devices and software platforms. The effectively makes it impossible for Apple to submit to 3rd party licensing because they don't have the resources to be able to take on that level of responsibility.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
It's obviously an all-or-nothing deal. He wants a consistent user experience so that the customer knows what he's getting every time. Microsoft caught shit for pimping the Zune's squirting and then turning around and selling tracks that certain artists didn't want to be squirted. That kind of inconsistency adds complexity. The iTunes store is supposed to be simple. There's no conspiracy here. On average, barely 3% of the music on an iPod is from the iTunes store, so if a customer really wants to move to another player, he's not going to feel "locked in" by 3% of his music collection. If you'd read the damn essay, you'd know that.
Let's see what Apple does or doesn't do to their OS to support HD movies before we judge them less evil than MS in this regard.
Did you ever own a cassette player? Perhaps buy a cassette tape? When you switched to a CD player, did you buy a CD version of that music? Remember that while CD's were available for sale in the mid-late 80's, recordable cd-rom wasn't mainstream unitl mid 90's, so this [no, I just burned my own cd's] argument doesn't fly.
If you buy iTunes music today and switch platforms later, you now have to buy a different format of that same music. How is this different?
The only things that shackles you to an iPod are the headphones. That and perhaps your inability to read the article.
If you have authorized five computers, a button labeled "Deauthorize All" will appear in your Account Information screen. This button will deauthorize all computers associated with your account. You can then reauthorize up to 5 computers. Note: You can only use this feature once a year. Apple isn't as stupid/evil as you think.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Yesterday we find out that Apple Inc and Apple Corps have settled their legal differences.
Today we get a letter from Steve telling us why the big 5 record labels are bad.
Could it be that Apple could be looking to become record label #6 and offering its music DRM-free?
Inquiring minds want to know.
1. The "big 4" want their music protected by DRM. Shame on them.
2. Many indie bands and small record labels don't care about (or even want) DRM.
3. Many bands, many records would just like to be listed by Apple and show up in the search results. Some of those artists would even want to give away their songs for no money at all.
So I ask:
Why not sell both DRM and non-DRM music?
Why not embrace the revolution and turn iTunes into a universal music search tool?
Why not have iTunes interpret CC licenses and automatically aggregate music found online without applying DRM to music licensed without such requirement?
And a nice touch: Why not create an ugly icon (a monster?) to indicate those songs protected by the hateful DRM?
There's no doubt that Apple prefers to tie their products and software together, whenever possible. But I fail to see why some people (assuming you included, from the tone of your message post) see this as inherently "bad/evil"?
*All* computer manufacturers did things this way from day 1, until IBM's personal computer design got ripped off/cloned left and right by everybody under the sun, bringing it to the forefront as a new "standard".
Apple has wandered in that same general direction whenever it becomes obvious it provides a concrete business advantage. (Today's Macs let you use industry-standard SATA hard drives, and pretty much anyone's peripherals that support standard USB ports, for example. They also migrated to Intel's CPUs across their entire product line, and even allow/sanction the use of Windows on them!)
But in general, I think Apple's products work so well precisely BECAUSE they believe in providing the "whole package" to the customer. This model is used by all the console game systems out there, and it works just fine for them too.
I'm lost on your comment that Apple is a company that "tries to make you buy hardware you do not want, to get software or tunes you do"? If this were really true, they wouldn't have developed the Windows version of iTunes at all. (EG. "Too bad, buddy. If you want to participate in one of the most friendly and more complete online music stores, you need to buy a Mac first!")
No... More and more, I think Apple is proving to be a media company. If anything, they see themselves in a market-space more like Sony. Sony makes computers (usually stylish ones at that), but they're also a media company, in the music and movie business, as well as offering consumer electronics goods that tie in with those areas. Apple in the past has sold digital cameras (the Apple Quicktake series), has a set-top "Apple TV" box going on the market, and a growing interest in selling movies AND music content via iTunes. Soon, they're going to offer cellphones too.
