You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Editorial - It's Time for Apple to Freely License FairPlay

News

Editorial - It's Time for Apple to Freely License FairPlay

Friday, January 26th, 2007 at 7:00 AM - by

With several European countries threatening to force Apple to license FairPlay, it's time for the company to do so on its own accord. Such a move would go a long towards demonstrating that Apple is confident in its ability to compete with the quality of its products, not onerous, self-serving restrictions.

We've known for a long time that Apple has had to agree to certain digital rights management (DRM) protocols to protect songs sold by the iTunes Store. Without those restrictions, Apple would not have a license from the music studios to sell music, but that's not what European countries are concerned about right now. The real issue seems to be the linkage between iTunes and the iPod. Namely, if you buy a song from the iTunes store, it is only playable on an Apple iPod.

See TMO's full coverage for more information.

Here's the gist of the argument, by Ewald van Kouwen in Amsterdam, from the first link above, "What we want from Apple is that they remove the limitations that prevent you from playing a song you download from iTunes on any player other than an iPod.... When you buy a music CD it doesn't play only on players made by Panasonic. People who download a song from iTunes shouldn't be bound to an iPod for the rest of their lives."

As we know, songs purchased from the iTunes store are protected with a DRM system, controlled by Apple, called FairPlay. If a company were to license the FairPlay system from Apple, then their players could play songs purchased from iTunes. In fact, there was as story last week about how Apple may do just that, but on a limited basis.

The current argument, it seems to me, is not that European countries want Apple to abbrogate it's DRM agreements with the labels. Rather, they want the most popular online music download service on the planet to allow its music to play on any music player that the customer may select.

So far, we don't know a lot about the discussions Apple has had with other manufacturers about licensing FairPlay. Does Apple want too much money? If money isn't the issue, is Apple being hard to deal with so that they end up not having to work with other music player companies who want that license?

Here's the core issue. Apple firmly believes that the design, usability, and quality of the iPod make it superior to other music players. Apple has already demonstrated, over and over, that they have the industrial capacity and wealth to design better personal music players than most any other company on the planet. So rather than compel customers to buy iPods by force, perhaps it's a wise time to openly license the FairPlay DRM system. Publicly announce that any company that wants to use it is free to implement it into their music player.

Apple ignited the portable digital music revolution. They have greatly benefited. And now the European nations are saying, it's time to become a fair and proper steward of their success. I agree.

Success has its rewards. And responsibilities to be a just, self-confident competitor.

43 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

macbones said:

member since 15 Jun 2004 with 23 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:21 am

for a fee. this is not charity. you'll have every $15 flash player playing itunes. if people bought based on quality Apple would be selling as many computers as Dell. More. Excess competition on the pc side is why Apple is the on;y hardware vendor making a decent profit, despite having lower numbers in computers. The profits, incidentally go to the real gorilla- microsoft, who licences the os for a fee, who is a monopoly.

Quote this post ↓

Wings said:

member since 30 Mar 2004 with 89 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:23 am

" if you buy a song from the iTunes store, it is only playable on an Apple iPod."

or on a Mac, or on any PC. That's just about everyone, huh? Oh, and that Motorola cell phone. And, if you convert a DRM'ed song from iTunes to MP3 it will play on every MP3 player on the planet. Can I do that with a Plays-For-Sure DRM'ed song? Nope, didn't think so. I also can't play any WMV DRM'ed anything on a Mac.

Until they also force the other music stores to allow their music to play on iPods, these people have no credibility with me.

While these semi-socialists are at it, they should force Autocad to run on my Mac. It only plays on Windows so how is THAT any different from songs from iTunes?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:56 am

There are quite a few products out there that link content and 'hardware'. Only Mario, Nintendogs and Pokemon can be bought for Nintendo game consoles. Philips has a Senseo coffee maker out that 'only' works (well) with Douwe Egberts (Sara Lee brand) Pods. There are too many examples out there that this is hard to prove in court.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:07 am

I feel no reason for this in any way shape or form. Although it may have some differences, morally this is like forcing all software/periferral companies to write and support software and/or make devices for every computer platform. I have been using Mac before system 7, many of road blocks along the way. All I can see is a bunch of lawyers making money if this is past. If you want to run your song on another mp3 player download it elsewhere, you do have the choice of Mac, Windows, iPod, CD's, DVD's to listen to iTunes music, what more do you want.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:11 am

I accept DRM as necessary and understand it's use. Ok, it's there for a reason and we have to live with that.

