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

ZOMG

[zieroh]

Nobody is actually forcing you to participate in any new service, are they?

Re:ZOMG

[pushing-robot]

Yes, but its existence denies me the right to not want it.

Re:ZOMG

[alvinrod]

Certainly not, but writing an actual article about anything of importance would require actual work, where as even mentioning Apple is sure to garner all manner of clicks as both fans and haters crawl out of the woodwork. Next there will be complaints about a lack of competition on the inflated costs of streaming services.

Re:ZOMG

[phantomfive]

That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy

To be fair, the entire complaint of the author was that now he would have a fourth music service. In this case, the actual solution is, in fact, to not buy it.

Here's the plan

[Anonymous Coward]

You people could break all those services if you just staged a massive account cancellation. Then they would...oh, I forgot. You're weak.

Re:Here's the plan

[JWW]

Or I could just buy the music I want DRM free and make my own damn playlists.

Streaming services are just that, services. If you want more control of your music, Buy it!

Re:Here's the plan

[gweihir]

The problem is not people being "weak". The problem is that market self-regulation (and nothing else is mass-voting with your valet) requires informed, rational and somewhat altruistic actors. Now, most people are have no clue what is going on, so the first condition is not met. Most people also have trouble making rational decisions, and will go for emotional ones instead. These are easy to manipulate and that is routinely done by advertisers and politics, so "rational" is not met either. Fortunately, the "homo oeconomicus" model is fundamentally broken, as except for the 5% psychopaths, people are altruistic, and place the good of others and the society they are living in often before their own good or what on a reasonable balance. Unfortunately, with 2 out of 3 necessary conditions not met, market self-regulation does not have a chance.

"Is this what we wanted?"

[tverbeek]

I never wanted monthly music rental to begin with, so ... no.

Re: "Is this what we wanted?"

[vux984]

It's basically the same as paying to see a show live or a movie in the theatres.

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

There's no real need for you to own copies of music.

There's no real need to assign, restrict, or control property rights on a copy of song either. The entire idea that I would even need to consider whether I am permitted or not to have a copy or listen to it however I want is ENTIRELY artificial.

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.

Steve Jobs was a salesman

[Anonymous Coward]

If all his inventory was purple and all the competitor's were white, he'd be out saying how purple demonstrates the individuality of the user while white is bland.

If his were white and the competition's were purple, then of course white is what someone with a serious design background would come out with.

Bill Gates was similar. Back in the '90s, during the browser wars, MS released an "Open letter to Netscape" with Microsoft's pledge to abide by "open standards" for HTML. Of course, they promptly forgot that once Netscape was acquired by AOL and had lost all its market share.

It's B-school 101 shit.
   

Re:Vinyl

[TWX]

I'm not ever going to go back to the difficulty of vinyl, it's just too damn much work to keep both the physical media and the player maintained such that they produce good quality output, but I can honestly say that having CDs has helped. I rip my CDs to a non-DRM digital format. I can play them on my phone, on my computers, on most DVD players from either disc or from flash, and even on some car stereos that support mp3 from CD or from flash. If I have a device failure I can copy back off of other devices, or worst case I can re-rip again from source media.

No one's digital store method has ever satisfied my want for being able to always access the content that I have paid for. Sometimes things are removed from the catalog, so they could later no longer be downloaded again, or the content is streamed instead of stored locally, or other things.

I want control over my stuff. If I own media then I have control.

Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbait

[Binky The Oracle]

I know this is Slashdot and all, and Apple bashing is kind of a national sport, but TFA is nothing but conjecture. How about we wait until there's an actual fact to talk about before fueling the servers with anti-fanboi rage?

Oh, boo-hoo

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Talk about first-world problems...

These are all streaming services, not DRM related

[guises]

This seems like a false dillema - how much agonizing do you do over whether you'll subscribe to DirecTV or DIsh or both or neither? If you want one you pick one, and if it turns out you don't like it you switch.

Really the music situation is much better than that, there are more choices and none of the awful contracts. You can switch easily if you wish and some of them offer free trials, or even entirely free versions. This is no worse than any other subscription service and better than many. Of course it's different from actually owning the music, but no one has claimed equivalency there. You can always just buy the songs if you want, from many sources.