They certainly want you to LIKE and WANT their hardware -- and people who do buy their hardware rarely seem to regret it. Most of the negative comments I hear about Apple hardware come from people who haven't ever purchased any yet!
Mac OS X does not use TPM or trusted computing in any way to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. In fact, Apple doesn't use TPM for any purpose, at all.
Oh come on... why would they lie about that?
Apple freely acknowledge that the money they make from the iPod is on the hardware. The music is just there to give people a reason to own the ipod in the first place.
Can you work out just how long they would have stayed in business in the states *without* drm? Weeks? Days? It would have ended in a very loud lawsuit, I can work out that much.
Besides, how many well organised online music stores were there before iTunes? I can't think of a single one. Plenty of promises, but no decent existing stores.
And how many that exist now are as good as iTunes? Um... None comes to mind..
With an even playing field, free of drm, the iPod+iTunes combo would almost certainly win hands down. The only people I know who don't like iPods are tech snops who won't like it just because its made by apple, even though its a very competant little player.
I got one a couple of months ago. Thus far I haven't found a single urban myth about the difficulties in using them to be true.
File transfers? Check.
Copying music back off it? Check, nicely organised by artist too.
Plus the interface is easy (yes yes, I know it's like Creatives one who gives a crap, the clickwheel rocks), and the sound quality is great. Thats just about everything I want right there.
Steve Jobs is Disney's biggest shareholder. I wonder if he would also favour DRM-free movies...
You can either choose to believe Steve's reasoning that it is the same reason that he states for not licensing Fair Play, or you can believe that Microsoft is INCREDIBLE STUPID as the fact that Zune doesn't use Plays for Sure was a huge black eye for them. It added to customer confusion and isn't helping Zune succeed.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
So, one interesting thing about DRM is that it enables a particular business model that is completely unfeasible without DRM. Here's a hint: it's not the iTMS model.
The Zune store, and any other subscription business model requires DRM. You can buy DRM-free tracks. It's impossible to rent them.
Perhaps this is why iTMS hasn't offered a subscription option.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
Do not forget that OS X is tied to Mac hardware by a "Trusted Computing Module".
It isn't now, nor has it ever been. Most if not all current Macs don't even have a TPM. Earlier models that did didn't use the TPM in any way. Where the hell do you get your information?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
This quote's at least a couple years old: Second, he gives an argument against licensing FairPlay to other vendors that I hadn't heard or thought of before
Yes, that was interesting: if their contract with the labels requires that kind of control, then they can't legally open up Fairplay and keep most of the music in iTMS available.
The 3% argument falls a bit short. While it's true that on average 3% of the music on iPods came from the iTMS, it's by no means evenly distributed. In my experience, I've found the majority of people have either little-to-no iTMS music (usually far less than 3%), or a significant enough percentage that they wouldn't want to give it up and buy it all over again on a new platform. People are certainly still being locked in, but it's good to see that that's not Steve's goal.
Not more than you need, just more than you want
It's different because our expectations are different. CDs can't play in cassette players for the obvious reason that they have a different form factor. You point out that recordable CDs were rare/expensive/not yet invented - so literally it was impossible to format shift. However, if you bought a different brand of CD player, all your CDs would still play on it.
Digital audio files are just that: files. We expect that PDFs will be readable on any computer, we expect that pictures will be viewable on any computer. Files have no form factor restrictions, and we expect that they should play on any device that can play digital audio files.
Apple are in a dominant position in this market now. If they want to start selling DRM free music, they surely can demand it of the labels themselves - why are they whining to us? Also, there are a lot of indie labels ( such as Warp et al. ) who already sell DRM free MP3s - does iTunes offer these DRM free?
Actually, it is even worse than your puny nightmare. In fact, every french, male, female, child, work at Vivendi. Socialist pacifist cowards as we are, there were too many companies to brutaly nationalize. So we decided to incorporate France. We called it Vivendi, thought that was nice sounding, and we went public.