But I'm constantly amazed by posts online (not just here) from people who defend DRM as more than a necessity...but as something they actually LIKE.

People actually seem to get mad when someone complains about DRM! I mean, I'm not expecting anything to change, but why the ill will towards the dreamers who feel otherwise?

Quote this post ↓

mrmgraphics said:

member since 05 Sep 2003 with 825 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:20 am

+

From Apple's perspective, couldn't opening up FairPlay act as an iPod Trojan? If iTunes on Windows made people start to want the Mac experience, what will using the iTunes Store on an inferior player be like? Might it compel some consumers to want the whole Apple music experience, and eventually opt for an iPod?

On top of that, numerous studies have shown that the bulk of iPods contain few purchased songs from the iTunes Store. (No word on where those 2 billion songs sold are hiding, but whatever.) And the iPod users I know are far more likely to rip CDs rather than purchase music from iTS. So does Apple really need the lock-in to keep selling iPods?

Furthermore, I think Apple is missing out by not licensing FairPlay from a sound business perspective. They have the opportunity to make their standard the universal standard for purchasing digital content, by everyone everywhere on the globe. And this is a bad thing?

Far from harming sales of iPods, let every user of every inferior MP3 player come to iTS to buy music and see ads for iPods, so they see just what they're missing.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:34 am

Sorry, still a wrong argument. Their product is their software. It is tied to their device, just as gaming software is tied to theirs. There is compatible for multiple OS platforms. It can be converted to work on car stereos, home CD players. It just requires an extra step.

I hope Apple sues these organizations for extortion. They are trying to break apart the company and using blackmail tactics. It is disgusting.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:51 am

mrmgraphics wrote:

On top of that, numerous studies have shown that the bulk of iPods contain few purchased songs from the iTunes Store. So does Apple really need the lock-in to keep selling iPods?

I don't think they do. OS X sells Macs, but I think that iPods sell iTunes. I think people "get" that the iPod is better and will buy the hardware based on its own merits. I don't think Apple has to be so paranoid about losing their market share anymore.

mrmgraphics wrote:

Furthermore, I think Apple is missing out by not licensing FairPlay from a sound business perspective. They have the opportunity to make their standard the universal standard for purchasing digital content, by everyone everywhere on the globe. And this is a bad thing?

And this is why I think Apple should do things like this. They locked it all up at first because they wanted the iPod to be successful. Well, now it is. People like them and they can buy parts cheaper than the competition because of the numbers they sell. Restricting Fairplay in the past was good for Apple. I think that selling it to others in the future will also be good.

mrmgraphics wrote:

Far from harming sales of iPods, let every user of every inferior MP3 player come to iTS to buy music and see ads for iPods, so they see just what they're missing.

And here's the thing...those players still don't have to work WITH iTunes! Let them copy the songs over manually. Then start running TV ads showing how easily iPods sync to iTunes. Get people hooked on iTunes with cheap alt-brand players and then show them again and again how an iPod is better than what they're using now. Again, I think the iPod can compete on its own merits and will still convince a lot of people to switch to it even if they started out with something smaller and cheaper.

Quote this post ↓

jcbeckman said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 55 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:07 am

Who is forcing these people to buy music from iTunes? Can't they buy it on CD? Or from another online store? Or rip it to CD if they feel for some strange reason they *must* by from iTunes? This makes no sense to me. If iTunes were the *only* way to buy music, and you couldn't rip to CD and remove the DRM, then I'd agree about opening up FairPlay.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:28 am

If you open up FairPlay and people buy songs from the iTunes store and try to put them on their iRiver or other POS like the zune then Apple has to support the transfer of those songs to the other device... That would lead to an open ecosystem resulting in the necessity to support any mp3 player in iTunes so that they can dl and buy music. Why should apple waste their resources trying to support other mp3 players when they will see no significant revenue from these sources? The income generated from iTunes and a licensing fee paid to apple from these companies would still be less than the profit that apple gets from selling one of their players.

