Just a Thought - Should The iPod/iTunes Club Be Exclusive?
by - August 11th, 2004
"All up in my Kool-Aid, and don't know what flavor it is!"
That seems to be how Apple has taken Real Networks' interest in the iPod. That Real is interested in the iPod is no surprise; who wouldn't be interested in a device that appears to be defining the way the current generation of music listeners enjoy tunes every bit as well as Sony did with the Walkman Era.
Real tried, in a half-baked, off handed way, to ask Apple if it could join the ultra exclusive club that provides music to the iPod; current club membership totals a whopping one member: Apple. Apple all but said, "Keep on steppin'."
So, Real tried a different tack; it figured out a way to crash Apple's iTunes party, and allow iPod owners to load music from Real's own music store, or any downloaded music that uses Microsoft's Windows Media format, onto their iPods. Real calls its iPod compatibility software Harmony.
Apple didn't find it funny, equating Real's efforts to that of a common hacker, and posturing as if to prepare for some legal strong-arming.
Now, Rob Pegoraro of E-Commerce Times says he's tested Harmony, and after some futzing, was able to get songs downloaded from Real Networks' song site to load and play on a 4th generation iPod and an iPod mini. Here's what Mr. Pegoraro says in the article, RealPlayer's iPod-Compatible Update 'Stunned' Apple:
The Harmony software converts them to a form that an iPod will recognize, without installing any software on the iPod itself.
Getting RealPlayer to talk to an iPod -- I tested it with an iPod mini and a fourth-generation iPod -- involves a little work. It took me two or three tries to get Real's software to recognize each iPod, but once I had coaxed it past that step, the file transfers proceeded without incident each time.Harmony can also convert Windows Media Audio files (excluding those bought from such online stores as Napster, Wal-Mart and Musicmatch) to an iPod-ready format, although this vastly stretches out song-transfer times.
Check out Mr. Pegoraro's full account at E-Commerce Times.
OK, so Harmony works, but from the sound of it, it's something geared towards the more adventurous and technically savvy, not something everyone is going to run right out and try. So, at least in that respect, Apple has little to be concerned about at the moment. But Time marches on, and someone, possibly Real Networks, will figure out how to smooth out the bumps in the Real-to-iTunes file conversion, which will make Apple more concerned.
Why?
To venture a guess, I'd say Apple understands that things change. Right now, the iPod and iTunes are hot commodities, a year from now they may be as interesting as day-old oat meal. So, to keep things interesting, experience has shown Apple that it must control the whole widget; from songs to earplugs. But, what Apple doesn't understand is that it can control so much more if it did allow other music download companies to use its digital rights management software; FairPlay.
Apple could license FairPlay and pretty much establish itself as the de facto standard for music downloads. Such a move would likely not harm iTunes Music Store sales; iTMS is far and away the best way to buy music online. And with broader selection of download sites that are iPod compatible, Apple would sell iPods faster than Toshiba can make drives for them. That, in turn, would mean a larger potential iTMS customer base. And so on, and so on.
It could be that Apple has no ambition to create the de facto standard for anything; after all, IBM did that for the PC and look where it got Big Blue. It could also be that Apple knows what the next 'Big Thing' is, they may even have it sitting on a shelf in a research lab at 1 Infinite Loop, and is just trying to milk the current 'Big Thing' for all it's worth.
While I have no love for Real Networks, and even less for the way they do things in general, I half expect that their efforts might make Apple rethink its position on how it handles FairPlay and the iPod. If the company does so, I'd also expect that Apple will still refuse to sell Real Networks a license, which would not bother me in the least.
is a writer who currently lives in Orlando, FL. He's been a Mac fan since Atari Computers folded, but has worked with computers of nearly every type for 20 years.
You can send your comments directly to me, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From Just A Thought
- Apple's New Cards: Aces and Kings? - September 14th
- Power to the People - September 1st
- Too Soon To Zune - August 28th
The Just A Thought Archives
Observer Comments
Wal-Mart has an online music store?!