And now we are after you. Capitalist warmonger pig.
I didn't interpret what Jobs said to mean that licensing FairPlay to other companies would make the actual keys less secure, but rather that it would make it more difficult to maintain the whole system, especially security updates, if breaches do occur. As it is, when FairPlay gets broken, a new version of iTunes is released (with new firmware for the iPod), and eventually you won't be able to use the iTunes store without the new version of the iTunes software. That's confusing and irritating enough for customers, but imagine if they license their DRM to 3 separate manufacturers. When PlayFair/hymn/whatever-it's-called-today breaks (or works around) FairPlay, 4 different manufacturers would now have to have updated firmware for each of their players, which may or may not be tied to a new version of their own music management software. Then Apple has to at least be aware of and give some support for (to the other companies, not the end-users) FairPlay on 4 different platforms. It makes sense to me.
Of course, I haven't really ever heard of Microsoft's PlaysForSure being hacked, even though pretty much every non-Apple portable player uses it. Why? I don't know, maybe I just haven't paid attention, maybe DRM is the one area where Microsoft has been consistent and solid... too bad even MS has abandoned PlaysForSure for the Zune.
It's funny to me that France, Norway, and many people on slashdot complain about Apple's DRM... then Microsoft turns around and does the exact same thing in tying their player and DRM together in one inseparable package, leaving the one viable multi-company DRM system out in the cold.
As far as campaigning versus advocating, what more do you want? He's already been arguing pricing with the companies ever since the iTunes store opened. He's already turned down paying a fee to the RIAA for each iPod sold, now he's made a very public statement on his company's (not his personal) website, explaining his feelings on DRM. Sure, he could be pandering to some degree to the anti-DRM crowd. I'm sure there's not an insignificant amount of strategy behind FairPlay not being licensed to other companies. Keep in mind, he's not only the CEO of Apple, Inc., he's also the largest individual shareholder and board member of Disney, which happens to be a very large content producer. For him to speak out against DRM, at all is a big move.
But I don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't want to see DRM removed entirely. Apple doesn't need the store to lock people into the iPod. The masses have already chosen the iPod as the portable music player. iPod has become a general term for mp3 players. Less DRM = more demand for players in general, the iPod in particular.
Of course Jobs is a businessman, interested in increasing market share and making money, so it makes sense to not completely trust him. But to say he must be lying just because he says what we'd like to hear is going a little too far.
This a holding me back at buying music. They are loosing money, while the music I do buy, will be counted in as "DRM free" and will help the 97% to get even bigger.
I would just love it, if they would remove DRM for good. I would probably go from $ 10-20 to $ 100-200 a month, if I could have the ease and speed of downloading it. (this last line was just added to remind the "big four" about what they are missing out on...
My only complaint with the apple drm is the quality. I like everything to be 192+ as I can hear the difference in anything under 192.
5 5 ) it's 100% of the quality of the original file just shy the drm ... unfortunately the quality of the original file isn't great *shrug*. It works with the most recent versions of itunes too.
That being said, I buy some music from the itunes store and immediately rip it back to mp3 with myfairtunes -> ( http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15
Shadus
I see a lot of people here stating that Bill Gates said the same, but they provided no reference. So I went looking.It all leads back to blog entry below. From reading this it sounds like Bill Gates is not against DRM, just the current DRM. His short term suggestion for music. Is to buy a CD and rip it, to avoid all that nasty DRM. That most of that nasty music DRM that you would be avoiding in the short term is Apples, is only a bonus I am sure.
n -the-future-of-drm/
Now it is hard to judge by these quotes that may have transcription problems, but this is in no way denigrating DRM on Bills part. Just current implementations, of which no doubt Vista is getting closer to DRM nirvana. Every time I see Bill Gates speak, he is exactly like a politician, trying to sound out on both sides of issues while ultimately saying nothing.