In addition look at MS and their open ecosystem. Look how much of a headache it is to install hardware getting the right drivers to work etc etc etc. Is this what you want apple to become? BTW apple has the defacto universal standard with more that what 70% of the online content being bought from apple. If I had a product that had a majority of the market share wouldn't I want to not only keep that but also increase my share rather than open up my technologies for other companies to use and sell their products at my expense. If people want music but don't want to use an iPod then go somewhere else apple doesn't need your business.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:34 am

FairPlay was Apple's answer to the RIAA’s pirating issue. Apple made the deal for use with their software. So they made a great deal with the record companies, and now everyone else wants in on the deal?

Start your own company and make your own deal. The consumers can then choose. Oh wait, we already have that. We've got Plays for Sure and Zune and Sony's Rootkit. So they all suck. Is that Apple's problem?

OK, so someone wants interoperability. Well I want a Ferrari. Lets pass a law. We’re not talking about infrastructure vital to our community interest here; it’s not roads or health care. We’re talking about entertaining music on an iPod.

And I agree, the argument that songs from the iTunes store can only play on an iPod is false. You can play those songs on any Mac or PC; on any CD player and if you want to take the time on any MP3 player.

What they are afraid of is the monopoly. Well a monopoly is not illegal. What is illegal is using that monopoly. I guess they’re saying that Apple is using its monopoly of the iTunes Store to “force” people to buy iPods. Good luck proving that. As someone else stated that’s like saying that whoever had the rights to the “Grand Theft Auto” game forced people to buy their console, because they made a better deal with the authors of the game.

How ridiculous would that have seemed if governments tried to force them to “open” their game console system so others could play “Grand Theft.” And this is different how?

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:46 am

Anonymous wrote:
That would lead to an open ecosystem resulting in the necessity to support any mp3 player.

What? No it wouldn't.

Apple can decide who they want to do business with and only approve the devices they want.

And since they'd be getting paid to let that happen I don't see that a little support would kill them. Especially since they can mostly tell people "Call Creative (or whoever) and ask them."

I'm sure the licensing fees they'll be getting can cover those 15 second phone calls.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:04 am

Licensing fees covering phone calls they don't get now. Phone calls from people who unfairly blame ineroperability problems on the software from Apple. Apple gets a bad name.

How is this good for Apple?

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

member since 10 Aug 2006 with 228 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:14 am

I think that there may a prime mover behind this complaint by Norway and other European countries, follow the money. What businesses would benefit from busting the iTunes Store - iPod link. Cheap MP3 player makers to be sure, but also some big firms who don't want to go through the effort of arranging deals to sell their music. Nokia who is a popular phone maker in Europe recently announced a music download service and have some new multimedia capable phones. The ever present MicroSoft with their Zune.

Someone mentioned that most of the music on iPods and other players does not come from download services. I am betting that sometime in the foreseeable future it will be that most of the music will be downloaded. Record stores are closing, where do people buy their CDs, Target, Walmart? Those places have limited selections and sell mostly what is popular. Look for opera, classical, world genres, hard to find in stores, but the iTunes Store has them and you can preview tracks.

Apple put a lot of R&D effort into their system, a lot of marketing money, and a lot of hard work making deals with music publishers. It paid off and from what I understand the iPod has somewhere near 70% of the "MP3 player" market. They should slaughter this cash cow because someone else can not come up with an insanely great product?

Quote this post ↓

nealg said:

member since 22 Mar 2006 with 123 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:37 am

Thinking about this the past couple of days, I am wondering if Apple has to open up its iTunes software in order to comply with Norway. I would think it would be possible to use the export function to export music to whatever player's software they would license fair play to. This would be a minimal amount of intrusion into the iPod/iTunes ecosphere and could satisfy Norway's need to have a more open system. Any problem that would come up would legitimately be a non Apple problem.

The big question for me is what kind of deal does Apple have with the music companies. If Apple only has a license to let the purchased music play on an iPod, then they would have to go back to the music companies to change the basic agreement.

