Of course piracy pushes the price down. I guess most corporate leaders haven't thought this through. There is always a black market, and it grows in proportion to the price of the legitimate goods. Any company raising their prices to recoup profits "lost" to the black market is insane.
Seems there are a lot of insane companies out there.
It's funny how easily we buy into their story about evil pirating driving up prices. It's _their_ job to figure out how many people will buy a product at a given price, then spend less than that on developing the product.
Cheers.
Re:One weakness of both articles: free always wins
on
Economics of File-Sharing
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In a word, "service".
People would be willing to pay for better service. In fact, they already do. Witness the amazing success of the iTunes Music Store thusfar. This is in spite of the fact that people can download the same songs for free. More reliable searching, faster downloads, and consistant quality are worth about $.99 per song to a heck of a lot of people.
If the RIAA had kept it's focus on pleasing customers they would never have had the problems they're having now. A good lesson for _any_ corporation.
You think? We just did honest meta tags, descriptive titles, and made much of our site publicly accessible. The most advanced trick was to make sure CGI based content pages appear as plain HTML in the URL. This seems fair since they are content pages after all, just managed via CGI.
Maybe all that _is_ clever. I thought it was pretty straighforward.
Or perhaps you're just referring to putting a link on Slashdot just now... I hesitated. Wasn't sure how the geeks here (no offense -- I'm one too) would react to such a thing:)
Funny -- one of the sites I run recently took a hit in the rankings, and we didn't do much optimization. I researched it last night and found that Google has just rolled back to a very old version of their data. Last week the title tags they were showing for our site were up to date, but now they are showing data from over a month ago.
I wonder if this rollback was in response to the complaints?
In any case, without much trickery we were able to get relatively good ranking in the latest (pre-rollback) version just by having actual content and decent title & meta tags.
So it really doesn't bother you one bit that you have to ask permission from the RIAA every time you buy a new machine? You're not the least bit worried that your music collection will become unusable on their whim?
You have run into this once. I have run into it twice. We will run into it over and over as long as we own DRM music. I guess my question is: why are you so happy to accept this type of treatment?
your missing the point, we are already losing
I am surprised it appears that way to you. Most people I know still download their music via P2P. (Again, I don't). And P2P hasn't even caught up with technology yet. Wait until it matures into an untraceable medium (like Freenet).
It sounds like you want the same freedom that I do, but are willing to let the RIAA have their way for the time being. I think that is a dangerous precedent. I think it will only get harder to change once it becomes acceptable.
But we are talking about three COMPUTERS, not three players.
But I can play any CD I buy on as many computers as I want. Why would I buy something new with restrictions? Especially when they have to compete (rightly or wrongly) with a black market that is providing unrestricted audio for free?
Then there's the fact that I can't play it on computers that don't support iTunes, or players that aren't made by Apple. Imagine if a Sony CD could only be played on Sony CD players.
Why are people happy to accept (and pay for) such a clear step backwards? I guess the RIAA has been so awful that we're thankful to only be mildly abused.
So we have a DRM that works
I admit Apple's DRM is better than anything else out there. But I've already bumped into the 3 computer limit twice. Tell me what happens if you've got three computers authorized amd one goes kaput and needs to be replaced.
My point is that DRM doesn't work. At least not as well as plain old CD's. And I don't understand why we're so happy to pay for less functionality. It's nuts.
thats why I support indie music
Me too -- we can agree that is the best way..
But breaking the law to get back at them only ends in us losing ALL rights as consumers.
I don't break the law. I use my audio tracks legally and fairly. I don't use P2P. But I am glad that this utility will allow me to use my legally acquired songs in a trouble free manner on any computer or player I choose.
we had a fighting chance, NOW we lose outright and its your fault.
As long as people don't accept unfair treatment, history has shown again and again that in the end the public wins because the public drives business and government, not the other way around.
Check out what happened with the printing press, the photocopier, cassette tapes, video tapes, cd rippers and burners, etc.
Remember: every single person using the iTunes store would have used it just the same if there was no DRM. And every track on the iTunes store is already available for free on P2P networks. DRM accomplishes nothing but to annoy consumers. There is no reason we have to accept it. If the RIAA is going to live or die it has nothing to do with DRM.
That's a good point -- but the iPod would sell damn well with or without the iTMS because it's a great player. I am actually glad the DRM was cracked as I can now play my purchased songs on all five computers (three at home and two at work).
My iPod (kept in the car) is great. I bought and used it before the iTMS and I'll keep doing so. Apple has nothing to worry about with this hack unless the RIAA decide to get angry even though all the songs were already available on P2P.
