Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: think
Apple should open its Fairplay format
The only losers will be the companies making iPod competitors, because they have little to no chance of taking over the market.
So it seems Apple is finding itself the defendant in an antitrust lawsuit of monopolistic proportions. As quoted:
Plaintiff Thomas Slattery’s lawsuit claims Apple configured the iPod so that it will play only iTunes files and not digital music files from competing vendors of online music. Apple has also encoded its iTunes files so they will only play on the iPod and not any other digital music player, the complaint says.
…
With respect to the “tying” allegations, the judge said Slattery was claiming Apple forces people who own iPods to buy music online only from iTunes and also forces iTunes customers to buy iPods to play the music they purchase.
So basically, since you can only purchase songs from the iTunes Music Store for your iPod, and since the iPod is so prevalent, Apple has a monopoly on iPod-compatible music store purchases. Nevermind that all the other music stores use a proprietary format from Microsoft that Apple is never going to support, regardless of whether they have an online music store or not; it removes the power of consumer choice because, while AAC is an open format, the DRM that Apple attaches to it is not.
So Apple should open up their Fairplay format, and allow other companies to license it for their own music stores. What do they have to lose? They already control the vast majority of the music player market, and it’s common knowledge that the iTunes Music Store is nothing if not a sales tool for selling more iPods. If Apple allowed other companies to sell songs in the same format as they already use, it would sell even more iPods because consumers would have a wide range of choices for buying songs online, from cheap 45¢ Real songs to Apple’s 99¢ to who knows what else would be out there. Companies would sell songs in AAC format because they would work with the leader in the MP3 player market, hyping the iPod more than it already is. Additionally, labels that aren’t on the iTMS (*cough* Apple Records *cough*) could sign up with another music provider, or sell their own protected songs, and still be usable on the iTMS.
Besides, it’s not like Apple has to worry about being put out of business by their competitors. The iTMS is currently one of the sleekest, smoothest stores out there, so people will keep coming back because of the great experiences they’ve had buying songs online there. Apple might lose a few customers, but they wouldn’t leave in droves just because other music stores have iPod-compatible protected songs. If anything, the graph will flatten a little bit in Steve Jobs’s keynote presentation, but the increased iPod sales graph will more than make up for it. Opening up Fairplay is a win-win for almost everyone… the only losers will be the companies making iPod competitors, because they have little to no chance of taking over the market.
 |
36 | 3033 |
| Arden | comments | views |
thinkback
This story comes up a lot, and it’s completely phony for several reasons:
1. CDs have no DRM, and rip to MP3s which the iPod plays, so the assertion that the iPod “only plays music from the iTMS” is completely false.
2. The existence of DRM is mandated by the music industry, not Apple. It’s not up to Apple or any other software manufacturer to eliminate DRM, it’s up to the publishers and artists.
3. If Apple opens up FairPlay, get ready for $3 or $5 on popular tracks. If the music industry could pick and choose who to sell to, they could bend Apple’s arm when it came to flat-rate pricing. Apple’s lock on FairPlay is the only thing standing between the consumer and the record labels right now.
It’s so funny to watch some people make it seem like Apple is standing up for the consumer 100%.
The music industry can bend Apple’s arm right now. In fact, if it became a coordinated effort between all the record labels, Apple’s arm could be broken off. Any record label can pull out of iTMS quite easily, but they’d prefer not to because Apple is such a big source of money for them. The people Apple is standing up for is iPod users, because if they didn’t iPod users would find a company that doesn’t get pushed around without a fight.
| Feb. 07, 2006 | |
| Liam | 9:05 pm |
Arden, thanks for the example, but I am quite sure that in US law and possibly in many other countries, ignorance is not a defense.
That is to say, because I don’t understand or don’t know, therefore I should be exempt or have standing to sue.
For example take the case of the American boy who committed some minor crime in Singapore for which the punishment was being whipped or something. Well as far as I can remember, that punishment was carried out.
Why then would your arguement that the non-geeks not understanding or care about WMA or AAC have any merit in a court of law.
I still don’t get the basis for this case going forward. I don’t really care that Apple is targeted, I just want to understand why.