Neal

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:44 am

While we're at it let's open up: Zune DRM, Nintendo games, Xbox games, PlayStation games, Microsoft Office files, etc.

If the competition won't open up, why should Apple?

Quote this post ↓

dhp said:

member since 22 May 2003 with 182 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:01 pm

"I think that there may a prime mover behind this complaint by Norway and other European countries, follow the money."

Well, believe it or not, there are countries in the world where the rights of the citizens are held in higher esteem than the rights of giant corporations. Norway et al are not doing this to punish Apple. They are trying to prevent a situation where people have to by an Apple brand song to play on an iPod, but buy a Microsoft brand of the same song to play on a Zune.

Also unlike the US government, these countries are able to look more than 4 years into the future, when CDs may be obsolete in terms of new album sales.

I am a proud citizen of the USA, but I am sometimes flabbergasted by the willingness of my fellow citizens to allow corporations to control their lives.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:09 pm

There is an other idea:

Apple could sell music with DRM and sell the same Music without DRM for a higher price. (i.e. the price of an average song on a real CD)

The extra money from DRM free songs could be paid to the music industry. They would be happy.

People with iPods can purchase cheaper music (with proprietary DRM), and people wanting to play the music on any player could buy the more expensive, DRM free songs.

And for the poor of us, we can still burn CD's from iTMS songs and reimport them DRM free, so we can play them on any player, as it is possible since the beginning of the age of legally downloadable music.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:19 pm

mrmgraphics wrote:
+

On top of that, numerous studies have shown that the bulk of iPods contain few purchased songs from the iTunes Store. (No word on where those 2 billion songs sold are hiding, but whatever.) And the iPod users I know are far more likely to rip CDs rather than purchase music from iTS. So does Apple really need the lock-in to keep selling iPods?

To drive home this point using nice round (probably inaccurate numbers). There have been 2 billion songs sold from the iTunes music store. There have been approximately 100 million iPods sold. If you divide it out it works out to 20 songs per iPod. Most iPods have the potential, at least, to contain thousands of songs.

Some individuals may be locked into the iTMS, if they've chosen to get most of their music that way. I strongly suspect, however, that most of the songs on iPods are from ripped CDs. I know mine are anyway

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:20 pm

Yo dhp,

Does Apple control your life? Does it tell you what you can listen to and when? Does it deny your rights to free expression? Does Apple deny your access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

While we hold those truths to be self evident, we’re also capitalists. The market decides. Now we should be protected from the tyranny of the majority when it comes to sharing public risks and rewards, but we’re talking entertainment here. We’re talking about the consumption of a product. We’re talking capitalism man.

4 years down the road the iPod might also be supplanted. And you might be crowned King and then you can decide which technology you can give away. But until then, I’ll allow Apple to do what is in the best interest of it’s stockholders so that I can pursue my corporate dreams without fear of the government co-opting my deals for the sake of others not willing to put in the work.

When someone comes up with a better alternative to iTune and the iPod, I won’t let Apple control my life. I’ll just have to find another way to listen to my wax cylinders….

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:38 pm

time to send the euro-trash packing. rights of the people, give me a break these guys are a bunch of socialist whiners! Driving Apple and it's products down to the lowest common denominator is what this is about.

Like mentioned in other post's there are a plethora of products / services that are unique to a specific platform / hardware...

Maybe UPS should start handling FedEx packages..oh wait there's the German giant DHL too!

Let's get real people...Companies have a right to create a business model and market their product / service as they see fit...don't like it...go to the competition. Competition sucks...boo hoo! Put on your big boy pants and build something better! Ooops Apple already did it!

Just because Apple provides a superior product and user experience doesn't give any government on this planet the right to tell them how to do business.

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

member since 10 Aug 2006 with 228 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:44 pm

dhp wrote:
"I think that there may a prime mover behind this complaint by Norway and other European countries, follow the money."

Well, believe it or not, there are countries in the world where the rights of the citizens are held in higher esteem than the rights of giant corporations. Norway et al are not doing this to punish Apple. They are trying to prevent a situation where people have to by an Apple brand song to play on an iPod, but buy a Microsoft brand of the same song to play on a Zune.