Give me a moment to get over the shock!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, I'm better now.
If Apple doesn't have the "next big thing" sitting on a shelf at 1 Infinite Loop, then I think they just need to keep doing whatever sells the most iPods, because clearly that is where the profit is, not in selling individual songs for $.99. However, I also think that there is something to be said for keeping iTMS and the iPod together and shielded from everyone else. The whole seemless integration of the two is what makes both of them so awesome, but once you get into other stores offering downloads of the same stuff that will be able to play on iPods, that just mucks it up and it won't be as streamlined. Of course, from a consumer perspective, if all the online music stores could sell iPod compatible music, there would most likely be competition (well, in a perfect world there would be), and prices per song would drop (but what's 99 vs. 69 cents for those that only buy occasionally?), and that would be good for average joe.
But in the end the integration of iTMS and the iPod is just too sweet and near perfect that, IMO, Apple should just keep that intact and screw everyone else and continue to illustrate how poor the competition is.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:13 am Subject: I doubt
I doubt you'd see song prices drop, no matter how many online stores pop up. From what I've read, the music lables THEMSELVES would have to lower the prices. And why would they? They make money no matter who sells their songs.
That point aside, I do think Apple should let others use their standards. Everyone keeps saying they make their money from iPods, not the store, so I'm not sure what their problem is.
But on the OTHER hand I can see why locking people out is a good idea. Think about it, every piece of REAL software I've ever used has annoyed me to no end. If Apple agreed to work with them, and their program sucks, you'd start hearing more stories about how the iPod is difficult to use, when really it's the other program's fault. My guess is that THIS is the main reason Apple doesn't like these deals. Pretty much every other angle says it's a good idea, so for them to be upset they must be worried about this aspect.
QuoteSmall White Car wrote:
Think about it, every piece of REAL software I've ever used has annoyed me to no end. If Apple agreed to work with them, and their program sucks, you'd start hearing more stories about how the iPod is difficult to use, when really it's the other program's fault. My guess is that THIS is the main reason Apple doesn't like these deals.
Yea! That's what I was trying to say later in my post, but you articulated it better than I did. To be 100% sure the name of the iPod isn't dragged through the mud, it should stick with iTMS.
What I don't understand is why does everyone believe that just because iTunes isn't compatible with other players today means it will always be that way. Every single opinion I've come across either defends or scolds Apple's current stand on the issue, and not one of them seriously considers the posibility that Apple will shift its strategy in the future.
My take? Just as the iPod was originally for the Mac, iTunes is originally for the iPod. Expect Apple to open iTunes to all MP3 players when they good and ready, following a strategy not unlike the one they used for the iPod.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:47 am Subject:
QuoteKircle wrote:
My take? Just as the iPod was originally for the Mac, iTunes is originally for the iPod. Expect Apple to open iTunes to all MP3 players when they good and ready, following a strategy not unlike the one they used for the iPod.
I agree. Not only will Apple eventually license FairPlay, I expect the company to add WMA support to the iPod at a future date.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:32 am Subject: Apple wasn't the first
There were players before the iPod was released, just as there will be more players in the future.
There is more than one issue here. First is the iPod itself. A driving force behind it's sales is its simplicity, or elegant design. Now that Apple has shown the industry how to do it there is no excuse for competitors not delivering an elegant player that will sell well.
The other critical factor is iTunes. Again, Apple has shown everyone from MS to Sony to Real how the software should work. Simple, elegant and a pleasure to use. No problem or excuse - just do it.
From what I understand, if you use Harmony you are not going to be able to use iTunes. Ooops. Real has their own software and you have to use it? Can't use iTunes? Is it as elegant? What about all the music you bought on TMS?
Then there is The Music Store. Again, Apple has shown the competition how to do it. Simple. Wal-Mart, Sony, buy.com(?), etc. have their stores. Pretty soon schools and churches will have music stores for fund raisers. Let em go for it and offer all the choices they want. Might be as profitable as the lottery.
