News

iPO Reports - Steve Jobs Open Letter to DRM Critics: Tell the Labels

Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 at 4:30 PM - by

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs published Tuesday an open letter on Apple's Web site directly attacking criticism of the DRM scheme used to protect music downloaded from iTunes. The lengthy letter breaks down into three main components: The way in which the Big Four record labels' DRM demands have tied Apple's hands with FairPlay, the idea that Apple would embrace selling music unencumbered by DRM if allowed, and the suggestion to foreign governments that they work over the labels to change their own DRM demands rather than trying to force Apple to open up FairPlay.

When Mr. Jobs unveiled what was then called the iTunes Music Store in 2003, he said that Apple wanted to sell music without DRM, but that the labels had insisted their music be protected from illegal copying. Since then, however, Apple has seemingly benefitted from its DRM by not licensing FairPlay to third party manufacturers and online music stores.

With iPod and iTunes owning the lion's share of the market for players and download stores, many, including foreign governments have complained about the lack of interoperability, and in some cases demanded that Apple open up FairPlay. Today's open letter cuts to the heart of all these issues, at least from Steve Jobs's and Apple's perspective.

According to the letter, Apple would like to sell music without DRM, but it is the labels themselves that are tying Apple's hands. While Apple offered (and still offers) the most lenient of copying restrictions of all the major download services (selling major label music) -- a playlist can be burned to CD up to five times, and a song can be played on up to five computers -- one still can't take one's legally purchased music anywhere one wants.

"Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time," wrote Mr. Jobs, "and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store."

In other words, Mr. Jobs said that Apple does not license FairPlay to third parties because the specific nature of its license from the labels means that any breach in the DRM scheme that went unrepaired for too long would allow the labels to pull their catalogs from Apple's iTunes Store.

He added that history has shown if Apple were to license FairPlay out to other companies, eventually the keys to FairPlay would leak, and Apple would be unable to fix said leaks in time because so many different companies would be involved. So, his argument goes, Apple must keep FairPlay as an Apple-only solution in order to meet its obligations to the labels.

"Perhaps," he noted, "this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft's recent decision to switch their emphasis from an 'open' model of licensing their DRM to others to a 'closed' model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players."

Mr. Jobs next attacked the notion that buying music on iTunes in the first place locked consumers into using an iPod. Using general data, he said that there is an average of 22 iTunes downloads on each iPod sold to date, which makes up less than 3% of the total music on the most popular iPod (the iPod nano), which holds 1,000 songs. He didn't point out that it's an even smaller percentage of the music on hard drive iPods (up to 80GB), which are capable of holding a substantially higher number of songs.

"The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats" wrote Mr. Jobs. "It's hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music."

Despite that, however, Mr. Jobs said the best of all worlds would be to abolish DRM altogether:

"Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

That's a very strong statement, in that Mr. Jobs is stating for the public record that given the opportunity his company would sell music with no DRM at all, but Mr. Jobs took it a bit further. He said that doing so would not only benefit consumers, it would also help the labels.

He wrote, "If [the barrier to entry of providing a DRM scheme for downloaded music] were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies."

He also noted that the labels themselves sell unprotected music in the form of CDs. While the labels have tried from time to time to cripple CDs with various DRM schemes, all have failed in the market place, and were either quickly broken, caused problems on customer computers, or sometimes simply failed to play at all.

"So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free," Mr. Jobs wrote, "what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none."

His conclusion punched straight to the heart of the issue, as he attacked those who have attacked Apple, saying they should redirect their grievances to the labels.

"Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries," he wrote. "Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."

29 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

nealg said:

member since 22 Mar 2006 with 120 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:52 pm

Makes it sound like Apple is in all practical terms, locked into DRM by their contracts with the labels. Also makes it sound like unless they get the go ahead to sell DRM free music from the labels that they will either go to court in Europe to settle this matter or shut down the stores in the various countries where this is a big issue.