We are talking about a luxury not a the nation's water supply. Money drives innovation, except for a very small handful of altruistic people.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:45 pm

Microsoft, Napster and all the windows media player sites then have to open there sites to Mac customers. I see no reason that this should be a one sided deal on Apples part. Microsoft and the others will either have to make an IE version 6 or 7 for the Mac or they all need to change there store access so Mac users can even get in. Right now that's not even possible. I find this to be highly one sided and Apple should put forth terms that will force all other online music sites to have Mac compatibility before they allow licensing of there fairplay and if they don't meet the terms Apple has the right to sue for damages as a breach of contract. It is very well known that these other sites have NO compatibility what so ever with Macs while iTunes works completely the same with both. This has to happen before any fairplay licensing is issued to anyone.

Quote this post ↓

Brutno said:

member since 28 Aug 2002 with 198 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:40 pm

dhp wrote:
Well, believe it or not, there are countries in the world where the rights of the citizens are held in higher esteem than the rights of giant corporations. Norway et al are not doing this to punish Apple. They are trying to prevent a situation where people have to by an Apple brand song to play on an iPod, but buy a Microsoft brand of the same song to play on a Zune.

Also unlike the US government, these countries are able to look more than 4 years into the future, when CDs may be obsolete in terms of new album sales.

A bit of perspective is in order here. No one has to buy an Apple-brand song to play on an iPod. CD sales are dropping but the CD is not going away anytime soon. The sales drop has many reasons, but the primary one is not SALES of downloaded music. I have an iPod. I have thousands of songs in iTunes. I've purchased two from Apple. The rest I've ripped from my own collection of CDs. From the statistics posted ad infinitum, I'm not out of the mainstream. How does my situation, and that of countless others like me, make the interoperability of iTunes downloads an issue? Answer: It doesn't. Norway's actions are a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.

Apple's success, and subsequent monopoly, with iTunes is a result of market forces, and Apple has not abused it's monopoly position. Apple's tying iTunes to iPods is clever; moreover they have made no attempts to hide the fact that iTunes exists to sell iPods. People forget iTunes will work with other players as well - all songs except the FairPlay-encoded songs.

Virtually any song you can rip into iTunes will play on your iPod. It's that simple. Your choice to buy from the iTS is simply that - a choice you make freely. You know the rules going in. There are lots of other ways to get music onto your player of choice other than the iTS.

Quote this post ↓

kevdo said:

member since 09 Dec 2004 with 54 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:42 pm

Small White Car wrote:
Apple can decide who they want to do business with and only approve the devices they want.

Well, that's not the "it should work on any device" vibe that's being thrown out there.

The CD argument makes sense until you apply it to DVDs. Shouldn't I be able to pop a DVD I purchased in Europe into my DVD player here in the USA? Yes... except DRM prevents me.

And I agree that supporting all those additional devices WILL create support headaches for Apple (and you need only look to Microsoft to see how this could be true). Charge $40 per device and I think it wouldn't hurt Apple's bottom line.

And I also agree that any agreement by Apple would go along with Napster, et. al. making their services work with the Mac. Let's force Microsoft to make a currently updated version of Windows Media Player for the Mac.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:34 pm

What a load of crap. Apple should not capitulate to these extortionists. Either we have a free market, or we don’t. Which will it be?

None of the arguments i’ve read in favor of forcing Apple to license make any sense. Look, we have patent law to ensure that companies have exclusive use of technologies they develop. Why should Apple not enjoy the fruits of its labor? Just because they’re successful and make a product everyone is envious of? Alex Zaharov-Reutt wrote an article for ITwire which illustrates just how spurious and absurd this notion truly is.

It would not surprise me one iota to learn that M$ is behind these groups calling for Apple to license.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:37 pm

Microsoft licensed their audio format and associated DRM to multiple vendors because they could, not because they cared. It was easy for them to create a licensee market for WMA+DRM because of their world-wide control of the OS market.

At the time, around 2000, it was obvious to companies that WMA would become an audio standard successor to mp3, since it was the default Windows format. The emerging online music market required DRM (well that's what the RIAA was telling anyone wanting to get into that market) and because of the DMCA, companies wouldn't be able to reverse-engineer it, so they had no choice but getting an official license from Microsoft. Any other companies trying to license their own audio and DRM combo would have failed badly, as Janus/Play-for-sure was automatically winning, being a Windows default format.