So we are to live in fear of an unjust corporation? We are to sacrafice our rights (yes, our RIGHTS) so as not to anger this bully?
I'm sorry, but I think you've got it backwards. It's abusing your customers that is "over".
I am glad to pay for music (and have paid for all I have). But you better sell it to me on fair terms or you've lost a customer and will encourage a black market.
Imagine if LP's, tapes, or CD's could only be played on up to three players. Ridiculous. And you suggest we accept this?
Apple does EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE SAID THEY WANTED and they still get fucked over.
No no no. Nobody said "I want to pay for music that can only be played on three computers. Nobody. I was, and still am willing to pay for a good search engine, fast downloads, good encoding quality, and NO RESTRICTIONS. That's right: none. I bought it and I'll play it on whatever computer I damn well please.
It's so pitiful how nearly everyone on this thread is buckling under and accepting the shackles of DRM. You are getting less for your money than you were before. And you're defending those who provide it.
I think iTMS is working either out of ignorance about the DRM or because people are willing to try DRM as long as they won't notice it. That's why I tried it. Well, fact is it doesn't work. I don't want to do anything unfair with my music, but I've already bumped into the DRM several times. It's such a hassle I had sworn of buying iTMS.
Ironically, I am going to use this utility to strip the DRM off the songs I have purchased, and I may in fact continue to use the iTMS as long as I _can_ remove the DRM. As far as this paying customer is concerned it's Jon Lech Johansen in combination with iTMS that has has delivered what everyone said they wanted.
But the RIAA will use this as an excuse to put more and more DRM, more and more legislation.
Great! That is exactly what needs to happen!
As I read this thread I am shocked at how many people are accepting the blatant disrespect for the public that is DRM. And why? Out of fear.
Well, I hope the RIAA goes nuts and drafts up a bunch of laws so ridiculous that the entirity of the public is thrown into outrage. Come on -- break into my computer and delete files that you think I stole. Better yet, raid my house and take my legally acquired CD's because I might be able to rip and distribute them.
Enough of this slow frog-boiling that has already cooked so many -- even here on slashdot. Let them turn up the heat and lets find out what Copyright and Fair Use is really about.
If I can pay a buck a song and be able to play the file on my computer, burn it to a CD, and listen to it on an iPod, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.
Wow, you've totally been brainwashed. God bless Apple and the RIAA for offering less freedom to use what I purchase than I had yesterday.
I am amazed at the pro-DRM sentiment on this thread. Who served up the kool-aid?
. But this guy (who really, really should have known better after everything he's been through)
So when you are sued by a bullying corporation and the COURT OF LAW determines you were well within your rights -- should cower in fear for the rest of your life? That's a great way to encourage frivolous and abusive lawsuits.
I am sad that so many, even in the slashdot crowd, have accepted this crap treatment.
I've bought about 250-300 songs from iTMS and have never been inconvenienced by their DRM.
Just give it time. You will be inconvenienced. I thought it was great too -- until my powerbook stopped working. After they replaced the main logic board it couldn't play the songs anymore. And I couldn't authorize it because I had already authorized three computers. And Apple tech support admonished me for not de-authing the powerbook before sending it in to them for repair. As if I could have de-authed it when it wasn't working in the first place.
Yeah, I could burn it to CD and rerip it and reencode it. And it wouldn't sound any better than a free rip off of a P2P network. And if I"m going to have to burn and rip it anyways to use it freely, why not just buy the CD in the first place? So what did I actually pay for? A bunch of restrictions, that's what.
I gave it a try and it's just not as good as it needs to be to compete with what's already available. Just wait for the backlash when people upgrade their machines in a year. Or when the average household has more than 3 machines.
Apple (and the RIAA) could compete with P2P on service alone. They don't need DRM. I would gladly pay for unencumbered version of the iTunes Music store.
You've obviously never tried to use iTunes songs on more than three machines. Like what if one machine dies and you buy a new one? You're out of luck (unless you want to argue with Apple tech support each time). This happened to me twice in the past six months and I am very glad to be able to peel the DRM off of my LEGALLY ACQUIRED SONGS so I can play them where and when I want, for myself.
Oh, come off it. I said I wanted to email it to him -- of course I didn't because I knew it wouldn't work. The point is that this is something that I should be able to do. Why? Because it's good for their business. Because I could do it with the freely available tracks that they are trying to replace.
There simply isn't a non-invasive approach that can still tell how many times you've used said goods, and where, and keeps track of it legally.
Exactly. We are in complete agreement. So if this is so obvious why are companies falling over themselves to appear invasive to their customers?