But, after Apple has shown the competition how to put all the parts together for a successful integrated offering, don't go screwing up the original. Make your own. It's not about "choice", it's about money and companies that can't understand how it's done AFTER Apple has shown them how to do it don't have much to offer except problems. They are too cheap, lazy or greedy to do their own and they are going to be too cheap, lazy or greedy to make their music store offering at the same quality level as Apples. That means they want to drag us into the same mess that PCs are in.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:39 am Subject: One Comment, Kinda Off-Topic
I have only one comment after thinking about this Real stuff recently.
Apple needs to do better than 128Kbps. I don't need 192, like Real's store offers. 160 would be fine, but 128 is a joke. To me, that's the only "real" thing Real has to offer.
If Apple/iTMS wants to stay the leader, they need to step up with better quality at this point.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:53 am Subject: Re: One Comment, Kinda Off-Topic
QuoteBilly K wrote:
I have only one comment after thinking about this Real stuff recently.
Apple needs to do better than 128Kbps. I don't need 192, like Real's store offers. 160 would be fine, but 128 is a joke. To me, that's the only "real" thing Real has to offer.
If Apple/iTMS wants to stay the leader, they need to step up with better quality at this point.
I agree (except I do want 192). 128 sounds noticably compressed. I encode all my CDs at 192, and when random play plays a "CD" track then an iTMS track, the difference is quite distinct.
I get tired of supposedly intelligent musings, like this article, that can't seem to deal with the whole story as it will break down their arguments into mindless mush. So instead, key facts are left out completely.
Dear author, you have not addressed the fact that the iPod actually supports a lot of formats in addition to AAC+Fairplay (MP3, AIFF, Apple Lossless, and more) which enable a lot of content from others, besides Apple, to be placed on the iPod. This includes content PURCHASED from Audible as well as AOL sessions.
You have not addressed the fact that Apple brought iPod support to Windows to broaden the market for it (first with MusicMatch who bites). Then Apple brought iTunes to Windows in order to better meet the needs of this larger market as demanded by it.
You have not addressed the fact that Apple has done deals with other very large partners (ex. Pepsi, AOL, VW, BMW, etc.). These deals have now extended to include another device manufacturer, Motorola, to put music on cellphones.
All this in the first two years of iPod and one year of the iPod music store. During a time when Apple has had to make the world's first ever music store successful (others, like Real and Microsoft, are busy running around doing everything but make their stores successful) and open up international versions of their store (no small feat I'd guess).
So please spare us you limited view of a complex story. Apple is the only one that seems to know what to do to make a great digital music product these days while also creating a successful digital music business partnering with others. So what if they don't have an open licensing model for FairPlay?
QuoteGuest wrote:
I get tired of supposedly intelligent musings, like this article, that can't seem to deal with the whole story as it will break down their arguments into mindless mush. So instead, key facts are left out completely.
Dear author, you have not addressed the fact that the iPod actually supports a lot of formats in addition to AAC+Fairplay (MP3, AIFF, Apple Lossless, and more) which enable a lot of content from others, besides Apple, to be placed on the iPod. This includes content PURCHASED from Audible as well as AOL sessions.
You have not addressed the fact that Apple brought iPod support to Windows to broaden the market for it (first with MusicMatch who bites). Then Apple brought iTunes to Windows in order to better meet the needs of this larger market as demanded by it.
You have not addressed the fact that Apple has done deals with other very large partners (ex. Pepsi, AOL, VW, BMW, etc.). These deals have now extended to include another device manufacturer, Motorola, to put music on cellphones.
All this in the first two years of iPod and one year of the iPod music store. During a time when Apple has had to make the world's first ever music store successful (others, like Real and Microsoft, are busy running around doing everything but make their stores successful) and open up international versions of their store (no small feat I'd guess).
So please spare us you limited view of a complex story. Apple is the only one that seems to know what to do to make a great digital music product these days while also creating a successful digital music business partnering with others. So what if they don't have an open licensing model for FairPlay?
Good post, Guest. Plus, don't forget the other (big, big) shoe about to drop - HP.