Steve Jobs OTOH, is posting clearly without reservation what his stance is on DRM. So this is refreshingly different that Gates comments.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-o
"
Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.
His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."
He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."
"
Stop believing everything you read on the internet. If jobs didn't want DRM then iTunes would sell MP3s where they could, ie everything available on e-music. Apple isn't interested in selling music for profit. If they were they would push for vairable pricing, which they have stringently opposed as well. To them music is just a loss leader for iPods and iPhones. Its the same model as wal-mart and best buy with CDs. Jobs is pointing the finger at labels so that they look like the bad guy instead of him, and guess what... Its working!
If you don't use Windows or Mac, I'm guessing you're a Linux user. If you're technically competent to use Linux as your primary OS, I doubt you'd have any trouble installing and using Rockbox, which is OSS that would make an iPod behave the way you want it to.
Of course, if you don't see any other advantages to iPods, then there's no point. A lot of people like their price/form factor/clickwheel/battery life/reliability/style/customer service.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
# AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
You can't take the sky from me...
Bah.. having read the article myself, I think a better summary would be, Nate Anderson lists some reasons why Apple benefits from DRM, and uses an unnecessarily controversial title as a hook to draw reader attention.
Here's a tip: Nate isn't an official Apple spokesperson. His views and opinions are his own, and have about as much bearing on Apple's strategic goals as yours or mine do. Now, if you can point me to an article that has a single verifiable quote from someone who oficially speaks for Apple saying, "hey, we're right behind DRM," then you might have a point. Otherwise, the best legitimate summary you can get is, "Nate thinks Apple likes DRM."
If you want to see DRM's best friends, look at the RIAA and MPAA. They're the ones who continue to spend tons of money lobbying Congress for laws that would make hardware DRM mandatory in any device that touches any device that could ever potentially touch content. They're the ones who've spent tons of money on markting campaigns that say, "you wouldn't commit genocide against an entire, harmless, sentient species, so why would you consider letting another person watch a rented movie on your HDTV screen without paying us theatre royalties?"
Or perhaps look at the DRM that Microsoft has rolled into Vista. Show me how Apple has loaded its flagship products with restrictions that turn them into crippleware as soon as one sees anything that looks like protected content.
Hell, if you want an opinion piece, try this one: How Apple Could End Up Being DRM's Worst Enemy:
The labels wanted to use DRM to control the consumer's access to content. They'd be happy to legislate away fair use and sell it back to us, impose bullshit like tiered pricing for anything that actually sells, and screw hardware vendors for the infamous $1-per-Zune "because we all know your customers are criminals" fee.
But they can't, because Apple doesn't like those ideas. And the labels famously failed to strong-arm Apple at the last contract negotiation because they need Apple more than Apple needs them. The iPod is the dominant product in the market, and the only way to sell DRM'd content for the iPod is through Apple.
In short, Apple is using DRM to screw the labels harder than the labels have been able to screw the consumer. And the labels are getting so tired of being screwed by Apple. They're so tired, in fact, that they're starting to look at dropping the DRM just to take some of the edge off Apple's market dominance.
Let's be clear here, boys and girls: if the labels do away with DRM, it won't be because they've spontaneously turned into "information wants to be free" idealists. They'll do it because it's hurting their bottom line. And who's the company that's used DRM to hurt the labels's bottom line rather than using DRM to help the labels screw consumers? Apple.
All the ethical rants, consumer hostility, and technological circumvention to date have failed to make the labels back away from DRM. They've only entrenched the labels more firmly in the idea that they need legal control over everything up to and including the consumer's eyes and ears.
If the labels decide to drop DRM, it will be because of how Apple used DRM to screw the labels out of money. Period.
Show me a more effective enemy than that.
