Apple Music and the Terrible Return of DRM

An anonymous reader writes: Apple's rumored music streaming service looks set to materialize soon, and a lot of people are talking about how good it might be. But Nilay Patel is looking at the other side — if the service fits with Apple's typical mode of operation, it'll only work with other Apple products. "That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music." He points out Steve Jobs's 2007 essay on the state of digital music and notes that Jobs seemed to feel DRM was a waste of time — something forced on Apple by the labels. "But it's no longer the labels pushing DRM on the music services; it's the services themselves, because locking you into a single ecosystem guarantees you'll keep paying their monthly subscription fees and hopefully buy into the rest of their ecosystem. ... Apple Music might be available on Android, but it probably won't be as good, because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone.... There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"

Comments

Re:These are all streaming services, not DRM relat

[phantomfive]

The author isn't technical, and doesn't understand the words he uses. He thinks that if his device won't pair with his bluetooth speakers, it must be because of DRM. If Google Play Music is better on Android than on iPhone, it's because of DRM.

He is slowly coming to an awareness that interoperability is hard. The author is a "bro" who describes himself as "married to a babe." That's cool but all he wants to do is listen to music and all this technology is inconvenient to understand. It won't let him listen to music the way he wants (the subtitle of his article is "give me convenience or give me death"). It's hard to feel sympathy for him.

Re: "Is this what we wanted?"

[lucm]

Most of us, with some exceptions, only see a given show or movie once. That's not how most of us consume music.

Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now? No way, there will be more new stuff. Always more. Some will last a season, some a year, but then it will be replaced by something else.

With a streaming service you can listen to music that becomes a great temporary soundtrack for your life. I remember a few years ago, it was all about Katy Perry and Pink and Lykke Li on Pandora. Then there was that hilarious Selfie song. Then the Ting Tings and whatnot. When I hear one of those songs it brings back general memories of a time in my life, but there's no way I'd go out and buy those albums now.

Sure, sometimes I discover an artist on a streaming service, then I go buy their albums on iTunes, and I still have my vinyls and CDs. But for the most part, music is now like a landscape that goes by during a train ride. It's there for a while, then it's something else, and overall I find the experience more enjoyable than a 12-CD changer or a Winamp playlist.

Re: "Is this what we wanted?"

[TheGratefulNet]

I have no idea what you are talking about. are those JINGLES or actual music with lasting value?

I assume its junk throw-away music.

what makes you think that your lack of interest in REAL music is typical of all audiences?

I have albums I bought 40 years ago that I still listen to.

moral of the story; stop wasting your time on stupid jingles. there is good lasting music out there.