So, let's see, we've got Apple, windows, HP, AOL, Motorola and MP3 on board - all within about a year. Yeah - the iPod is OBVIOUSLY a closed-system. But apparently consumers can see what thses "analysts" can't.
I hate ignorance.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:33 am Subject: real uses wma format?
"So, Real tried a different tack; it figured out a way to crash Apple's iTunes party, and allow iPod owners to load music from Real's own music store, or any downloaded music that uses Microsoft's Windows Media format, onto their iPods."
i thought real would use real music file format not wma format as that is their own design, am i off?
i'll bet that using this software converts the music to mp3 and using anapod you could then extract the file and use it unincomberred by drm!! cool. smooth move real!
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:58 am Subject: Re: Guest
QuoteGuest wrote:
I get tired of supposedly intelligent musings, like this article, that can't seem to deal with the whole story as it will break down their arguments into mindless mush. So instead, key facts are left out completely.
Dear author, you have not addressed the fact that the iPod actually supports a lot of formats in addition to AAC+Fairplay (MP3, AIFF, Apple Lossless, and more) which enable a lot of content from others, besides Apple, to be placed on the iPod. This includes content PURCHASED from Audible as well as AOL sessions.
You have not addressed the fact that Apple brought iPod support to Windows to broaden the market for it (first with MusicMatch who bites). Then Apple brought iTunes to Windows in order to better meet the needs of this larger market as demanded by it.
You have not addressed the fact that Apple has done deals with other very large partners (ex. Pepsi, AOL, VW, BMW, etc.). These deals have now extended to include another device manufacturer, Motorola, to put music on cellphones.
All this in the first two years of iPod and one year of the iPod music store. During a time when Apple has had to make the world's first ever music store successful (others, like Real and Microsoft, are busy running around doing everything but make their stores successful) and open up international versions of their store (no small feat I'd guess).
So please spare us you limited view of a complex story. Apple is the only one that seems to know what to do to make a great digital music product these days while also creating a successful digital music business partnering with others. So what if they don't have an open licensing model for FairPlay?
I did not address those things because I did not think it was directly related to the story at hand, which is Real Networks attempts to open Apple's DRM.
If I wanted to include those things I would have, but why bring in all of that other stuff when it would only add very little to the topic?
As I said in the column, licensing FairPlay could be a boon to the iPod for the reasons I listed; that Apple has already done things to expand the iPod/iTunes' reach is a side bar at best, unless you are want to get into an in-depth arguement about whether Apple should bother opening up FairPlay, which was not my intention.
My intention was to point out that Harmony works (sorta) and that Apple's objections to licensing FairPlay may not have been considered fully, and to get reader's thinking about whether it's a good thing for Apple or not. Judging from the posts, I'd say that readers are thinking about it. So I met my objective.
I don't mind criticism, but I think yours missed the mark.
I do thank you, however, for adding your points to the conversation.
Vern Seward
QuoteBilly K wrote:
I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking, or being argumentative for argument's sake, but your article is titled "Should the iPod/itunes Club Be Exclusive?"
It's not. Not be a longshot.
No, no such thoughts here.
And I guess, when I came up with that title, I should have referenced DRM, so I stand corrected. I'll see if I can get the title changed to something more appropriate.
Thanks.
Vern Seward
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
So please spare us you limited view of a complex story.
Oh, please: Spare us your pompous and pretentious, yet anonymous, criticisms.
None of your points take anything at all away from the thoughts and issues raised by Vern. That your own post contains errors and irrelevant points makes it all the more annoying.
Learn how to criticize and discuss without resorting to being an ass.
Bryan
Editor
TMO
Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:44 pm Subject: Re: But, Vern...
QuoteBilly K wrote:
I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking, or being argumentative for argument's sake, but your article is titled "Should the iPod/itunes Club Be Exclusive?"
It's not. Not be a longshot.