Neal

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 909 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:53 pm

Hah. Go Steve go. If that's not a strong enough response telling them to STFU and deal with their own internal regs in Europe, I don't know what else he could say.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:53 pm

Well, he could start the ball rolling by removing DRM from the Pixar films on iTunes!!

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 307 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:56 pm

Is this a little piece of history here? Has Steve ever come out with a plain-text statement on their website? Are we going to look back on this day long in the future and see how forward looking he was at this moment?

The article certainly spins Apple in a good light, but what else would a prepared statement say? I wonder what the critics are going to say...

I have to say though, is it possible that this is Steve's first blog?

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

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

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:05 pm

Methinks that there is something in the wind.

Does Apple plan on selling Beatles tunes without DRM? Maybe they have negotiated an exclusive deal with Apple Music, but don't want to be accused of having a monopoly on the Beatles.

By his own testimony there are not too many iTunes Store purchases on iPods and CDs already are DRM free. So if he is working a deal with the gang of four to do away with DRM he could sell more from the the iTunes Store which would help drive iPod sales.

Is Apple about to got to court in Norway and/or Europe over the iTunes Store restrictions?

I am just ruminating, why the announcement, why now.

"If music be the food of love, play on;

Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,

The appetite may sicken, and so die."

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

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

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:07 pm

Quote
Guest wrote:
Well, he could start the ball rolling by removing DRM from the Pixar films on iTunes!!

Other video for that matter. I would love to be able to burn them to a DVD disk. Steve probably doesn't have that kind of control over Pixar, or Disney, but point taken.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:15 pm

Steve owns... what... 15% of the Disney... there is the majority 85% that desides. Steve can´t do this alone. He is not an idiot.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:24 pm

Yes Apple is locked by the record labels and always have been. They said that when they introduced iTunes and that's why they won there last case against Apple Corp (Beatles) was that they didn't control the music the record labels did period. Everyone is screaming at Apple when Apple can't do anything about it. These european governments need to go to the source of the problem, the record labels.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:27 pm

Right now he's talking about music down loads not DVD movies. There is a whole list of things we could bring up that we wish were the case. But this is about DRM music downloads and why he CAN'T license fairplay without risking everything.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 971 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:42 pm

His 3% math is bogus because it assumes a full iPod. Also bogus because it confuses the individual full iPod user with the aggregate. The effect of integrating iTunes + iPod + iTunes Store is much greater than he is letting on here. DRM may be at most coincidental to the lock-in effect. At least 50% of my music in iTunes is purchased from iTunes Store. But then I load it up on four iPods, thus greatly diluting my purchased songs per iPod ratio.

This open letter is beyond weird. Probably just public posturing against the labels.

Quote this post ↓

nealg said:

member since 22 Mar 2006 with 120 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:46 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
His 3% math is bogus because it assumes a full iPod. Also bogus because it confuses the individual full iPod user with the aggregate. The effect of integrating iTunes + iPod + iTunes Store is much greater than he is letting on here. DRM may be at most coincidental to the lock-in effect. At least 50% of my music in iTunes is purchased from iTunes Store. But then I load it up on four iPods, thus greatly diluting my purchased songs per iPod ratio.

This open letter is beyond weird. Probably just public posturing against the labels.

If all the ipods are full and you count in all the higher capacity ipods that have been sold, I would bet that the number is close to what reality is.

I think the letter actually does a good job of explaining Apple's position on this.

Neal

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

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

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:51 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
His 3% math is bogus because it assumes a full iPod. Also bogus because it confuses the individual full iPod user with the aggregate. The effect of integrating iTunes + iPod + iTunes Store is much greater than he is letting on here. DRM may be at most coincidental to the lock-in effect. At least 50% of my music in iTunes is purchased from iTunes Store. But then I load it up on four iPods, thus greatly diluting my purchased songs per iPod ratio.

This open letter is beyond weird. Probably just public posturing against the labels.