When Apple opened the iTunes music store (also the day they released the Windows version of iTunes), the iPod was rising in popularity, but there wasn't any proof that it would become what it is today.

If Apple tried to license Fairplay from day one, they would have failed, at best attracting a few minor players and some of them would have switched back to WMA a year later, or used their license to make it easy to migrate to Play-for-Sure devices, ensuring standardization over this format.

Apple's failure to license Fairplay would have brought a very negative stigma to the format, and people/companies would then equate Fairplay with a failure to compete with MS's standard. It would have ruined their chance to make AAC a standard formats on "mp3" players.

When the iTMS opened, Fairplay's value to other companies was close to zero, but as the iPod and iTunes store popularity continued to rise, Fairplay's value grew. The more iPods and iTunes songs Apple sells, the more desirable a potential license becomes.

It's obvious to me that Apple knows this cannot go on forever, and I'm sure they are considering the implications of licensing their DRM.

So the real question is: WHEN should Apple license its DRM? Doing it on day one of the iTMS would have been shooting themselves in the foot. Doing it two years ago would have been too soon also, they could've gotten a few partners, but not enough to combat the Windows default format. And how serious could the licensee be about making AAC/Fairplay a standard for music players and online music stores?

Should it be now? We'll see. I think we should let Apple decide when the time is right.

If a law was to force Apple to license Fairplay, I'd like to see a law REALLY preventing Microsoft from using its Windows monopoly to create a licensee market where competing licensed standards have an insurmountable disadvantage. And despite all the anti-trust cases they've lost, it doesn't seem to have any effect on that power they have.

Maybe the best thing would be to force Apple to license, but at the same time force MS to get a Fairplay license, standardize on AAC and relegate WMA to a legacy format.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:13 pm

Obviously the whole point of the European Union's message is that it does not want Apple to be able to choose who it does business with. If it were leaving the choice up to Apple, Apple has already decided: It does not want to do business with anybody. Moreover, I see no problem with that. As an iTunes user, I know the songs only work on iPods unless I first burn the songs to CDs. That is not a secret. Moreover, I like Apple controlling the whole widget, it makes my experience better.

Finally, are any consumers really complaining about this, or is it Apple's competitors who really aren't competing?

I would prefer the European Union to force Microsoft to open up its Office format, and Explorer's Active X, so that all Internet users can view and use certain sites, and any word-processor can flawlessly view and edit Office documents. After-all, I created the documents, I should be able to share them with whoever I choose.

The problem with Apple supporting the other platforms is that is not what Apple wants to do. In the free world, we should respect that.

Small White Car wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
That would lead to an open ecosystem resulting in the necessity to support any mp3 player.

What? No it wouldn't.

Apple can decide who they want to do business with and only approve the devices they want.

And since they'd be getting paid to let that happen I don't see that a little support would kill them. Especially since they can mostly tell people "Call Creative (or whoever) and ask them."

I'm sure the licensing fees they'll be getting can cover those 15 second phone calls.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:19 pm

I do not like DRM. I, however, like Apple. It is unfair that Apple is being singled out by its competitors who cannot compete. Let us get rid of DRM, but let us do it across the board not just pick on one company. People should remember Apple fought for the least restrictive DRM that record companies would agree to, and it also is fighting for fair prices.

If Apple loses iTunes market share, this is a win for record companies, who want a better negotiating position with Apple so it can increase prices.

Besides, is anybody really troubled by DRM when burning songs to CD removes it?

Small White Car wrote:
I accept DRM as necessary and understand it's use. Ok, it's there for a reason and we have to live with that.

But I'm constantly amazed by posts online (not just here) from people who defend DRM as more than a necessity...but as something they actually LIKE.