Hey Billy, while I see what you are getting at, I think the argument can be made that iPod/iTunes is exclusive. The iPod won't play downloads from other DRM-based services, and iTunes downloads can't be played on anything but the iPod, and soon iTunes-enabled phones.
That's a form of exclusivity, though whether or not Apple is following the right path is really a different discussion. For the purposes of Vern's column, however, there's only so much you can say in the title.
Thanks, as always, for the comment.
Bryan
Editor
TMO
I think APPL will break Harmony. They have no choice. If they don't, then soon every music store will sell to the iPod, the #1 player. This will weaken APPL's position as the #1 store for D/L's. Which means that no one will be able to negotiate a better deal with the labels. The music store is potentially a huge business, bigger than the iPod. Five or ten years from now, APPL could be selling billions of songs/year. Without having to manufacture anything, just run some servers. But the $plit needs to be flipped.
-Zato
QuoteBryan wrote:
Hey Billy, while I see what you are getting at, I think the argument can be made that iPod/iTunes is exclusive. The iPod won't play downloads from other DRM-based services, and iTunes downloads can't be played on anything but the iPod, and soon iTunes-enabled phones.
That's a form of exclusivity, though whether or not Apple is following the right path is really a different discussion. For the purposes of Vern's column, however, there's only so much you can say in the title.
Thanks, as always, for the comment.
Bryan
Editor
TMO
To be fair, doesn't that make the Dell DJ, Rio, iRiver (etc., etc.) exclusive, as well? They don't play AAC (the #1 legally donloaded format). And I could be wrong, but I don't think they all play OGG Vorbis, either.
I guess my point is, I think we've been trained, as Apple fans, to think of "our stuff" as exclusive, and "their stuff" (the Wintel world) as not. But in this case, aren't they just as "exclusive" as we are?
Like I said before, I don't mean to be overly critical, but I think Apple deserves some support for opening up, when we all know it's a difficult thing for them to do (Sheesh - sounds like I'm talking about a relationship, here!).
I've been really disappointed that most of the mainstream media coverage of iPod/iTMS has missed so many of these points. I would hate for us - the Apple loyalists - to do the same. Somebody's got to get the word out.
Thanks,
-BK
Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:31 pm Subject: Re: Speckled speculation:
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
The music store is potentially a huge business, bigger than the iPod. Five or ten years from now, APPL could be selling billions of songs/year. Without having to manufacture anything, just run some servers.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. The meat and potatoes of this whole deal will always be the iPods. Apple makes close to no profits selling songs at a buck a piece, and on top of that, music piracy will always be around and probably one step ahead of whatever restrictions companies put on their players (kind of like spammers, virus writers, etc are always one step ahead of the spam blockers and virus updates). So while I think that the store will definitely stay on, as less and less people want CDs and instead will want the convenience of ordering online, I do not think that iTMS will overtake the iPod itself, or even become as huge as you say it will. People will come to find music through cheaper means and there is a cieling to hit in terms of number of songs available that people will actually want.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:45 pm Subject: iPod Not a Long-term Thing
Quotespxyu02 wrote:
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. The meat and potatoes of this whole deal will always be the iPods. Apple makes close to no profits selling songs at a buck a piece, and on top of that, music piracy will always be around and probably one step ahead of whatever restrictions companies put on their players (kind of like spammers, virus writers, etc are always one step ahead of the spam blockers and virus updates). So while I think that the store will definitely stay on, as less and less people want CDs and instead will want the convenience of ordering online, I do not think that iTMS will overtake the iPod itself, or even become as huge as you say it will. People will come to find music through cheaper means and there is a cieling to hit in terms of number of songs available that people will actually want.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
Sound familiar?
The iPod will cease to make money for Apple in five to ten years. It's called commoditization. Eventally, there will be a basic formula for making a decent MP3 player, and they will get really, really cheap. just like what happened with the Walkman. They started at $200. In ten years, you could get one for $20.
Same thing with PCs. Dell makes like a nickel off their boxes. Same thing that happened to DVD players. Profts are down to a few buck per unit. But DVD manufacturers are raking it in - as are the people who hold the patents to the DVD format.