I wonder if he is trying to get the labels to publicly respond.

I too am purchasing most of my music from the iTunes Store. A quick comparison of my library and "purchased" shows 20% to come from the iTunes Store. However, the remaining 80% were ripped from my CD collection way back when, almost all new music over the last year or two is from the iTunes Store.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:59 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
At least 50% of my music in iTunes is purchased from iTunes Store. But then I load it up on four iPods, thus greatly diluting my purchased songs per iPod ratio.

This proves Jobs' math is bogus only if you duplicate the non-DRM'd songs across your four iPods far more than you do the DRM'd songs (if you duplicate them at all). Otherwise, the ratio of DRM'd songs to non-DRM'd songs on each iPod would be the same as the same ratio in your iTunes library.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:52 pm

I believe his 3% math is not claiming that every iPod is full. He is just saying that if a 4GB Nano was full of music and had an average number of iTMS purchsed songs on it, it would have 3% of its songs purchased from iTMS. But a 60GB iPod would have the same number of purchased iTMS songs, making it 3% if it had 4GB of music on it, or 0.2% iTMS purchased songs if it had 60GB of music. Likewise a 1GB Shuffle that is full would have 12% iTMS purchased songs. I personally have a 20GB iPod with about 10GB of music, podcasts, and audiobooks none of which was purchased from iTMS, though the (free) podcasts are downloaded from iTMS.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:10 pm

The two main point that struck me are:

97% of content on the average iPod is DRM free.

Audio CDs have no DRM at all so why should online music purchases?

We've been had!

Apple had no choice and continues without one until the Music Industry changes their policy regarding online sales.

If you really think about. Without the DRM it would benefit the entire industry as iTunes would suddenly be compatible with every device out there. This is my final interpretation.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 909 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:31 pm

I checked my iTunes. Out of 1584 songs I have, 141 of them are purchased.

And 11 of those I bought this week. I usually don't buy more than 1 a month in fact.

So as you can see, that while mine is greater than 3% statistically, it's still pretty darn low for a ration of bought songs. The rest are mine legally. From CDs.

Imagine that.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 971 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:02 pm

Geez you guys are bad at math thinking. He is saying that roughly 3% of purchased iPod capacity matches up with iTunes Store sales. So unless all of us are running around with full iPods, iTunes Store purchases are accounting for far more than 3% of installed music on iPods. The other thing he is doing to dilute iTunes space-share down to 3% is to not count iPods that are out of service or part of personal fleets. I'd suspect this discounts hundreds of thousands of nanos. He tries to make this point to say DRMd music is a drop in the bucket of the iPod ecosystem. I suspect it's more to the tune of 15%-20%. And then that doesn't distinguish people's old CD libraries from new purchases (or illicit acquisitions). My Van Halen CD collection was bought and paid for long ago. Warner will never make another dime on that from me unless DLR comes back to the band. Oh wait...

My point is: why distort this? Apple is on track to be a big, established distributor in the music business -- Tower Record sized in terms of total market share. It has done this using its mixture of iPod, iTunes, and iTunes store. Meanwhile, Apple's iTunes Store presence in some of these Euro countries is negligible to its bottom line. Aside from not wanting the political baggage of telling Norway to stick it, there's little reason to not roll the dice and make them flinch.

I don't think Steve Jobs really sincerely believes we'll have DRM free music. I do think this letter is his way of telling the labels that when it comes time to negotiate, if they don't see the deal Apple is giving them, then they should go fight the political battles themselves. Or just go away. It's quite shrewd really, appealing to what "consumers want" to solidify a negotiating position that will never get there.

Quote this post ↓

jbruni said:

member since 14 Jul 2006 with 73 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:08 pm

Out of my 2558 songs, 442 were purchased via iTunes. That puts my ratio at 17% DRM, 83% from CDs.