I'd like to meet these "expert" listeners. Maybe they should bring in a few people who refuse to buy MP3s at all because of their lossy nature (yes, we do exist). Take an exceptionally-recorded piece of rock or classical music, encode it to 128kbps AAC, and listen to it on even a mid-fi system. You will hear loss of dynamic transience. You will hear altered timbre on certain instruments (e.g. cymbals). There is a perceivable difference if 1) you have a decent sound system (Bose crap doens't count) and 2) you know what to listen for.
The fact that aforementioned so-called experts can't distinguish 128kbps AAC from lossless redbook format completely discredits them IMO.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I think you're very close to the truth - they don't want to become another record label - they want to destroy the concept of record labels.
Right now Apple shares their revenues with the RIAA 44/65. Apple's costs are on the order of 10 cents, leaving them 34 cents for a song. That's plenty.
The RIAA's 65 gets split something like 5/60 with the artists. They probably have a mechanism to book that 60 as all expenses...
The artist splits his share with his manager, probably like 3/2. So, to tally it all up:
Now, Apple has just done this deal with Apple. They're probably still splitting it 34/65. The Apple Records shell probably keeps 4 of that for management costs, spreading the remainder 8/8/8/6 (6 for Ringo) among the Beetles. Hey, not bad!
So, now Apple can setup a meeting with the newly reformed The Police and say, "hey, fellas...". Ditto every other major band that's coming time for contract renegotiations. They can point out:
They can then show them a different split:
and say, "even without Walmart you'll be making more with us". It's not insignificant that the manager is making 11x his current take in the new business model - he's going to be advising the band on what to do next.
So, you're right, the timing of this letter serves as the official "flipping the bird" by Apple to the RIAA. They apparently think their new business model is now proven and inevitable.
Good luck boys, have fun storming the castle!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Gates comments was about the current DRM and the need for better DRM, Jobs is about getting rid of DRM.
But I can see how someone like you wouldn't be able to figure that out...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can't take the sky from me...
have you ever thought that your "listening tastes" actually diminish the music for you? I dont constantly hear these differences, and I enjoy the music just as much as you. In fact, I enjoy it better, because I am not driven to post to slashdot about how much mp3 and aac sucks.
Is your quality of life better mister audiophile?
It isn't piracy: you're free to burn the music to cd. In fact, you're encouraged to make back-ups of your purchased music.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
'Tis just the way 'tis matey. The seas are an alluring wench. Plunderin' makes many a scurvy dog's heart race. You better watch yeself though, Jim-lad. It may seem easy at first, but all that easy booty weighs heavily on the heart. Eventually ye'll be drawn to the darker side, and before ye known it ye be headed for Davy Jones' locker like a dinghy fitted with a galley.
Being an honest man was never easy, 'tis easier to be an honorable swine.
... and then they built the supercollider.
No, it's not piracy, but it's not easier than to be a pirate. That's what I wanted to say.
Are you aware that Apple is compressing all the Music from their digital masters which have a much wider frequency and dynamic range than a shitty Audio CD? I bet some of those 128 AACs actually sound even better than their CD counterparts, compressed or not.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
The contractual requirements highlight the problem of distributed secrets, which is basically what compromised CSS, and seems to be a weakness in the HD-DVD scheme, too.
Give him credit, he's willing to sell the iPod on its own merits, and doesn't need the music store to lock you in. Any way you cut it, the iPod will be more desirable (read: more profitable) if the store ISN'T encumbered by DRM.
It would also eliminate a whole bunch of security programmers from the distribution chain, which would benefit everybody except the programmers.
Or the much more likely reality: you have no idea the position that Jobs is in, or the complexities of licensing from multiple labels, and licensing DRM to multiple companies, with a multitude of different contractual relationships in play. How many multinational technology companies have you been CEO of?