Firstly, you didn't pay for iTunes. You paid for the song(s). If you think they are an inferior product, stop buying them.
Duh. That's what my post was about. I am not going to buy any more.
If you feel that you can jump on Kazaa and download a song, then that is your right. But you forked over your $.99 and, as a geek, you really have no room to talk as to how you were 'hoodwinked' into buying something inferior.
I'm not saying I was "hoodwinked". I was basically giving Apple a chance. I tried their product. They did a good job, but not good enough. It's not as good as what's available for free.
At this point I equate your rant to a child screaming for a piece of candy, then complaining about it when the candy got on his clothes. "They need to make better candy," the child would say.
God forbid a customer express to a company what they want. That would be... what? Part of the free market or something?
My point is that Apple (and more importantly the RIAA) could compete with the free/illegal download services simply by providing better service. Just sell unencumbered mp3's at a high bitrate with great searching features and download speeds. People will pay. People pay for KaZaa. People pay for the iTunes store _not_ because it's legal, but because it's fast, easy, and always sounds good.
If they dropped the DRM they could avoid the inevitable backlash that's 1-2 years down the road when everyone's songs stop working when they switch computers. I doubt most people buying the songs realize just how restricted they are. I did, but wanted to see how it played out in the real world. Unfortunately I ran into the limitations early. When other people do I doubt they'll be much happier than I am.
People are _obviously_ willing to pay (oh, say, about $.99) for good download speeds and high-quality encoding. Most people who use the Music Store don't care that it's "legal" or "right" or whatever. Apple just found the right price point for what they offer -- a better user experience than the free services like KaZaa, Gnutella, etc.
However... I have had some very annoying problems with the iTunes DRM recently. Got the main logic board replaced in my laptop (by Apple) and suddenly couldn't play my purchased music. Couldn't re-authorize because I'd already authorized three machines and now one was gone forever (didn't know in advance that they'd be replacing the logic board, or that I would lose my rights if they did). Had to email support and wait about 48 hours to get my music back by deauthorizing the other computer. And they warned me that "we don't normally do this".
Another time I wanted to email a song to a friend -- I thought he'd like it and maybe buy the album. Of course he couldn't play it. Nice.
More recently I purchased music and I was _never_ able to play it -- I'm told it's already authorized on three machines even though I've yet to play it once. Whatever. I guess I have to contact Apple support again.
I don't feel this is really Apple's fault -- they've done as well as you can with DRM, but the fact is that it just sucks. I now realize that I paid for an _inferior_ product to what I could have gotten for free. I would rather download a bit slower, get a lower bitrate, and be able to use my damn music like I can with any other medium!
Now, if they combined high-quality, fast dowloads, and free usage, then most people would STILL buy the the songs for $.99 and they would actually be happy with their purchase a year or two later when they've had to move it across machines or whatever other diallowed activieties that we normally do without thinking when using CD's or whatever. As it is, I think people will sour on this over time.
Okay -- I'm rambling now, but the point is that they'd be doing at least as well without the DRM, and customers would be happier longterm. That's how they should be competing with P2P -- not by putting out products that are superior in some ways and vastly inferior in others.
Stupid RIAA. I'm glad to pay for what I want if you offered it. As it is I think I'll go steal some RIAA music. Or buy some independent stuff.
Yeah, I've worked in support too. But unlike you I still realize that a company doesn't exist for any other reason that to please customers. End of story.
There are companies who get this right. The company I work for, has a similar policy, and we occasionally eat crow to please a customer. Guess what? The benefits of that approach have far outweighed the cost. We've had more profitable quarters in a row than Apple. It's just good business.
Now -- maybe this particular issue with the ipod isn't a real problem if the people go through the right steps. But my original point is valid and well documented: Apple says "we don't care" far more often than a company should (for their own good).
Wow... polite criticism of Apple is a Troll? I guess the Mac zealots are getting a little defensive. No wonder Apple sees no reason to maintain compatibility -- when the customers it's ignoring would defend them to the death for doing so.
Apple seems to have always had a problem with not giving a hoot about their existing customers.
Perhaps it's because their existing customer base is so loyal and rabid, yet are such a small percentage of the market they're after. But whatever the cause, they are always breaking compatability and leaving various customers out in the cold. If you follow the mac discussion boards for a year or so, you'll see this happen again and again.
What they don't seem to understand is that it's almost always a good idea to keep your customers from feeling like they're getting screwed. People just want to feel that they're being treated fairly. It doesn't matter that much what _is_ fair, but the vast majority of people are pretty reasonable, and a little good faith effort on the part of a company goes a long way. I speak from experience.