Imagine it’s 5 years from now. It’s possible for anyone with a PC anywhere in the world to D/L, in minutes, the current episode of a TV show like 24, for $2 from iTunes. (commercial free). How many D/L’s do you think that show would get (world-wide)? A million, 10 million, 100 million?
If the answer is 100 million, thats $200 million an hour on just one show. Times 10, 100, who knows how many networks by then.....
Look at it from a non-geek’s perspective.
Sure… the non-geek’s perspective is pretty simple. They’ll buy an iPod, rip the CDs they own, buy a few songs from the iTunes store… and that’s it.
It really isn’t terribly likely that a “non-geek” is shopping around for cool ways to buy music on the internet. They’re more likely to continue buying CDs… and rip them. Familiar. Safe.
Apple is looking out for it’s best interest but for right now, their interest is the same as the consumers interest. Apple wants simple cheap digital music that works with the iPod so it is not surprising that someone would conclude that they should just open fairplay for other online music stores. But it would be a bad thing if they did at this time.
OK, today the iTMS is strong enough that it would hurt the labels to kill it. The bigger the store gets the more difficult it would be for any one label to go against Apple’s mandated pricing. (and collusion between the labels is illegal so all of them working together might cause them more problems than it is worth). But what if Apple licensed fairplay to Napster? Now the labels don’t have to kill iTunes they can just slowly starve it. Still release older tunes for $.99 but the newer songs only release for more on Napster. The consumers get pissed but enough still pay that the over all effect is not that damaging to the labels. Napster gains market share because people go there for new tunes (so why not purchase old tunes there too) and the iTMS can slowly fade into the sunset.
Today we need a strong Apple to protect the record labels from them selves.
Re: allofmp3
http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm
yep: Completely legit according to the law, even though the RIAA would like to think otherwise. Being against the law and being something that the RIAA doesn’t like because they (or US record companies) are not receiving royalties or complete power over the experience of buying music are very different things.
IMO: the RIAA can go screw itself. They’ve been doing it to consumers for years. The artist is paid by allofmp3.com. but the label is left out. Oh darn.
I’m just fine with that.
| Feb. 08, 2006 | |
| e:leaf | 11:26 am |
It’s not just the record companies not receiving money for their work. It’s the performer of the song (if different that the person who wrote it, which is the majority of songs today) and the producer of the song, according to that link. I think I read that correctly. It states that only the song writer gets royalties.
Personally, I’m not comfortable with doing that. There are a lot of people who worked on that album who would normally get some money for their work, as they should, but aren’t with music purchased from Russia.
But that’s just me. I’m not going to get on a soap box or anything.
| Feb. 08, 2006 | ||
| 11:47 am |
But that’s just me. I’m not going to get on a soap box or anything.
I think you should.
http://www.dtgeeks.com/index.php/blogs/comm unity_submit/
That’s what it’s there for.
|
| Feb. 08, 2006 | |
| Liam | 4:29 pm |
26.
Personally, I’m for the elimination of all DRM. DRM just doesn’t make sense from a consumer’s standpoint. I can only play songs that I bought and paid for on how many machines? I can only burn how many cds? Yet I can play it on unlimited iPods.
I don’t like the restrictions at all, and think that all DRM ought to be eliminated.
And no I don’t pirate music (short of albums which are OOP--Porcupine Tree’s Stupid Dream is an example). Ever. Nor does DRM stop people from pirating music.
And with my hatred for all DRM (I have problems with anyone controlling what I can and cannot do with products that I have paid for. To in any way penalize an honest customer for the crimes that one might commit is outrageous), I have chosen simply to not buy from the iTMS at all and seek an alternative.
And I have found one which DOES NOT HAVE DRM ON ANY OF THEIR TRACKS, yet which is completely legit, cheaper, and has more of what I like that the iTMS.
That alternative is http://www.allofmp3.com, a Russian music store with a good selection albeit not as good as the iTMS, and with super cheap prices and the ultimate in customer choice.
I can choose what format (WMV, AAC, OGG, MP3) and what bit rate (128, 256, 320) and buy a complete album for less than $2. Certainly a much better deal than 128 AAC laced with restrictive DRM.
Although I agree that Apple should open Fairplay, until they do so I will buy from elsewhere.