Seriously, do you think that Jobs can just wave a magic wand and have everybody using Fairplay for their players, and:
a) Have it all work technically, without a nightmare of support issues
b) Not violate any agreements or contracts
c) Not violate the laws of any country or anti-trust laws
d) stop the DRM from being cracked daily, or having the IP leaked
In addition to all of this, what if Apple does manage to get the studios to drop DRM for the iTunes store? Apple would be stuck supporting a DRM scheme that they never wanted, for the benefit of third parties who want to keep using it. If Apple's goal actually is to get rid of DRM eventually, licensing Fairplay makes this much more difficult to do.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Throughout the discussion here I've noticed one observation conspicuously and repeatedly being ignored for its subtle, but ultimate, relevance to the matter at hand.
Jobs noted the proportion of iTunes Music Store purchases on the average iPod... 2.2%. Note how surreptitiously his real point is being made...
People buying iPods are barely loading them with DRM iTunes.
I'll repeat that... People buying iPods are barely loading them with DRM iTunes.
This should be ringing off alarm bells in your head. Jobs is not a moron. He is very careful to position his RDF in direct relation to how much leverage he inherently possesses over the entity he's selling to... whether the music industry or consumers.
In this case, the data begs, no, screams the obvious... DRM iTunes are an insignificant factor in the usage of iPods. They are a loss leader that may attract some consumers to the concept, but practically anyone buying an iPod discovers, sooner or later, how absurdly easy it is to pop in a CD, rip it, and drop it to your iPod.
Apple stands to lose very little if the record companies fail, once again, to pay attention to the tea leaves that indicate the public isn't buying their artificial attempts at keeping a dying distribution monopoly on life support. Someone suggested Apple has more to lose because if they have no songs on the store, they won't sell iPods. I think the data suggests otherwise. Clearly they sell far more iPod capacity than is used to hold purchased iTunes... which is a good indication that they could continue to sell iPods like crazy without any iTunes Music Store because iTunes without the music store still facilitates a very aesthetically appealing, functional, integrated solution, quality controlled top to bottom by Apple without reliance on third parties for operability assurance.
There's an argument about interoperability but let me remind everyone that a device that doesn't like to talk to other devices still functions in and of itself. A device that doesn't even talk to itself or its own peripherals very well is, however, entirely useless. Interoperability isn't as critical an issue as operability assurance. If you buy a device, you expect that it works. Third party conglomerations of software and hardware very often fail this most basic consumer expectation in too many ways to count. Hence my absolute amusement whenever naysayers play down "it just works" as a superfluous requirement demanded only by design aesthetes. I presume there isn't a consumer of sound mind on the planet who wants their product to "just fail."
In that regard, iPod + iTunes still has strategic competitive advantages of tremendous importance against competing hardware and software.
Jobs isn't being philosophically altruistic in his statement. This isn't to say his action isn't admirable, but to fully understand just what kind of balls he has to come out and deliver such a bold ultimatum to the recording industry, one has to understand the confluence of factors that give support to his assertions.
It was evident as early as the birth of the world wide web that internet distribution of music was an inevitability. Record companies hurried up and did nothing. This is not for lack of foresight. They knew it was coming. But the implications go far beyond piracy. The real fear of opening up the distro monopoly has to do with the realization by recording artists that record companies are now superfluous. Once upon a time, record companies offered promotion, marketing and distribution resources that were largely unmatched. The internet has entirely changed this. The RIAA barrage of lawyers being hurled at every twelve year old and grandmother is not because piracy threatens their bottom line. Artist independence threatens their bottom line. The entire internet threatens their bottom line. But if we put the internet and RIAA on a scale, and factor in growth momentum, the scale tells us that the internet is unstoppable. RIAA also knows this. But t
"they surely can demand it of the labels themselves - why are they whining to us?"
What do you think Jobs just did?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
So have you yourself done the double blind test, or are you just assuming that it's impossible?