I have been a relatively happy Apple user for a few years now. But I've read the boards and they just have a way of saying "we don't really care" more often than any company should. It's just bad business.
I think people get mega worried about this because they think that we'll create some unstoppable supervirus. But that would mean that we humans were better designers than nature itself, which is not the case (witness our inability to improve on our own bodies in any meaningful way).
It is likely that any "supervirus" that could exist would have come into existence on it's own anyways. And some have; the bubonic plague, 1918 influenza, and to a lesser extent, aids. But the competition between viruses and hosts goes on and on in a cycle, with no final victor.
In fact, I would guess that any virus we could make would be a weakling compared to the viruses that evolve in the wild.
Things that don't have food will die off quickly until life can be sustained again. It's a cycle, not a staight line.
You're right -- I oversimplified. But my point is that if we don't find ways to make our lifestyle sustainable, then our lifestyle will be lost as the cycle comes to a close.
When I say "point of no return" I refer to losing the period of affluence that some parts of the world now enjoy. I'd like to see us work towards making that a sustainable norm letting people "die off quickly until life can be sustained again".
But sure -- equilibrium will be restored either by us being smart or by natural balance kicking our collective asses when the food chain or some such crumbles. Witness Easter Island. Yes, the Earth is bigger than the island, but not infinitely bigger. The same rules apply eventually.
Though I agree with the basic thesis of your post, I find it ridiculous to claim that parents in less technological countries care less about the lives of their children. Go visit one of these countries and watch the mothers wail with their dead child in their arms. It's a fairly common sight in some parts of the world.
But you are correct, technology usually lowers the birth rate. Moreso because there's better things to do than fuck all the time (hard to believe, but apparently true), than because people are less worried about their kids dying.
Right now the food supply isn't an immidiate problem, you are right. Most food scarcity is an issue of politics. But the fact remains that the Earth offers finite resources so if we grow our society unchecked it will eventually implode.
Considering all the resources that each human requires (not just food -- but energy, biomass, etc), are we nearing that point? Hard to tell for sure, but it might be wise to figure that out before we go past the point of no return.
Must be nice to be able to spend $20,000 (stripped-down) to $23,000 (modestly equipped) for a car that feels almost as solid and rugged as a cardboard box...
You're referring to the 2003 Prius. The 2004 Prius feels like a solid car and looks much different. And yes, it is nice having the money to buy what I like.
Basically you just paid at least $8000 extra up front to save $5,668 over the next 10 years.
I didn't do it for the money. Nobody (sane) claims the Prius is the most bang for the buck. I did it because it feels good. I am using less blood-bought gasoline and spewing less noxious fumes into my smog laden city. I am supporting the efforts of corporations that are offering new choices. Plus it's a very nice car.
I drove a Prius a friend of mine bought recently, I seriously doubt it'd break the 100,000 mile mark before imploding.
Well that's interesting as it comes with a 100,000 mile warranty. I'll trust Toyota's ROI numbers over your casual observation. There are people who've put 250K miles on thier Prius (one was a taxi driver in Canada who did it in just over two years -- Toyota bought the car back to analyze and learn from it).
it's about the ugliest thing to be inflicted on our highways since the Pontiac Aztek
Don't confuse this with the 2003, which did look and feel like a crappy economy car. The new Prius does not.
I also applaud the sacrifices you're willing to make to help save the planet.
It has nothing to do with the planet. I'm just sick of my eyes burning from car fumes during the commute, and of sending young men to die in the middle east. Yes, the Prius still uses oil, but it's the best thing a normal American can do if they need a car. It's my vote -- an expensive vote -- for a slightly better future.
There's nothing surprising about this, unfortunately. The phenomenon was described at least as early as 1833 by William Forster Lloyd. Any common, limited resource that is not regulated will be destroyed by misuse.
What's sad, to me, is just how self destructive it all is. With all our intelect our behavior is no better than a parasite that dies when it kills it's host.
Great car. Comfortable, drives as well as any small coupe. 92% less gag worthy car fumes that make my neighborhood reek. Uses 1/2 the gasoline so I'm killing only half as many folks in the middle east. I feel a little better. Best of all it looks pretty cool and feels futuristic.
Anyways, just wanted to mention it. Toyota is working hard on alternatives and they're doing a great job. I'm happy with my new car and proud to be supporting a better future.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course piracy pushes the price down. I guess most corporate leaders haven't thought this through. There is always a black market, and it grows in proportion to the price of the legitimate goods. Any company raising their prices to recoup profits "lost" to the black market is insane.