People actually seem to get mad when someone complains about DRM! I mean, I'm not expecting anything to change, but why the ill will towards the dreamers who feel otherwise?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:28 pm

You know, there's a lot of mainstream content on the web that just doesn't play nice with QuickTime because content creators prefer the DRM of Windows Media 11. If Apple would let go a bit, they could find it easier to own the whole video production chain. Here are my extended thoughts on the subject: http://www.theflux.tv/index.php?/angle/nice-apple-but/

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:31 pm

None of these LAME arguments against Apple include any fairness or logic. They all boil down to nothing more than "they should do this because we want it". That's the emotional blackmail every two-year-old uses: "Ill scream until you give me what I want".

But in the free market, where adults meet in the spirit of fairness and equality, you freely offer your goods and services where and how you choose, and I freely choose if and when that suits me. If these criteria mesh to our MUTUAL satisfaction, then we agree to exchange value - goods for money. It's easy to understand how that is always fair.

The author spouts some empty moral-sounding phrases about stewardship, but provides no real reason why Apple should license FairPlay. The only reason Apple should license FairPlay is if Apple decides it is in their own best interest to do so. That, indeed, is real stewardship. Because deciding what is in their best interest is solely their decision to make. Just as I reserve that same right for me. I have the right to choose their product or someones else's - and NO-ONE can take that right away from me. And no-one has the moral right to take that from Apple by force of a silly law, either.

What all these whiners really want is somebody to feed their sense of entitlement, for free. But nobody is entitled to my energy, my efforts, or my goods and services, but me. If I can attract your business by the value of what I offer, then we can reach an agreed-upon price. Then both of us walk away happy, having treated each other fairly, each choosing freely. If not, then there's NO DEAL. And I'm certain that is what Steve Jobs will say to whiny-baby Norway - " If you don't want what I'm offering, you don't have to take it. And I won't sell to you anymore - GOODBYE."

Nobody's going to "let" me decide how I buy and sell my work, and nobody can force me to sell my work their way. And all the crybaby socialist-communist-utopian groupies in the world can't change that.

And for that reason alone, the fact that America was founded on the freedom for us all to choose, free from any force by others, THAT is why America is the greatest and the free-est and the wealthiest place on earth.

- Marketzek

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:51 pm

Perhaps the problem is one of perspective.

These governments (and many people) see the iTunes store as an independent entity. As in, I want to buy music online instead of on physical CD, so I go to the iTunes store to purchase it. In this scenario, I am now limited on what devices I can play my purchased content on.

Apple's perspective is completely flipped. Apple's view is: Here is a really cool digital media player. Now we try our best to make it easy for you to add content you already own (CD, etc) on this device via our really nifty media application called iTunes. But perhaps that's not easy enough. So, we'll make it even easier by allowing you to skip the purchase physical CD and rip it step. We do this by allowing you to acquire legal media content though our media application, iTunes.

In other words, Apple sees the ITMS as a service provided to customer's of iPods. A value add to the iPod. Apple's goal is not to make huge profits from the digital media store. In fact, the ITMS barely breaks even. The ITMS' sole reason for existing is to make the iPod an even more attractive device. Why would Apple want to add value t other MP3 players? If a forced split of the ITMS / iPod eco-system occurs, then Apple is forced to account for the digital media store independently of iPod sales. As an independent entity, the ITMS does not make enough money for Apple to continue to invest in it.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:55 pm

This is stupid. If Apple has to license FairPlay to competing devices, then Microsoft has to license the Win32 API to Apple so that Windows software can run on the Mac.

It's only fair, after all.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:00 pm

If you want to use an iPod alternative - use an iTunes alternative.

Just because iTunes is the best and most popular doesnt mean Apple have a duty to cater for the inferior MP3 players out there. I say shutdown the iTunes store for these ungrateful countries. Apple didnt have to bring their store to their country. They should be thankful for the privelage and shut up. I'm from Ireland and bloody glad to have iTunes after such a delay in getting it in the 1st place.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:29 pm

The problem is as follows...

Fairplay does not implement any DRM on the iPod - it is all implemented in iTunes

The iPod ignores fairplay for playback, and gets around this because you cannot place songs on the iPod other than through iTunes and other than through a machine that was authorized to play the specific content.

You allow these fairplay DRMd files to get put on other players, including players that allow you to navigate the structure, you are now allowing for free dissemination of purchased songs to multiple devices. Fairplay would have to be implemented on the devices, etc.