I typically only buy hard to find music on iTunes. Stuff that I want at high quality I buy via CD usually from Amazon.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:02 am

The 3% comment is just an attempt to give a some sort of rational number as a base to work from. And I would be willing to bet it is not far off AS AN AVERAGE. My personal assumption, based on talking to iPod owners and other iTMS users would have been closer to 5%. But then you have people like my family that skew the average down as much as some of the other posters skew it up.

For example:

My iPod: 4952 tracks, 130 iTMS purchased = 2.6%

Wifes's iPod: 1082 tracks, 2 iTMS purchased = 0.2%

Father's iPod: 987 tracks, 0 iTMS purchased = 0%

AVERAGE % from iTMS = .93%

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:09 am

remember that Apple bought Fairplay only a few months before the iTunes Store opened; we have no indication that they were developing DRM earlier. odds are, they probably bought Fairplay after the labels said it was necessary. this is unlike MS which has been developing DRM for years and years.

of course, another way of looking at this is that MS likely owns several key patents in content DRM, which could be a stumbling block in Apple moving forward further, such as in subscriptions or WiFi sharing. note that Fairplay works in a dramatically different way than MS' WMP/Janus DRM; you can see this in that the Fairplay DRM is primarily between the iTS and iTunes, and the iPod is only tangentially involved. whereas MS' WMP/Janus has DRM on the players, thus subscriptions and WiFi sharing are possible.

i've always believed Apple when they said that interoperable DRM (i.e., licensing Fairplay) would just lead to piracy because of the way Fairplay works. i know all the MS' fanboys will be out to say that licensing Fairplay is the best option, but they'll say that out of ignorance.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

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

Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:55 am

100% of my library is DRM-free. I only rip CD’s. There are many more folks like me who will have nothing to do with DRM. So clearly there have to be the Boscos out there with >50% DRM. So while Bosco may feel tied to Fairplay, he has freed up 10 or so other people who are DRM-free, or very nearly so. In the end, it all averages out, quite possibly to 3% on average. The point is, only a very small percentage of the population has a sizable enough investment in DRM music to feel locked-in to it, which is the point Jobs was making. Nothing bogus about the math, only Bosco’s reasoning.

Given that 90% of music sales are DRM-free, i believe that Jobs does see the possibility of a DRM-free future. The music labels are insisting on triple dead-bolts on the backdoor when the front door is has no lock and all the windows are wide open.

As for video, that’s a horse of a different color. Comparing music to video is like comparing apples to oranges.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 307 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:59 am

Quote
Rainy Day wrote:
As for video, that’s a horse of a different color. Comparing music to video is like comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not so sure that it is different. I have been thinking about the "Why now" aspect of this statement:

1) DRM issues in Europe are forcing Apple to make this statement about why DRM exists.

2) DRM is getting a lot of bad press lately, some of it coinciding with Vista. This is good for Apple.

3) Apple is trying to get on the public's side of the debate and do away with DRM outright.

4) One of the most difficult aspects of DRM is with HD movie content.. You can't even watch an HD movie on a standard monitor.. it has to have an HDMI cable (afaik).

Overall, I think Steve/Apple have had enough of the anti-consumer attitudes of the entertainment industry and would like to cram public opinion down their throats. How many people have been giving Apple a hard time all these years without knowing the agreements that they had to make to start up the iTunes store? If they are able to muster up enough public (and [European] governmental) opinion to change the situation with DRM and music, it will no doubt flow downhill to the Movie industry.

I love that he is calling for an end to DRM. It will level the playing field for a whole lot of smaller companies that can truly innovate. The "Big 3" (Apple, MS and Sony) will have to be on their toes to keep afloat. Apple seems ready for this. I hope it happens.

Quote this post ↓

algr said:

member since 07 Aug 2003 with 278 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:40 am

Quote
Guest wrote:
Well, he could start the ball rolling by removing DRM from the Pixar films on iTunes!!

They may not be able to do this. The Pixar films include music that is owned by the big four labels. It all depends on how those contracts work, but I am aware of several programs that had to edit music out years after broadcast due to weird licensing problems.

