I agree that I don't agree with Apple's decision to use the DMCA. If it does end up in court, I would imagine it would go something along of the lines of how Real is compromising the iPod brand.
50/50 I think the threat of DMCA could be just that, a threat to scare Real. It's already been discussed to pieces, but it'll be difficult for Apple to invoke the DMCA in the first place.
Oh, and if they wait for their customers to launch a class action suit, it would have been too late. I'm sure Apple would much rather nip this in the bud so to speak.
1) First, you're assuming Real's store will help sell iPods. I don't even think iTunes is much of a factor when someone purchases an iPod, so I highly doubt that will be different for any other (IMO) lesser online music store. Second, I believe Apple's fix costs for running iTMS are quite high, so even a small reduction in sales every week could result in iTMS losing money. I've heard numbers as low as 1 million and as high as 2.5 million sales needed every week just to break even.
2) You make a lot of good points here. I'll try to address a couple of them. Currently, iPod is indisputedly the #1 MP3 player available, so for now it is not necessary for iTunes to be compatible with any other player. Currently, iTunes is indisputedly the #1 online music store, so for now it is not necessary for iPods to be compatible with any other music store. They both came to dominate the market on their own merits, so I don't forsee any anti-trust issues.
As for the rest of your arguments, you make the assumption that Apple will in the end fall to Microsoft. You may very well be right, but at this point I honestly am not certain what the outcome will be (though I will admit I wish Apple to come out winning). It looks like Apple has been playing their cards right, but I do have tremendous respect for Microsoft's drive to compete.
I will add that for iTunes Apple appears to be using the same strategy they used for the iPod. Initially, Apple focused on making Mac users happy by offering the iPod. While people were complaining how Apple was short-sighted by not making it PC-compatible, they were busy tweaking the device. Two years later they released a PC-compatible model and have ripped through the competition ever since. The same can be said for iTunes. Right now, Apple is focused on making a core group (iPod owners) happy by offering iTMS. Improvements are constantly being made, but many people are complaining how short-sighted Apple is for not making iTMS compatible with all devices. It does sound familiar.
Microsoft is launching their music store next month. I'm sure Apple is trying to get every advantage they can get as they gear up for what I consider to be their first real competition.
They probably don't license their DRM yet since that'll hurt iTunes in the short run, but I do expect it to be licensed eventually.
You have a right to do whatever you want to your iPod. Then again, you know that when you do something you're not suppose to do you can't call up Apple and expect them to help you when things don't work.
But Real is intentially misleading the public into believing that their file format will work on iPods 100% of the time. So iPod users will start downloading Real's files not knowing in the future that these songs may not play. But these iPod owners won't be calling Real when those songs don't work. They'll be calling Apple.
If anything, Apple is all about the user experience. And in this case having Real potentially screw up the music experience of *iPod* customers is probably pissing Apple off to no end.
Doesn't iTunes need at least approx. 1 million downloads a week just to break even (can some verify whether this number is true or not)? If downloads go down because of Real's Music Store or because of Real licensing Harmony out to third parties, that will significantly hurt Apple's bottom line via loss of iTunes sales and/or potential licensing revenue.
Thanks for the kind words, but you missed my implied points.
1) Yes, iTMS is selling a tremendous number of songs, and, yet, they're only just barely breaking even. I don't remember the number, but apparently iTMS requires a non-trivial number of sales every week just to cover their costs. Imagine if they didn't sell as many songs. A break-even service then suddenly becomes a financial burden on Apple.
2) Right now profits from iTMS are small due to the immaturity of the online music market. Who's to say that in 3 years or less iTMS won't be as big as the iPod is now. Just because Apple is saying iTMS is barely generating a profit now does not mean it will always be this way. A lot can change in a few years, as evidenced by the iPod revolution. In fact, I think Apple is betting on it.
Adding on to what has already been said, Apple indicated that the majority of the battery life savings in the new model were due to clever OS optimizations. Now, the new models do have different hardware, but it should be possible to get at least some gains in battery life (though maybe not as large of a jump from 8 to 12 hours.)
Since Apple receives little benefit from iTMS the potential for lost sales there has little effect on their bottom line.