Apple has no control over how people use these other devices. Apple has a deal going with the labels. I really don't think this is a well thought out idea - what they SHOULD be fighting for is no DRM period.

People do not have to use the iTunes Store to purchase music. There are many options (CDs). You can convert things for playback on the iPod and other players. All these, coupled with the hurdles in allowing 3rd party to play back Fairplay music and prevent it from spreading makes this a non-starter.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:52 pm

If Apple licensed its DRM everywhere, it would be the same as having no DRM at all. In other words, there is functionally no difference between an MP3 file that can played universally and an Apple DRM file where everyone has the DRM so it can also be played universally. From a functional standpoint it would be just like Apple switching to MP3 files. NEITHER action would be allowed by the record labels. The whole point of the DRM is to restrict the very thing the Norwegians want (while allowing the user to otherwise do what he/she can reasonable be expected to do). For Norway to use the CD as an example of universal playback is stupid because iTunes allows you to burn the songs to CD and then have the very ability Norway wants!

What's next for Norway, will they insist all Xbox games can play in a Sony PS and vice versa? Oooh, oooh, I've got a good one. How about insisting all Windows apps run on the Mac (and vice versa). After all, can't "lock anyone in", can we?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:23 pm

Does this mean that when Apple gets together with Apple, we'll have everthing but "Norwegian Wood?"

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:07 pm

Technologically, I don't think it's as easy as Norway or you seem to believe it is. Remember, it's iTunes that deals with the Fairplay DRM. And iPods don't, out of the box, let you copy songs from the iPod back onto a computer. So, any vendor who uses Fairplay will have to live with that restriction (which I assume is required by the music labels.)

But the bigger slippery slope is, will Norway's next step be that Apple allow any software application to license Fairplay as well because iTunes is too limiting?

"When you buy a music CD it doesn't play only on players made by Panasonic. People who download a song from iTunes shouldn't be bound to an iPod for the rest of their lives" Isn't this also exactly true for buying any digital media on some physical media, where there is only manufacturer of portable players for that media? If so, then not only does this apply to the Zune, but also to the PSP, DS, PS2/3, Xbox, Xbox 360, and Wii. And also to all Mac software. John, where do you stand concerning all these items?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:52 am

[quote="And for that reason alone, the fact that America was founded on the freedom for us all to choose, free from any force by others, THAT is why America is the greatest and the free-est and the wealthiest place on earth.

- Marketzek[/quote]

... the greatest ?

your system ruins the planet at the speed of light.

... the free-est?

With a red or blue dual party political system ? Freedom is more than choosing red or blue.

... the wealthiest?

don't forget your national deficit: You live on credit and belong to China.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:20 pm

Apple can license Fairplay.

The problem is: Who is going to pay for Apple's costs for managing third party licenses?

If a consumer purchases a song with Fairplay DRM from someone other than the iTunes store, who is going to authorize the song? Apple? This is an extra expense for Apple.

Can that song play on the iPod - since songs on the iPod are managed by iTunes?

I think third parties who license Fairplay should pay Apple's costs for supporting them. Perhaps this would be 25% of the cost of each song.

After all, the iTunes Music Store hardly makes a profit for Apple. Selling iPods makes the money for Apple. Not selling the music. That's pretty much a loss leader.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:08 am

I wonder how long it will be before some B-movie PC-using filmmaker in the People's Republic of California decides to contact his legislator and insist that Apple make Final Cut Pro compatible with PCs. I mean, it's just not fair that he can't run whatever he wants on his PC! He owns a PC, darn it! Apple OWES him!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:06 pm

Oh how cute. Looks like good ol' Paul "even a broken clock is right twice a day" Thurrott is taking credit for leading the anti-DRM crusade. Just check one of his <a href="http://www.internet-nexus.com/#116983907765303206">recent blog entries</a> to see how right he is. Of course, there <a href="http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/09/03.1.shtml">are others</a> who'd also like to see DRM go, but let's pretend Paul thought of it so he feels better about himself, mmmkay?

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:24 pm

Thread locked because the spammers have latched onto it,

Sorry.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.