Quote
Bosco wrote:
At least 50% of my music in iTunes is purchased from iTunes Store. But then I load it up on four iPods, thus greatly diluting my purchased songs per iPod ratio.

Four iPods is hardly typical - I don't even own one. (So does my iTunes cancel yours out?) I've got 1.5% DRMed.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:34 pm

Yes, Apple is locked into using DRM to protect the music is sells, but so is every other service. The only difference between the other services and Apple's service is that you are forced to use Apple's players to use the music on-the-go.

The RIAA has already responded, they called Apple's offer to license FairPlay "a welcome breakthrough and would be a real victory for fans, artists and labels. There have been many services seeking a license to the Apple DRM. This would enable the interoperability that we have been urging for a very long time."

It's a great tactic by Jobs and well timed. It's a deflection of responsibility in their European legal battles to the recording industry. However, with the stance the RIAA has taken, it puts it right back on Apple. Go ahead and license your tech already, let the rest of the world that doesn't want an iPod but wants an DAP to use your service to buy our music. Just like users of Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo, etc aren't locked into a specific set of devices provided by just one company, nor should users of iTunes be locked into a specific set of devices provided by just one company.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:53 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
Geez you guys are bad at math thinking. He is saying that roughly 3% of purchased iPod capacity matches up with iTunes Store sales.

Actually, what he said was there is an average of 22 iTunes-purchased songs on each iPod. The 3% figure (actually 2.2%) was an oversimplification on his part - the current most popular model is the ~1,000 song nano, and 22/1000 = 0.022. Higher bitrates and iPods not filled to capacity will increase that percentage, but hard-drive-based iPods will significantly lower that percentage, because even though the capacities of (and, in general, the number of songs on) the hard-drive iPods are greater, the percentages derived from them are still based on the number 22.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:49 pm

The 3% number isn't what matters. It's counting the wrong thing. It's not that you can't put non-iTunes music on an iPod, it's that you can't put iTunes music on a non-iPod. What is the percentage of iTunes users that have their music on another DAP? That's the complaint against Apple. With other services like Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo, etc. you can put the music files on devices from many different manufacturers. It's a great quote by Jobs though because it guides the talk onto numbers that not only look good for Apple, but also avoids discussion about the real issue.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2003 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:47 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
His 3% math is bogus because it assumes a full iPod. Also bogus because it confuses the individual full iPod user with the aggregate. The effect of integrating iTunes + iPod + iTunes Store is much greater than he is letting on here. DRM may be at most coincidental to the lock-in effect. At least 50% of my music in iTunes is purchased from iTunes Store. But then I load it up on four iPods, thus greatly diluting my purchased songs per iPod ratio.

This open letter is beyond weird. Probably just public posturing against the labels.

Remember that Jobs was using only the "most popular" iPod. Which one is that? The 4 GB Nano. The hard drive iPods store 7.5 or 20 times that. Thus, he is probably OVERestimating the ratio/percentage of iTunes Store songs on iPods.

The iPod 5.5G that I have will hold a helluva lot more than 1,000 songs. I have 3,393 items on my 30 GB iPod, not counting photos, notes, or games. Some of those are large--audiobooks and videos. (19 audiobooks add up to 1.08 GB, 3+ days playing time.) Of those, 1537 were purchased from the iTunes Store. I've bought a lot more than that, as I subscribe to The Daily Show at at average of about 250 MB per show, but I only keep one on the iPod. (I don't keep them all on my HD, either--I archive on DVDs.) I buy audiobooks through audible.com through a subscription that costs a lot less than buying them individually, but most are sold through the iTunes Store, as well.

As percentages: 1537/3393 = 45.3% ; 6.29 GB/13.82 GB = 45.5%

(The storage excludes photos, games, etc.)