Seems there are a lot of insane companies out there.
It's funny how easily we buy into their story about evil pirating driving up prices. It's _their_ job to figure out how many people will buy a product at a given price, then spend less than that on developing the product.
Cheers.
In a word, "service".
People would be willing to pay for better service. In fact, they already do. Witness the amazing success of the iTunes Music Store thusfar. This is in spite of the fact that people can download the same songs for free. More reliable searching, faster downloads, and consistant quality are worth about $.99 per song to a heck of a lot of people.
If the RIAA had kept it's focus on pleasing customers they would never have had the problems they're having now. A good lesson for _any_ corporation.
Cheers.
You think? We just did honest meta tags, descriptive titles, and made much of our site publicly accessible. The most advanced trick was to make sure CGI based content pages appear as plain HTML in the URL. This seems fair since they are content pages after all, just managed via CGI.
:)
Maybe all that _is_ clever. I thought it was pretty straighforward.
Or perhaps you're just referring to putting a link on Slashdot just now... I hesitated. Wasn't sure how the geeks here (no offense -- I'm one too) would react to such a thing
Cheers!
Funny -- one of the sites I run recently took a hit in the rankings, and we didn't do much optimization. I researched it last night and found that Google has just rolled back to a very old version of their data. Last week the title tags they were showing for our site were up to date, but now they are showing data from over a month ago.
I wonder if this rollback was in response to the complaints?
In any case, without much trickery we were able to get relatively good ranking in the latest (pre-rollback) version just by having actual content and decent title & meta tags.
Cheers.
So it really doesn't bother you one bit that you have to ask permission from the RIAA every time you buy a new machine? You're not the least bit worried that your music collection will become unusable on their whim?
You have run into this once. I have run into it twice. We will run into it over and over as long as we own DRM music. I guess my question is: why are you so happy to accept this type of treatment?
your missing the point, we are already losing
I am surprised it appears that way to you. Most people I know still download their music via P2P. (Again, I don't). And P2P hasn't even caught up with technology yet. Wait until it matures into an untraceable medium (like Freenet).
It sounds like you want the same freedom that I do, but are willing to let the RIAA have their way for the time being. I think that is a dangerous precedent. I think it will only get harder to change once it becomes acceptable.
Thanks for the reply.
But we are talking about three COMPUTERS, not three players.
But I can play any CD I buy on as many computers as I want. Why would I buy something new with restrictions? Especially when they have to compete (rightly or wrongly) with a black market that is providing unrestricted audio for free?
Then there's the fact that I can't play it on computers that don't support iTunes, or players that aren't made by Apple. Imagine if a Sony CD could only be played on Sony CD players.
Why are people happy to accept (and pay for) such a clear step backwards? I guess the RIAA has been so awful that we're thankful to only be mildly abused.
So we have a DRM that works
I admit Apple's DRM is better than anything else out there. But I've already bumped into the 3 computer limit twice. Tell me what happens if you've got three computers authorized amd one goes kaput and needs to be replaced.
My point is that DRM doesn't work. At least not as well as plain old CD's. And I don't understand why we're so happy to pay for less functionality. It's nuts.
thats why I support indie music
Me too -- we can agree that is the best way..
But breaking the law to get back at them only ends in us losing ALL rights as consumers.
I don't break the law. I use my audio tracks legally and fairly. I don't use P2P. But I am glad that this utility will allow me to use my legally acquired songs in a trouble free manner on any computer or player I choose.
we had a fighting chance, NOW we lose outright and its your fault.
As long as people don't accept unfair treatment, history has shown again and again that in the end the public wins because the public drives business and government, not the other way around.
Check out what happened with the printing press, the photocopier, cassette tapes, video tapes, cd rippers and burners, etc.
Remember: every single person using the iTunes store would have used it just the same if there was no DRM. And every track on the iTunes store is already available for free on P2P networks. DRM accomplishes nothing but to annoy consumers. There is no reason we have to accept it. If the RIAA is going to live or die it has nothing to do with DRM.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
Cheers.
That's a good point -- but the iPod would sell damn well with or without the iTMS because it's a great player. I am actually glad the DRM was cracked as I can now play my purchased songs on all five computers (three at home and two at work).
My iPod (kept in the car) is great. I bought and used it before the iTMS and I'll keep doing so. Apple has nothing to worry about with this hack unless the RIAA decide to get angry even though all the songs were already available on P2P.
Cheers.
Cause thats all a hack like this will do.
So we are to live in fear of an unjust corporation? We are to sacrafice our rights (yes, our RIGHTS) so as not to anger this bully?