Apple's not going to make any money off $50 or $100 iPods. What they'll make money off in the future is licensing - that is, licensing Fairplay. THAT'S why they're so upset with Real. Apple is trying to dominate the market on digital song delivery and the format it's delivered in. Right now, the iPod is what's giving them a good shot at it.
Yea, I do see your point about the iPods becoming cheaper and how then apple well make less and less money off of each iPod sold. I still think, however, that even the licensing isn't gonna get them that far because of all the ways that we will continue to use peer-to-peer programs to "trade" music with each other and things of that nature. If there comes a point where the iPod will only play iTMS and iTMS licensed types of songs and no longer play an mp3 you ripped from a cd or "borrowed" from a friend, then maybe the iTMS will bring in the big bucks. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but overall music downloads (from kazaa etc) still dwarft legit music sales.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:28 pm Subject: RE: spxyu02
Quotespxyu02 wrote:QuoteAnonymous wrote:
The music store is potentially a huge business, bigger than the iPod. Five or ten years from now, APPL could be selling billions of songs/year. Without having to manufacture anything, just run some servers.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. The meat and potatoes of this whole deal will always be the iPods. Apple makes close to no profits selling songs at a buck a piece, and on top of that, music piracy will always be around and probably one step ahead of whatever restrictions companies put on their players (kind of like spammers, virus writers, etc are always one step ahead of the spam blockers and virus updates). So while I think that the store will definitely stay on, as less and less people want CDs and instead will want the convenience of ordering online, I do not think that iTMS will overtake the iPod itself, or even become as huge as you say it will. People will come to find music through cheaper means and there is a cieling to hit in terms of number of songs available that people will actually want.
I absolutely agree; there's little blood to squeeze from that rock. Apple has all sorts of opportunities to make money off the iPod and its possible progeny. The potential for the iPod to become another Walk-man is very big. and there ain't nothing but money there.
So, while it is good if Apple can eek out a few cents on the songs they sell, the iPod is where the real money is.
Vern Seward
Billy K wrote:
"Apple's not going to make any money off $50 or $100 iPods. What they'll make money off in the future is licensing - that is, licensing Fairplay. THAT'S why they're so upset with Real. Apple is trying to dominate the market on digital song delivery and the format it's delivered in. Right now, the iPod is what's giving them a good shot at it."
Why make a penny or two per D/L through Fairplay licensing, when (if they can get a better deal from the labels) they could make 50 cents per D/L? They already have 70% of the market. A year from now, after the Moto and HP sales are added, it could be 80%. How much could they possibly make from licensing the remaining 20%?
-Zato
QuoteBilly K wrote:
Sound familiar?
The iPod will cease to make money for Apple in five to ten years. It's called commoditization. Eventally, there will be a basic formula for making a decent MP3 player, and they will get really, really cheap. just like what happened with the Walkman. They started at $200. In ten years, you could get one for $20.
Same thing with PCs. Dell makes like a nickel off their boxes. Same thing that happened to DVD players. Profts are down to a few buck per unit. But DVD manufacturers are raking it in - as are the people who hold the patents to the DVD format.
Apple's not going to make any money off $50 or $100 iPods. What they'll make money off in the future is licensing - that is, licensing Fairplay. THAT'S why they're so upset with Real. Apple is trying to dominate the market on digital song delivery and the format it's delivered in. Right now, the iPod is what's giving them a good shot at it.
And that's a good point too, but I will have to say that Apple can make money on a $50 iPod when things get cheap enough for them to produce a $50 iPod. Also, to keep the margins up, Apple will add new features. Like the basic $20 Walkman is little more than a barely functioning hunk of plastic with the Walkman name, Apple would never (I hope) produce such a thing. The technology (cassette) was a dead one so Sony moved on to CDs and continued to make money. Apple will do the same thing with the iPod. While the MP3 player will almost certainly become a commodity, the iPod will most likely NOT, if Apple plays its cards right. Innovation is the trump card here, my friend, and Apple will need to use it to keep the iPod brand name something that people will want to pay top dollar for.