Add in the audiobooks: 1556/3393 = 45.9% ; 7.37/13.82 = 53.3%

Quote
Guest wrote:
Yes, Apple is locked into using DRM to protect the music is sells, but so is every other service. The only difference between the other services and Apple's service is that you are forced to use Apple's players to use the music on-the-go.

"Difference"? Sorry, but you're way behind the times. Music purchased at the Zune store can only be played on Zunes. Music purchased at Sony's Connect Store will only play on Sony players. One can argue that songs are data files/software for players. As others have said, users of the xBox, PS3, Wii, etc., are all in the same situation. Even those using Microsoft's pre-Zune system (Plays for Sure?) are locked into a limited number of brands--even Microsoft's own Zune will not play them.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2003 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:51 pm

Quote
Bosco wrote:
Geez you guys are bad at math thinking. He is saying that roughly 3% of purchased iPod capacity matches up with iTunes Store sales. So unless all of us are running around with full iPods, iTunes Store purchases are accounting for far more than 3% of installed music on iPods. The other thing he is doing to dilute iTunes space-share down to 3% is to not count iPods that are out of service or part of personal fleets. I'd suspect this discounts hundreds of thousands of nanos. He tries to make this point to say DRMd music is a drop in the bucket of the iPod ecosystem. I suspect it's more to the tune of 15%-20%. And then that doesn't distinguish people's old CD libraries from new purchases (or illicit acquisitions). My Van Halen CD collection was bought and paid for long ago. Warner will never make another dime on that from me unless DLR comes back to the band. Oh wait...

My point is: why distort this? Apple is on track to be a big, established distributor in the music business -- Tower Record sized in terms of total market share. It has done this using its mixture of iPod, iTunes, and iTunes store. Meanwhile, Apple's iTunes Store presence in some of these Euro countries is negligible to its bottom line. Aside from not wanting the political baggage of telling Norway to stick it, there's little reason to not roll the dice and make them flinch.

I don't think Steve Jobs really sincerely believes we'll have DRM free music. I do think this letter is his way of telling the labels that when it comes time to negotiate, if they don't see the deal Apple is giving them, then they should go fight the political battles themselves. Or just go away. It's quite shrewd really, appealing to what "consumers want" to solidify a negotiating position that will never get there.

Nope. Jobs is OVERestimating the percentage, as he used the most popular iPod--the 4 GB Nano--for comparison. What about all the hard drive iPods around? None of them is smaller than 4GB; most are much larger. As I showed above, I have nearly 3,400 "items" on my iPod, not 1,000. A lot are from the iTunes Store, but I have ripped less than 20% of my CD collection, not to mention the 500+ cassettes I still have.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:40 pm

[quote="gslusher]

Quote
Guest wrote:
Yes, Apple is locked into using DRM to protect the music is sells, but so is every other service. The only difference between the other services and Apple's service is that you are forced to use Apple's players to use the music on-the-go.

"Difference"? Sorry, but you're way behind the times. Music purchased at the Zune store can only be played on Zunes. Music purchased at Sony's Connect Store will only play on Sony players. One can argue that songs are data files/software for players. As others have said, users of the xBox, PS3, Wii, etc., are all in the same situation. Even those using Microsoft's pre-Zune system (Plays for Sure?) are locked into a limited number of brands--even Microsoft's own Zune will not play them.[/quote]

Sorry, but you're comparing to a service that is brand new and does not have a user base that is comparable to Napster, Rhapsody or Yahoo. I believe that even Urge (Microsoft's other music store) currently has more users. Similarly, Sony's store does not have the userbase that the three big players (outside of Apple) do. And, sure Plays for Sure is locked into a limited number of players, but that statement is meaningless, there are only a limited number of players on the market, period. The point is that with Plays For Sure, you aren't locked into just one manufacturers product. As for the court cases against Apple, that is because they are biggest player in the space. Once the precedent is set, Sony & Zune will be forced to fall inline with what Yahoo, Rhapsody, Napster and others are already doing.

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.