I'm sorry, but I think you've got it backwards. It's abusing your customers that is "over".
I am glad to pay for music (and have paid for all I have). But you better sell it to me on fair terms or you've lost a customer and will encourage a black market.
Imagine if LP's, tapes, or CD's could only be played on up to three players. Ridiculous. And you suggest we accept this?
Cheers.
Apple does EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE SAID THEY WANTED and they still get fucked over.
No no no. Nobody said "I want to pay for music that can only be played on three computers. Nobody. I was, and still am willing to pay for a good search engine, fast downloads, good encoding quality, and NO RESTRICTIONS. That's right: none. I bought it and I'll play it on whatever computer I damn well please.
It's so pitiful how nearly everyone on this thread is buckling under and accepting the shackles of DRM. You are getting less for your money than you were before. And you're defending those who provide it.
I think iTMS is working either out of ignorance about the DRM or because people are willing to try DRM as long as they won't notice it. That's why I tried it. Well, fact is it doesn't work. I don't want to do anything unfair with my music, but I've already bumped into the DRM several times. It's such a hassle I had sworn of buying iTMS.
Ironically, I am going to use this utility to strip the DRM off the songs I have purchased, and I may in fact continue to use the iTMS as long as I _can_ remove the DRM. As far as this paying customer is concerned it's Jon Lech Johansen in combination with iTMS that has has delivered what everyone said they wanted.
Cheers.
But the RIAA will use this as an excuse to put more and more DRM, more and more legislation.
Great! That is exactly what needs to happen!
As I read this thread I am shocked at how many people are accepting the blatant disrespect for the public that is DRM. And why? Out of fear.
Well, I hope the RIAA goes nuts and drafts up a bunch of laws so ridiculous that the entirity of the public is thrown into outrage. Come on -- break into my computer and delete files that you think I stole. Better yet, raid my house and take my legally acquired CD's because I might be able to rip and distribute them.
Enough of this slow frog-boiling that has already cooked so many -- even here on slashdot. Let them turn up the heat and lets find out what Copyright and Fair Use is really about.
Cheers.
If I can pay a buck a song and be able to play the file on my computer, burn it to a CD, and listen to it on an iPod, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.
Wow, you've totally been brainwashed. God bless Apple and the RIAA for offering less freedom to use what I purchase than I had yesterday.
I am amazed at the pro-DRM sentiment on this thread. Who served up the kool-aid?
. But this guy (who really, really should have known better after everything he's been through)
So when you are sued by a bullying corporation and the COURT OF LAW determines you were well within your rights -- should cower in fear for the rest of your life? That's a great way to encourage frivolous and abusive lawsuits.
I am sad that so many, even in the slashdot crowd, have accepted this crap treatment.
Cheers.
I've bought about 250-300 songs from iTMS and have never been inconvenienced by their DRM.
Just give it time. You will be inconvenienced. I thought it was great too -- until my powerbook stopped working. After they replaced the main logic board it couldn't play the songs anymore. And I couldn't authorize it because I had already authorized three computers. And Apple tech support admonished me for not de-authing the powerbook before sending it in to them for repair. As if I could have de-authed it when it wasn't working in the first place.
Yeah, I could burn it to CD and rerip it and reencode it. And it wouldn't sound any better than a free rip off of a P2P network. And if I"m going to have to burn and rip it anyways to use it freely, why not just buy the CD in the first place? So what did I actually pay for? A bunch of restrictions, that's what.
I gave it a try and it's just not as good as it needs to be to compete with what's already available. Just wait for the backlash when people upgrade their machines in a year. Or when the average household has more than 3 machines.
Apple (and the RIAA) could compete with P2P on service alone. They don't need DRM. I would gladly pay for unencumbered version of the iTunes Music store.
Cheers.
You've obviously never tried to use iTunes songs on more than three machines. Like what if one machine dies and you buy a new one? You're out of luck (unless you want to argue with Apple tech support each time). This happened to me twice in the past six months and I am very glad to be able to peel the DRM off of my LEGALLY ACQUIRED SONGS so I can play them where and when I want, for myself.
Cheers.
I think the word you're looking for is "Duh."
Oh, come off it. I said I wanted to email it to him -- of course I didn't because I knew it wouldn't work. The point is that this is something that I should be able to do. Why? Because it's good for their business. Because I could do it with the freely available tracks that they are trying to replace.
There simply isn't a non-invasive approach that can still tell how many times you've used said goods, and where, and keeps track of it legally.
Exactly. We are in complete agreement. So if this is so obvious why are companies falling over themselves to appear invasive to their customers?