Re:Vinyl

[Dogtanian]

I used to immerse my turntable in water, well almost, recording the record on real to real tape

I just used to think about doing that, I never actually did it. I guess you could say I did it on imaginary to imaginary tape. ;-P

Real to imaginary tape was quite easy too (but with little benefit), but I never figured out how to do it the other way around.

Re:Vinyl

[Rick Zeman]

Real to imaginary tape was quite easy too (but with little benefit), but I never figured out how to do it the other way around.

You end up with all noise and no signal.

Save the Righteous Indignation

[eyepeepackets]

"There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"

That has been Apple's m.o. since forever, so nothing new to see here, move along.

Re:Save the Righteous Indignation

[phantomfive]

The author is complaining that he can't play MP3s on his Xbox anymore, because Spotify doesn't work on Xbox. This is not someone you can reason with.

platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse them

[Arakageeta]

DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee). Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM. Rather, it is a means of boosting the sale of the platform by offering additional platform-only services. We can discuss the harm and inconvenience that platform lock-in may cause. However, we should not confuse the issue with DRM. That will just inflame old passions, preventing someone from approaching this new distinct issue from a fresh perspective.

No doubt many people against DRM will also be against platform lock-in. Perhaps others may not. For instance, I am generally against DRM. I purchased a digital file; I would like to be free to make copies of it for my own use. However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?

Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai

[ColdWetDog]

We do that and the article won't be posted on Slashdot until six months after the thing starts up. This gives us some time to get the dupe ready on a timely basis.

Endless Lock-In - Is This What We Wanted?

[Irate Engineer]

That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life...

Apparently that is what you want, or you wouldn't plunk down money for this service. Apple isn't holding a gun to your head forcing you to comply with their business model.

If you want it, pay for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. Paying for something you don't want and then bitching about it is useless and stupid.

Re:Vinyl

[PopeRatzo]

But who plays vinyl these days?

Who indeed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

The nation is getting back into the groove with a resurgence in sales of record players alongside music on vinyl.

Sales of turntables are up by a staggering 240 per cent at John Lewis in the first few months of this year compared to same period in 2014.

It was widely believed that digital music, the iPod and the internet had killed vinyl, the record player and record shop, however the sales figures paint a very different picture.

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.

DRM on rentals isn't the same...

[wolrahnaes]

I dislike DRM like pretty much everyone else who isn't a content industry lawyer, but I really can't find much to complain about when it's used in the context of a rental or subscription service. How else are they supposed to ensure you can't continue using the content when you're not supposed to be able to anymore?

DRM on stuff I'm supposedly purchasing is another matter entirely, if I own it I want to truly control it, but if I'm renting it or paying for temporary access where it's clear from the beginning that I only have it as long as I'm paying I don't see a problem.

Re:Vinyl

[vlad30]

Sales up 240 per cent, Lies Damn Lies and Statistics Last year they could have sold 10 records this year 24 thats 240% of last year What are the raw numbers ?

Re:Vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

But why? Analog sound is garbage.

all sound is analog.

Platform lock-in is the end. DRM is the Means.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM

You're confusing the ends & the means. The end goal is platform lock in, the means to do that is DRM.

If there was no DRM, you would just be able to save the streamed file, this is unlikely to be the case.

Re:Hummmm??

[TheRaven64]

Steve Jobs made anti-DRM statements very early on. At the time, the music industry was insisting on DRM for everything. They eventually learned that it gave more power to the distributors than to them and allowed Amazon to sell DRM-free music (but didn't allow Apple the same deal for a while, to allow Amazon to become a viable competitor). For some reason, the movie studios are intent on making the same mistake and insisting that Amazon and Netfilx take complete control of their supply chain, when the best thing for their business is a healthy competitive ecosystem driving each others margins.

If they had any sense, the music and movie studios would insist that distributors sell without DRM.

Why use it?

[wallsg]

"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."

Then why use it? Just because Apple puts out a product does NOT mean that you have to buy or use it.

Re:Hummmm??

[Plumpaquatsch]

Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...

Errm http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027-998590.html:

April 28, 2003 12:16 PM PDT
Apple unveils music store
...
The songs cost 99 cents each to download, with no subscription fee, and include the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date. Jobs has been an outspoken opponent of so-called digital rights management (DRM) in the past, arguing that limitations on digital music will undermine the market for legitimate content.