Not sure why I care, because (despite my numerous character flaws) I'm no audiophile.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Don't you even remember those days? If it was all about lock-in to the music store, why did Apple start with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" iTunes ads? Don't you remember how Apple was a major target of the RIAA and labels for that campaign? Jobs was demonised for encouraging music piracy - and it was reported in many places as if Apple was the new Napster for encouraging people to "rip" their CDs. Under the pressure, they added "please don't steal music" stickers to the iPod. Other companies would probably simply have removed the ability to rip CDS from their product - or put DRM on the ripped files like Microsoft is wont to do.
You whiners should remove your heads from your asses. Without Jobs, we wouldn't have any high-profile people with the power to influence DRM and the labels in a positive way. We'd still be in the dark ages, with the labels denying it was even possible to make money selling music online, and your only choices would be CDs or bittorrent. Now Apple is in a position to fight for the repeal of DRM on music altogether. But you just want to undermine it. Fucking idiots! You whine all the time about how DRM is evil - then someone comes along with the capacity to get rid of some of it, and you just diss him? You don;t even know what's good for you.
Seriously, which tactic is going to work - whining all the time and running lame "defective by design" campaigns with the FSF - or having an ally who is successful and influential, with contacts within the actual record labels? Someone who actually makes the labels money and has revolutionized their business? Yeah, I'm sure they are going to listen to some FSF protestor who says he won't buy music online anyway, over someone who makes them millions of dollars.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I like to listen to music using my stereo.
An audiophile likes to listen to their stereo using music.
And I'm sure Jobs would LOVE to move those programmers to work on another project. Devoting a good chunk of his staff simply to appease the record companies, when they could be working on products that actually make profit, isn't exactly the best use of employee time.
Hi there, I don't really see where you're coming from mate - you say that you're "Locked Out" because you CHOOSE not to buy Music with DRM, so you're not "Locked In". If you make an active choice to not participate in something, you're not locked out - you just choose to stay outside. I'm not "locked out" of wearing womens underwear - I just choose not to. I certainly don't hold it against the makers of the wonderbra just because I don't want to buy them - good luck to them I say. As for the lost "profit" you say they are missing out on, I think they'll live without your $200 a month to forgo the gushing artery of losses they'd encounter by making their music easier to pirate. I mean really - tell me you'd spend $200 a month if you could get the stuff for free - you're having yourself on a bit aren't you? I can't see why people are so uptight about the whole DRM issue anyway - if I want to but an iPod and never make a purchase from the Music store - or not even buy a Mac, I can. If I'm happy to buy an iPod, a Mac - destroy all my old CD's and download every song on the store while wearing an "I love Jobsie" T-Shirt, I can do that too. No-one but music pirates and the anti-mac squad should have any problem with that scenario, should they?
Apple only puts DRM on content sold through the iTMS _if_ the content provider (and presumably copyright holder) asks for it. It's not automatic.
You can even buy non-DRMed material via the iTMS - there are some independent labels up there who don't want to use DRM. It's still AAC, but it's not DRMed.
As Jobs said - if the music industry is concerned about the DRM lock-in created by Apple, there's an easy fix: don't use DRM.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You're exactly right. As others have pointed out here, however, it's likely that the terms of the agreements with the big 4 require that all music sold on the store be protected with FairPlay. Still, I think this open letter may begin the process to a DRM-free world.
It was my fear—and probably the fear of many people here—that Apple's motivation for using FairPlay was twofold: one, that the music companies wanted it; and two, that they wanted to help strengthen the iTunes/iPod tie-in. Turns out, if Jobs is being fully genuine, that only the first reason is true. Which is a wonderful thing, because Apple is on the side of those who really get the future of music: savvy consumers and independent artists.
This calls for a grassroots effort to get Apple to alter its contracts with the music companies to allow copyright holders to specify that their music be sold without DRM. If enough consumers and artists start shouting loud enough, this just might happen. If Apple's hands are tied because of contracts, I seriously wonder if a lawsuit by an artist against Apple could force Apple's (willing) hand.