3 years ago, Apple received little benefit from iPod. Perhaps they should have nipped it in the bud then and save the world a whole lot of trouble./sarcasm
And Apple does seem to be moving a bit slow to respond. They could be trying to be careful in making sure whatever statements they make doens't come back to bite them in the butt, but maybe they're having a hard time coming up with what to do against Real.
I wish I could hear the debates going on right now behind the corporate walls of Apple.
I'm constantly hearing the argument that since Apple doesn't make any money off of iTunes, they shouldn't care. Wrong. Does iTunes runs itself for free? There are costs to bandwidth, maintanence, support, staffing, future development, etc. Right now as successful as they are their profit margins are extremely slim. And this, mind you, is with iTunes doing this well. Real could potentially cut into iTunes revenue turning a break-even proposition into a losing one, and I'm sure it is NOT in Apple's best interest to have iTunes start bleeding cash.
Not in most situations, but if you google online you'll see complaints on how the CD will not play at all in some cases. Some reviews on Amazon had claimed that the CD would not play on their computer at all. Take them for what they're worth. I cannot verify their claims.
But is being able to play on your computer or stereo any different from being able to play on you iPod? When I get in my car, I plug in my iPod and not some CD. I listen to my iPod when I workout, when I walk outside, when I'm studying, when I'm working. I could go on forever. Music that won't play on my iPod is practically the same as that music not existing at all. I know this sounds harsh, but if a CD cannot be ripped onto an iPod when 99.999% of all music CDs out there can, then it IS defective and earns a one star review in my book.
I feel (and this is my opinion only) Amazon removed those reviews solely because the negative reviews where way outnumbering the other reviews. You had reviewers advising people to purchase the music through iTunes instead of Amazon since the CD was not iPod-compatible. You had people asking (or begging perhaps) for help on how to remove the "trojan" drivers that was installed. They didn't understand why even after having returned the CD to Amazon the drivers were still on their computer.
A lot of reviews were also lambasting Amazon for not being upfront about the CD being copy-protected, and perhaps they didn't like that as well.
One question I do have is what is art in this case? Is it just the music? Or does it include the vehicle in which it is delivered? The best quote that I've come across: "I cannot hear the music, so I cannot review it. 1 Star." And that pretty much sums up how I feel.
...Microsoft wins if anyone other than Apple ends up at the top.... Apple is betting that everyone else will fail. Microsoft is betting that at least one besides Apple will succeed.
With the OS wars, Apple would have won I think if anyone other than Microsoft ended up at the top (not that this would have been a good thing, given I agree they had become complacent then). Right now, I think Apple is trying to out-compete every one of their competitors. They are fighting tooth and nail, probably trying to show to the world why they feel their position and Microsoft should have been switched. Microsoft on the other hand according to you is now hoping, no praying, that something comes along and strikes Apple down.
Since when is a review based on the media or delivery technology pertinent to the subjective quality of the art itself (music, movies, whatever)?
Interesting points as well. But it is pertinent to the review when the product is considered defective. The customers were complaining of such things as not being able to play the music on an iPod and the CD secretly installing drivers on their computer without permission.
And whereas at a traditional store the CD cover gave you a warning that it contained copy protection, Amazon gives you no such warning. You had people who were complaining of having to return CD from Amazon after they realized it didn't work the way they expected it to work. So as a result these reviews were doing what Amazon should have done in the first place.
I said in an another comment that I recall 9 of the top 10 most helpful customer reviewers had rated this CD as 1-star. Note that these reviews are just from people who were upset enough to actually spend the effort writing a review. Most unhappy customers don't even bother. This CD by every definition of the word was defective.
Hey, what happened to all the customer reviews on Amazon for Contraband. A huge number of them gave it a bad rating because of the copy protection. But now ALL of these reviews have disappeared.
Slashdot Mirror
The truly surreal/funny part was that this argument actually took place in an Apple store.
If I were in your position, I would have Atrac3 his ass right there on the spot.
I agree that I don't agree with Apple's decision to use the DMCA. If it does end up in court, I would imagine it would go something along of the lines of how Real is compromising the iPod brand.
50/50 I think the threat of DMCA could be just that, a threat to scare Real. It's already been discussed to pieces, but it'll be difficult for Apple to invoke the DMCA in the first place.