Firstly, you didn't pay for iTunes. You paid for the song(s). If you think they are an inferior product, stop buying them.
Duh. That's what my post was about. I am not going to buy any more.
If you feel that you can jump on Kazaa and download a song, then that is your right. But you forked over your $.99 and, as a geek, you really have no room to talk as to how you were 'hoodwinked' into buying something inferior.
I'm not saying I was "hoodwinked". I was basically giving Apple a chance. I tried their product. They did a good job, but not good enough. It's not as good as what's available for free.
At this point I equate your rant to a child screaming for a piece of candy, then complaining about it when the candy got on his clothes. "They need to make better candy," the child would say.
God forbid a customer express to a company what they want. That would be... what? Part of the free market or something?
My point is that Apple (and more importantly the RIAA) could compete with the free/illegal download services simply by providing better service. Just sell unencumbered mp3's at a high bitrate with great searching features and download speeds. People will pay. People pay for KaZaa. People pay for the iTunes store _not_ because it's legal, but because it's fast, easy, and always sounds good.
If they dropped the DRM they could avoid the inevitable backlash that's 1-2 years down the road when everyone's songs stop working when they switch computers. I doubt most people buying the songs realize just how restricted they are. I did, but wanted to see how it played out in the real world. Unfortunately I ran into the limitations early. When other people do I doubt they'll be much happier than I am.
Cheers.
People are _obviously_ willing to pay (oh, say, about $.99) for good download speeds and high-quality encoding. Most people who use the Music Store don't care that it's "legal" or "right" or whatever. Apple just found the right price point for what they offer -- a better user experience than the free services like KaZaa, Gnutella, etc.
However... I have had some very annoying problems with the iTunes DRM recently. Got the main logic board replaced in my laptop (by Apple) and suddenly couldn't play my purchased music. Couldn't re-authorize because I'd already authorized three machines and now one was gone forever (didn't know in advance that they'd be replacing the logic board, or that I would lose my rights if they did). Had to email support and wait about 48 hours to get my music back by deauthorizing the other computer. And they warned me that "we don't normally do this".
Another time I wanted to email a song to a friend -- I thought he'd like it and maybe buy the album. Of course he couldn't play it. Nice.
More recently I purchased music and I was _never_ able to play it -- I'm told it's already authorized on three machines even though I've yet to play it once. Whatever. I guess I have to contact Apple support again.
I don't feel this is really Apple's fault -- they've done as well as you can with DRM, but the fact is that it just sucks. I now realize that I paid for an _inferior_ product to what I could have gotten for free. I would rather download a bit slower, get a lower bitrate, and be able to use my damn music like I can with any other medium!
Now, if they combined high-quality, fast dowloads, and free usage, then most people would STILL buy the the songs for $.99 and they would actually be happy with their purchase a year or two later when they've had to move it across machines or whatever other diallowed activieties that we normally do without thinking when using CD's or whatever. As it is, I think people will sour on this over time.
Okay -- I'm rambling now, but the point is that they'd be doing at least as well without the DRM, and customers would be happier longterm. That's how they should be competing with P2P -- not by putting out products that are superior in some ways and vastly inferior in others.
Stupid RIAA. I'm glad to pay for what I want if you offered it. As it is I think I'll go steal some RIAA music. Or buy some independent stuff.
Cheers all.
Yeah, I've worked in support too. But unlike you I still realize that a company doesn't exist for any other reason that to please customers. End of story.
There are companies who get this right. The company I work for, has a similar policy, and we occasionally eat crow to please a customer. Guess what? The benefits of that approach have far outweighed the cost. We've had more profitable quarters in a row than Apple. It's just good business.
Now -- maybe this particular issue with the ipod isn't a real problem if the people go through the right steps. But my original point is valid and well documented: Apple says "we don't care" far more often than a company should (for their own good).
Cheers.
Wow... polite criticism of Apple is a Troll? I guess the Mac zealots are getting a little defensive. No wonder Apple sees no reason to maintain compatibility -- when the customers it's ignoring would defend them to the death for doing so.
Ah well.
Apple seems to have always had a problem with not giving a hoot about their existing customers.
Perhaps it's because their existing customer base is so loyal and rabid, yet are such a small percentage of the market they're after. But whatever the cause, they are always breaking compatability and leaving various customers out in the cold. If you follow the mac discussion boards for a year or so, you'll see this happen again and again.
What they don't seem to understand is that it's almost always a good idea to keep your customers from feeling like they're getting screwed. People just want to feel that they're being treated fairly. It doesn't matter that much what _is_ fair, but the vast majority of people are pretty reasonable, and a little good faith effort on the part of a company goes a long way. I speak from experience.