Vern Seward
Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:28 pm Subject: Re: Exclusivity is a 2-Way Street
QuoteBilly K. wrote:
To be fair, doesn't that make the Dell DJ, Rio, iRiver (etc., etc.) exclusive, as well? They don't play AAC (the #1 legally donloaded format). And I could be wrong, but I don't think they all play OGG Vorbis, either.
That's absolutely right, or more or less. You can play downloads from MusicMatch on the Rio, the Dell DJ, etc., but they are all exclusive to MS's Windows Media format. Any DRM-based scheme is exclusive by nature, even if it is licensed out to (select) third parties. something that iTMS's initial critics willfully ignored when saying that WMA was some sort of "standard."
The only thing that makes Apple's exclusivity important enough to discuss is the company's commanding lead in both players and downloads.
Why must Apple open up DRM? They made the investment, they took the risk and now they are reaping the benifits. I see this like a man who goes to a casino and loses all his money (Real), then when he sees someone spend a fair amount and hit it big (Apple), he demands to get a share of the winnings. Not fair Real. Go wither and die, you're an embarrasment to the enitre PNW.
Aren’t we all armchair CEOs ? It’s all very nice and challenging to find arguments for and against Apple’s position in this matter. The one thing most people agree on, however, is that Realnetworks is a deadbeat trying to get rich quick riding on the coattails of the innovator.
Now, Vern, I disagree with you when you seem to imply that because Real came up with their (dis)Harmony PoS, Apple needs to license FairPlay. Of course, SJ said that the iTMS doesn’t make any money, but let’s not forget that this is all part of the Reality Distotion Filed: I’m pretty confident that, even if the money isn’t very big, it IS there. The big investment is now made: the software is written, and it only needs updates; the store has been built, and, as it grows, will need a few more investments to accommodate the growth, but the catalog is expanding, and sales are increasing, while expenses are slowing down: the money inflow is therefore increasing--the more downloads, the better margins. When downloads start coming at 10 million a week or more, the iTMS is going to really rake it in (even at 10-15 ў/song: 1-1.5 M$ per week …). The iPod, however, has a very limited life expectancy, like all hardware. In our day and age, in this domain, three years is a lifetime, and the shelves in Cupertino had better be stocked with the new insanely great thing that will replace it. Licensing FairPlay to hardware manufacturers (HP and MOT) is OK, but to SOFTWARE ? No way, all of a sudden, Microsoft would be buying one of the licensees and that would be the end of it: the features would be incorporated into WMA right away …
Seems to me that Apple needs to keep everything proprietary for a while, as long as the iPod is successful, and until the iTMS reaches a “critical mass†which makes it a real money-maker. Let’s not forget that MP 5 is on the drawing board already, anyway, and that, like AAC is now, it will be an even better compression format, and that 128-bit will sound nearly like CD-quality
and all that with FairPlay …
If Fairplay was licensed, at every online music store you would get a choice, WMA, Real, AAC or Appl or something like that. It would be similar to the choice you get at a movie site, Real, WMP, Quicktime. There would be no domination by any brand. You would just choose the DRMed format that your player uses. No advantage for Apple there.
Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:16 am Subject: RE: Jacrav
Quotejacrav wrote:
Now, Vern, I disagree with you when you seem to imply that because Real came up with their (dis)Harmony PoS, Apple needs to license FairPlay. Of course, SJ said that the iTMS doesn’t make any money, but let’s not forget that this is all part of the Reality Distotion Filed: I’m pretty confident that, even if the money isn’t very big, it IS there. The big investment is now made: the software is written, and it only needs updates; the store has been built, and, as it grows, will need a few more investments to accommodate the growth, but the catalog is expanding, and sales are increasing, while expenses are slowing down: the money inflow is therefore increasing--the more downloads, the better margins. When downloads start coming at 10 million a week or more, the iTMS is going to really rake it in (even at 10-15 ў/song: 1-1.5 M$ per week …).