Ideally, of course, the music companies will just wise up, realize their old business model cannot be preserved with encryption technology, and give up the gun. But I'm not holding my breath.
Are there any existing activism efforts by artists to get Apple to sell DRM-free music on iTunes? If there isn't one, consider this post a statement of intent to start such an effort. I happen to be in a band that just released a a cd under a Creative Commons license. If nobody else is on the ball, I will contact people at Apple, start an open letter/petition, and hopefully get this first step—letting copyright holders decide if they want DRM or not—going.
Except that the metric by which Apple would judge the success of the Grand Lock-in Conspiracy(TM) is average number of DRM'ed songs per iPod, because that's the most conservative estimate. How is Apple supposed to know whether an iTunes customer has an iPod or which iPods are no longer in use? It gives a ball-park estimate. So let's say we've got 45 million iPods still in use, half of the ones that have been sold. That's 44 songs per iPod in use. Still, not incredibly locked in. The person could still burn to a CD and re-rip. Okay, so let's say half of all iPod owners don't actually buy songs from the iTunes Music Store. Okay, average of 88. Still below a hundred. This also means that Apple has to spend money and risk getting the music catalogue pulled to keep half their user-base potentially locked in. Now, for simplicity, let's say that half of all people feel "locked in" after 88 songs. So Apple's spending all this time and effort to lock in a quarter of all iPod buyers.
... OH MY GOD THEY LIKE iPODS. Apple spends a whole lot of money on marketing. Why do that if the Grand Lock-in Conspiracy(TM) works so well? For a lot of people, the "lock in" factor doesn't even register. They just like their iPods, so they keep buying them.
This is a simplistic analysis. But this should show that it's not as simple as DVD John makes it out to be and certainly not as simple as how Steve Jobs made it out. But really, the true answer is probably in the same order of magnitude. You also have to take into account how big a factor "iTunes lock-in" is in future purchasing decisions. Most people just don't even know that iTunes DRM is there. They just buy new iPods because
So yeah, it's complicated. And it's not easy to figure out. What does Jobs' analysis tell us? It's a conservative estimate of how well this supposed lock-in works. And that estimate is not kind. Generally, in business, if a conservative estimate makes something not worthwhile, then don't do it. Just assume that the worst-case scenario is how it actually is and go by that.
As to his comments about TV shows and movies, once you've watched a TV show on your iPod once, you're not nearly as likely to watch it again. Same with movies. Songs are really all that matters here. The most likely videos you'll end up replaying are ones you've made yourself with something like iMovie, which doesn't generate DRM-encrypted movies. If Apple really wanted to lock people in, they could do a far better job for far less money. Or they could make iTunes rip to DRM'ed AAC's. Guess what? That would mean lock-in for free. No having to put up with music companies' threats of pulling their catalogues or anything.
DVD John may be a smart guy, but this theory that "Steve Jobs is using bogus statistics on purpose to back an argument he doesn't really believe in (which is bound to piss off the people who license him his content, and those people just happen to be a cartel) just to make himself look better to the geek crowd that hates DRM and maybe appeal to governments that have already made it clear they don't like what he's doing" is just ridiculous. Please.
"I'd like to meet these "expert" listeners."
l es/index.php).
Boo.
AAC at 128 kbit is good enough for me. I certainly cannot hear any artefacts on my system (Sennheiser HD-600 connected to a Denon DA convertor and AHA headphone amp).
With MP3, you certainly can hear some artefacts, an aquarium-like effect in the higher regions. But this seems to be not the case for AAC.
With respect to your comments on "transience", "Timbre" and stuff, show me some measurements. Show me some real stuff, not some huggy-feely analysis, be more like the people at Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprincip
Please point out the differences in balance in a frequency spectrum that might be perceived by the human ear, then I'll be happy to agree with you.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
"You will hear loss of dynamic transience."
But that can be fixed with some magnetic phase-inducers and cable-elevators. And wooden knobs. Can't go wrong with those knobs....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.