Oh, and if they wait for their customers to launch a class action suit, it would have been too late. I'm sure Apple would much rather nip this in the bud so to speak.
Interesting comments. You shouldn't post as an AC.
1) First, you're assuming Real's store will help sell iPods. I don't even think iTunes is much of a factor when someone purchases an iPod, so I highly doubt that will be different for any other (IMO) lesser online music store. Second, I believe Apple's fix costs for running iTMS are quite high, so even a small reduction in sales every week could result in iTMS losing money. I've heard numbers as low as 1 million and as high as 2.5 million sales needed every week just to break even.
2) You make a lot of good points here. I'll try to address a couple of them. Currently, iPod is indisputedly the #1 MP3 player available, so for now it is not necessary for iTunes to be compatible with any other player. Currently, iTunes is indisputedly the #1 online music store, so for now it is not necessary for iPods to be compatible with any other music store. They both came to dominate the market on their own merits, so I don't forsee any anti-trust issues.
As for the rest of your arguments, you make the assumption that Apple will in the end fall to Microsoft. You may very well be right, but at this point I honestly am not certain what the outcome will be (though I will admit I wish Apple to come out winning). It looks like Apple has been playing their cards right, but I do have tremendous respect for Microsoft's drive to compete.
I will add that for iTunes Apple appears to be using the same strategy they used for the iPod. Initially, Apple focused on making Mac users happy by offering the iPod. While people were complaining how Apple was short-sighted by not making it PC-compatible, they were busy tweaking the device. Two years later they released a PC-compatible model and have ripped through the competition ever since. The same can be said for iTunes. Right now, Apple is focused on making a core group (iPod owners) happy by offering iTMS. Improvements are constantly being made, but many people are complaining how short-sighted Apple is for not making iTMS compatible with all devices. It does sound familiar.
Plus Real doesn't exactly have the best track record in the customer service department.
Microsoft is launching their music store next month. I'm sure Apple is trying to get every advantage they can get as they gear up for what I consider to be their first real competition.
They probably don't license their DRM yet since that'll hurt iTunes in the short run, but I do expect it to be licensed eventually.
Eh, just blowing off steam, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one.
Judging by a lot of these comments here, apparently not.
One of the more articulate comments in this discussion. Nicely said. Agree 100%.
You dont expect apple to have their QA department testing against Reals files do you?
I presume Apple's QA will be testing against Real's files to make sure they don't work.
You have a right to do whatever you want to your iPod. Then again, you know that when you do something you're not suppose to do you can't call up Apple and expect them to help you when things don't work.
But Real is intentially misleading the public into believing that their file format will work on iPods 100% of the time. So iPod users will start downloading Real's files not knowing in the future that these songs may not play. But these iPod owners won't be calling Real when those songs don't work. They'll be calling Apple.
If anything, Apple is all about the user experience. And in this case having Real potentially screw up the music experience of *iPod* customers is probably pissing Apple off to no end.
Doesn't iTunes need at least approx. 1 million downloads a week just to break even (can some verify whether this number is true or not)? If downloads go down because of Real's Music Store or because of Real licensing Harmony out to third parties, that will significantly hurt Apple's bottom line via loss of iTunes sales and/or potential licensing revenue.
More specifically, you won't be able to pass your home down to one of your kids. And all kidding aside, who knows. You may live to 130.
The publicity Real is getting from all is this worth 10 times what their legal costs will be. They probably said, "what the hey."
Thanks for the kind words, but you missed my implied points.
1) Yes, iTMS is selling a tremendous number of songs, and, yet, they're only just barely breaking even. I don't remember the number, but apparently iTMS requires a non-trivial number of sales every week just to cover their costs. Imagine if they didn't sell as many songs. A break-even service then suddenly becomes a financial burden on Apple.
2) Right now profits from iTMS are small due to the immaturity of the online music market. Who's to say that in 3 years or less iTMS won't be as big as the iPod is now. Just because Apple is saying iTMS is barely generating a profit now does not mean it will always be this way. A lot can change in a few years, as evidenced by the iPod revolution. In fact, I think Apple is betting on it.
In London, don't you have to return your house back to the government after 99 years?