I believe you totally missed my point: It is NOT because Real came up with Harmony that I advocate for Apple to license FairPlay. As I said in the last paragraph; Real may get Apple to rethink its licensing stance; Real may be the catalyst, but not Harmony in or of itself. I believe the licensing FairPlay is a good idea. Perhaps I should have also said that I believe Apple should do what it can to make Harmony the biggest pain in the rear to use.
I also said in my column that by licensing FairPlay, iTMS may benefit too through increased iPod sales creating more potential iTMS customers.
Also, It is not the iPod device that Apple need be concerned about, it is the iPod name; the device change as technology changes, but the iPod name should become so common that people use it to refer to listening to music on the go. Again, licensing FairPlay could help that effort.
As for archair-CEOing, absolutely! What? Are we suppose to not discuss something because Apple may not like the subject?
Vern Seward
I have been struggling with this for the past month, but I have come to the conclusion the WMA the format is inherently evil. I mean, "WMA", it just sounds creepy, kind of like a way of killing someone. 'Weapons of Mass Autonomy" Oh yes. Now, AAC sounds much cooler and calmer, like "Awesome Audio Coolness" Much better. AAC even has a pretty sweet logo. I mean, come on. I think that to give the iPod WMA support is silly, Apple will never do it. I don't think there is any current software that allows Macs to play DRM'd WMA files. This came to my attention when I inadvertently downloaded a DRM'd WMA file from LimeWire. Oh, LimeWire, how I love you. Yet I also use iTMS. I absolutely love it. I even wrote to Mossberg himself, in reply to my letter of how Mac users have limiuted choices for legal music online. He said not to fret, as iTMS is surely the best.
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/
Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:21 am Subject: aac is cooler.
Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.
Recent Headlines - Updated November 8th
- Sun, 11:59 AM
- Mac Geek Gab Podcast - MGG 226: Magic Mouse, Apple Battery Secrets, Q&A
- Sat, 7:58 PM
- News - Apple TV 3.0.1 Update Fixes Missing Content Bug
- Fri, 7:45 PM
- Rumor - Taiwan Leak Shows Verizon UTMS/CDMA iPhone for Q3 2010
- 6:40 PM
- News - iPhone Moves Into RadioShack
- 6:30 PM
- News - Apple to Open Stunning Paris Apple Store in Le Louvre on Saturday
- 5:43 PM
- Free on iTunes - Dictionary, Dictionary, Dictionary, And More
- 4:09 PM
- John Martellaro's Blog - Particle Debris (week ending 11/6) Failure IS an Option
- 3:32 PM
- Games - The Latest App Store Games: Gravity Sling, RocketBird, Ground Effect, Checkers!
- 2:25 PM
- Games - Star Soccer 2010 for Mac Puts Gamers in Role of Up-and-Coming Player
- 2:15 PM
- How-To - The Mysteries of Rosetta Housekeeping
- 1:33 PM
- News - iPhone Game Developer Sued for Collecting User’s Cell Numbers
- 1:17 PM
- Games - Warhammer Online Expands Trial Play Option
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- TypeStyler For Mac OS X is Now Shipping! Download The Free Fully Functional 60 Day Tryout at www.typestyler.com
RamJet Memory: Mac Pro 8-core 8GB Kit $199.99, 4GB Kits $109.99! Sale on MacBook and MacBook Pro 8GB kits $549.99! New MacBook DDR3 2GB for $49.99. iMac and Mac mini 4GB Kits for $79.99! 1TB SATA Hard Drives for $109.99! Click here
OWC: We Make DIY Upgrading Easy! Maximize your Apple MacBook / MacBook Pro. Up to 8.0GB Memory, up to 1.0TB HD & More. Easy Guide + Free, Detailed Installation Videos. Click here
If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Full Tilt Poker for Mac. This Full Tilt Poker bonus code does the unthinkable, it actually rewards!For the latest Apple products use Ciao, a price comparison website, to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate mobile phones like the Apple iPhone.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
