desh | (no subject)

Dear Apple,

I have no problem paying for music. I really don't. Never have. I just hate DRM. Refuse to play any locked music, ever. It's not that I want to share music (though I sometimes do); I just like to be able to play things wherever I want. Plus, it's the principle of the thing. So back when JHymn worked on iTunes-purchased songs, I happily bought from you. When you blocked out JHymn, you stopped getting my money.

I still held out hope that I'd come back to you. You're the market leader, after all. For a year or more I've really had no good alternative. I may have downloaded some music through some less-than-industry-supported means, shall we say. And I never did stop buying and ripping CDs on occasion. But for the most part I just got less music. A shame, really.

But now I hear that Amazon has a new digital music store. MP3-based. No DRM (which might not even be possible to put on MP3s anyway). And it's even cheaper than you. I've tried it already, and it's quite nice.

Sorry, Apple. It's over. For good. You're off my speed dial.

Love,
Desh

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You DO know that for some songs Apple offers them both DRM-encumbered and DRM-free, right? The pricing is $1.98 instead of $0.99 (or something) and I think it's called "Free Play", or something silly. Also, Amazon offers only certain songs cheaper... but is willing to bow to music industry pressure to keep other songs more expensive - that's how they convinced certain studios to part company with Apple in the first place. At least Apple is forcing the music industry to abandon its ridiculous hold on pricing. Also, man up and buy an iPod... jerk.

--Jeff

Spurred by this, I just checked Amazon. Found about four albums -- that they recommended to me, and that I very much wanted -- that I hadn't been able to get on iTunes, and for about $7 each.

Who'd've thought there would be not a iPod killer, but an iTunes killer?

Oh, and BOOYAH!!!

--Jeff

So basically, Apple's stubborn refusal to license their DRM system caused the music industry to essentially license Amazon to compete with Apple? Thus perhaps causing Apple to lose market dominance via the same stupid business model that caused them to lose market share of home computers in the 1990s? (Though in that case it was only market share; they never had dominance.) Fantastic! Thanks, Apple!

Seriously, I'm surprised I haven't been buying DRM-free stuff on iTunes for months already. I remember an announcement of $1.29 tracks. But I never found any of them. And Amazon had the one thing I was looking for, and it was only $0.89; cheaper than iTunes DRM stuff and way cheaper than the supposedly-available iTunes DRM-free stuff. And from what I hear, when Amazon sells "other songs more expensive[ly]", it's only $0.99. Still better than Apple.

And thus you miss the point of the article entirely. The point is not their refusal to license FairPlay DRM... the point is Apple HAS market dominance, in both software and hardware terms. For Amazon to compete with Apple, they have to make music available that plays on iPods - and since FairPlay isn't licenced, it HAS to be DRM-free (and, since Amazon is starting at a disadvantage, it has to be cheaper than iTunes). The music industry would prefer to keep DRM, but Apple has forced it into a corner.

Also, Jobs is no fan of DRM, either. Of course, he's not going to sacrifice Apple Computers to make his point, because he's also not stupid. So instead, he's bullying the music industry around so that it either HAS to adopt a uniform music platform - with DRM - and a uniform pricing scheme (i.e. the iPod, FairPlay, and iTunes) or it has to go DRM-free to acheive variable pricing and more content control (i.e. Amazon's new store). So, quit yer whinin', take the Amazon's $0.89, DRM-free music while you can get it (i.e. until they either renege on their pricing and/or DRM-free-ness or until their music store goes out of business), and shut the hell up. Goddamn hippie.

--Jeff

Your mom.

My impression is that you're talking about the basic paradox of DRM. I don't want to get into the parallel tradeoffs for computer hardware, but with DRM, compatibility and deliberate incompatibility is the whole story. If your system is made public, defeating it becomes too easy. If you license it, you have a problem when someone defeats it, and you want to make changes in a hurry.

I really couldn't care less about the iTunes music store - I buy things there from time to time, but usually just exclusive extra tracks or out of print singles.

I also don't care about the Amazon store. I am not paying seven dollars for *files* - they have no intrinsic value to me. A band can either sell me a CD or a subscription service, but I am not buying their low-sound-quality MP3s one by one like pez.

However, iTunes as an overall program remains the most killer app for OCD maintenance of a 12k+ song library, which means iPod remains the most killer tech for listening to it.

I still get CDs for full albums. But I'm not spending $7 plus shipping for a CD when all I want is "Ain't No More Cane" by Lyle Lovett. I'll happily take a 256k MP3 (which is about what I rip my CDs to, though I use VBR) for 89 cents.

Sadly, I'm still in the music-management 1.0 world of Winamp. I love the app, but it doesn't do ratings or fancy storage or really anything neat like that. For now, I'm OK with that. But I'd definitely consider firing up iTunes again if I decide it's time to give up on Winamp and move into modern track management.

Even at 256 it's a scam; MP3s are lossy by definition (although, at 256 I admittedly can hardly tell the difference).

Unlike non-HD DVDs, CDs represent a reasonable average of discernable fidelity for human consumption. Sure, there's super audio and surround sound, but (whether their marketers admit it or not) they are predominantly for early-adopters and audiophiles.

DRM issues aside, a purchase of a 128 or 256 MP3 should entitle us to later claim a fuller-quality version should it ever become available.

I'm awfully militant this morning.

i'm not blaming apple; they're not a friend of DRM. i am blaming the RIAA. and frankly, any scheme that does not end up with the bulk of the $$ going to the artist leaves me less than happy. amazon isn't doing anything revolutionary there. but i didn't take to itunes at all; the dual pricing for DRM/not-DRM they started to offer didn't make me happy -- $2 is too much for a single song.

i've stayed away from everything that is DRM. which is why i am a music pirate in addition to my emusic subscription and CD and direct-from-the-band buys. i don't need itunes' management capabilities either, file folders do the job for me. ratings? i am not a critic, i don't rank my music; i am either in the mood for a song or not, and no fiddling with trying to slap a classification system (beyond reasonably fine-grained genre) in there can determine that for me. i'm no longer an audiophile, 256k/VBR is good enough for my elderly ears and the headphones through which i play it all back.

if i were still on windows, winamp 1.0 would be fine.

Awesome. I've been waiting for this day.

I might have to buy a few songs just on principle, though I don't really have anything I *want* right now.

1) Apple's not an advocated of DRM, not by a long shot -- but it was only by offering DRM music that they were able to get the major labels to participate. See http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/.

2) the iTune music store's been offering DRM-free tracks since last spring, where the labels' will permit it. See http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html.

Your outrage seems misplaced and misinformed. DRM's got nothing to do with the music seller -- it's got to do with the RIAA's demands and the major labels' refusal to accept a new market model.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

you're blaming the wrong people

no subject

no subject