Adding on to what has already been said, Apple indicated that the majority of the battery life savings in the new model were due to clever OS optimizations. Now, the new models do have different hardware, but it should be possible to get at least some gains in battery life (though maybe not as large of a jump from 8 to 12 hours.)
Since Apple receives little benefit from iTMS the potential for lost sales there has little effect on their bottom line.
/sarcasm
3 years ago, Apple received little benefit from iPod. Perhaps they should have nipped it in the bud then and save the world a whole lot of trouble.
And Apple does seem to be moving a bit slow to respond. They could be trying to be careful in making sure whatever statements they make doens't come back to bite them in the butt, but maybe they're having a hard time coming up with what to do against Real.
I wish I could hear the debates going on right now behind the corporate walls of Apple.
I'm constantly hearing the argument that since Apple doesn't make any money off of iTunes, they shouldn't care. Wrong. Does iTunes runs itself for free? There are costs to bandwidth, maintanence, support, staffing, future development, etc. Right now as successful as they are their profit margins are extremely slim. And this, mind you, is with iTunes doing this well. Real could potentially cut into iTunes revenue turning a break-even proposition into a losing one, and I'm sure it is NOT in Apple's best interest to have iTunes start bleeding cash.
Sheesh.
Well you made some interesting comments yourself, but thank you.
Not in most situations, but if you google online you'll see complaints on how the CD will not play at all in some cases. Some reviews on Amazon had claimed that the CD would not play on their computer at all. Take them for what they're worth. I cannot verify their claims.
But is being able to play on your computer or stereo any different from being able to play on you iPod? When I get in my car, I plug in my iPod and not some CD. I listen to my iPod when I workout, when I walk outside, when I'm studying, when I'm working. I could go on forever. Music that won't play on my iPod is practically the same as that music not existing at all. I know this sounds harsh, but if a CD cannot be ripped onto an iPod when 99.999% of all music CDs out there can, then it IS defective and earns a one star review in my book.
I feel (and this is my opinion only) Amazon removed those reviews solely because the negative reviews where way outnumbering the other reviews. You had reviewers advising people to purchase the music through iTunes instead of Amazon since the CD was not iPod-compatible. You had people asking (or begging perhaps) for help on how to remove the "trojan" drivers that was installed. They didn't understand why even after having returned the CD to Amazon the drivers were still on their computer.
A lot of reviews were also lambasting Amazon for not being upfront about the CD being copy-protected, and perhaps they didn't like that as well.
One question I do have is what is art in this case? Is it just the music? Or does it include the vehicle in which it is delivered? The best quote that I've come across: "I cannot hear the music, so I cannot review it. 1 Star." And that pretty much sums up how I feel.
...Microsoft wins if anyone other than Apple ends up at the top. ... Apple is betting that everyone else will fail. Microsoft is betting that at least one besides Apple will succeed.
With the OS wars, Apple would have won I think if anyone other than Microsoft ended up at the top (not that this would have been a good thing, given I agree they had become complacent then). Right now, I think Apple is trying to out-compete every one of their competitors. They are fighting tooth and nail, probably trying to show to the world why they feel their position and Microsoft should have been switched. Microsoft on the other hand according to you is now hoping, no praying, that something comes along and strikes Apple down.
Since when is a review based on the media or delivery technology pertinent to the subjective quality of the art itself (music, movies, whatever)?
Interesting points as well. But it is pertinent to the review when the product is considered defective. The customers were complaining of such things as not being able to play the music on an iPod and the CD secretly installing drivers on their computer without permission.
And whereas at a traditional store the CD cover gave you a warning that it contained copy protection, Amazon gives you no such warning. You had people who were complaining of having to return CD from Amazon after they realized it didn't work the way they expected it to work. So as a result these reviews were doing what Amazon should have done in the first place.
I said in an another comment that I recall 9 of the top 10 most helpful customer reviewers had rated this CD as 1-star. Note that these reviews are just from people who were upset enough to actually spend the effort writing a review. Most unhappy customers don't even bother. This CD by every definition of the word was defective.
Hey, what happened to all the customer reviews on Amazon for Contraband. A huge number of them gave it a bad rating because of the copy protection. But now ALL of these reviews have disappeared.
What happened? See for youself over Here
Agreed. Sort of like how Real's CEO threaten Apple to work with him and his company or else they were going to Microsoft. Lame.