I have been a relatively happy Apple user for a few years now. But I've read the boards and they just have a way of saying "we don't really care" more often than any company should. It's just bad business.
Cheers.
I think people get mega worried about this because they think that we'll create some unstoppable supervirus. But that would mean that we humans were better designers than nature itself, which is not the case (witness our inability to improve on our own bodies in any meaningful way).
It is likely that any "supervirus" that could exist would have come into existence on it's own anyways. And some have; the bubonic plague, 1918 influenza, and to a lesser extent, aids. But the competition between viruses and hosts goes on and on in a cycle, with no final victor.
In fact, I would guess that any virus we could make would be a weakling compared to the viruses that evolve in the wild.
Cheers
Things that don't have food will die off quickly until life can be sustained again. It's a cycle, not a staight line.
You're right -- I oversimplified. But my point is that if we don't find ways to make our lifestyle sustainable, then our lifestyle will be lost as the cycle comes to a close.
When I say "point of no return" I refer to losing the period of affluence that some parts of the world now enjoy. I'd like to see us work towards making that a sustainable norm letting people "die off quickly until life can be sustained again".
But sure -- equilibrium will be restored either by us being smart or by natural balance kicking our collective asses when the food chain or some such crumbles. Witness Easter Island. Yes, the Earth is bigger than the island, but not infinitely bigger. The same rules apply eventually.
Cheers.
Though I agree with the basic thesis of your post, I find it ridiculous to claim that parents in less technological countries care less about the lives of their children. Go visit one of these countries and watch the mothers wail with their dead child in their arms. It's a fairly common sight in some parts of the world.
But you are correct, technology usually lowers the birth rate. Moreso because there's better things to do than fuck all the time (hard to believe, but apparently true), than because people are less worried about their kids dying.
Cheers.
Right now the food supply isn't an immidiate problem, you are right. Most food scarcity is an issue of politics. But the fact remains that the Earth offers finite resources so if we grow our society unchecked it will eventually implode.
Considering all the resources that each human requires (not just food -- but energy, biomass, etc), are we nearing that point? Hard to tell for sure, but it might be wise to figure that out before we go past the point of no return.
Cheers.
Must be nice to be able to spend $20,000 (stripped-down) to $23,000 (modestly equipped) for a car that feels almost as solid and rugged as a cardboard box...
You're referring to the 2003 Prius. The 2004 Prius feels like a solid car and looks much different. And yes, it is nice having the money to buy what I like.
Basically you just paid at least $8000 extra up front to save $5,668 over the next 10 years.
I didn't do it for the money. Nobody (sane) claims the Prius is the most bang for the buck. I did it because it feels good. I am using less blood-bought gasoline and spewing less noxious fumes into my smog laden city. I am supporting the efforts of corporations that are offering new choices. Plus it's a very nice car.
I drove a Prius a friend of mine bought recently, I seriously doubt it'd break the 100,000 mile mark before imploding.
Well that's interesting as it comes with a 100,000 mile warranty. I'll trust Toyota's ROI numbers over your casual observation. There are people who've put 250K miles on thier Prius (one was a taxi driver in Canada who did it in just over two years -- Toyota bought the car back to analyze and learn from it).
it's about the ugliest thing to be inflicted on our highways since the Pontiac Aztek
Don't confuse this with the 2003, which did look and feel like a crappy economy car. The new Prius does not.
I also applaud the sacrifices you're willing to make to help save the planet.
It has nothing to do with the planet. I'm just sick of my eyes burning from car fumes during the commute, and of sending young men to die in the middle east. Yes, the Prius still uses oil, but it's the best thing a normal American can do if they need a car. It's my vote -- an expensive vote -- for a slightly better future.
Cheers.
There's nothing surprising about this, unfortunately. The phenomenon was described at least as early as 1833 by William Forster Lloyd. Any common, limited resource that is not regulated will be destroyed by misuse.
What's sad, to me, is just how self destructive it all is. With all our intelect our behavior is no better than a parasite that dies when it kills it's host.
Cheers.
Great car. Comfortable, drives as well as any small coupe. 92% less gag worthy car fumes that make my neighborhood reek. Uses 1/2 the gasoline so I'm killing only half as many folks in the middle east. I feel a little better. Best of all it looks pretty cool and feels futuristic.
Anyways, just wanted to mention it. Toyota is working hard on alternatives and they're doing a great job. I'm happy with my new car and proud to be supporting a better future.
Cheers.