Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No, we live in a corporate controlled nightmare...but that's another topic.

I don't care if the pricing is the same. I'm still going to choose Apple because the total experience is better.

I wasn't talking about the price to the consumer. I was talking about the pricing that a content provider gets for providing the content to Apple or whoever.

If Microsoft offers Sony Studios a special deal where they get exclusive rights to their content in exchange for a higher price and or better distribution control, then Apple is excluded from providing this content.

The only way in your scenario for all content to be provided to all distribution companies would be if distribution terms, pricing, and control of the content were fixed. That just won't happen in a free economy and it shouldn't be allowed. It leads to either monopolistic pricing and or deterioration of the company that is restricted to fixed pricing.

In your original post you cite the failure of competition by providing the Cable TV industry, Satellite TV industry, and telephone industry as examples of high priced competition failures. Isn't it interesting that you have chosen all utilities that are subject to strict government control and protected market regions.

Now let's cite a true free market with strong competition, like electronic devices. Notice how performance of electronics keeps getting better and better and prices keep coming down. Some of the first IBM pc's were over $4000, contained 64K of memory, no HDD, monochrome graphics, ran 1 program at a time, which had to be reloaded after each power down, and contained 5" floppy drives that held 128K of data per disk.
 
Actually, you forgot a few:

NorthStar (Kentucky Fried Computer), Ohio Scientific, Smoke Signal Broadcasting, Corvus, Grid, Osborne, Altair, PolyMorphic, Cromemco, Atari, Sinclair, Amiga, Exidy, NEC, Radio Shack TRS (Trash) 80...

...and a whole lot more that I can't remember!

Apple IIGS, MSX, Sinclair ZX 80, Sinclair ZX Spectrum, countless Apple clones in other countries (including the famous Elppa II and Elppa II+)..! ;)
 
Apple will buy Adobe.....
More negative ratings from ignorant Mac zealots who fail to realize that competition is a good thing for consumers. That attitude is getting old.
Well, if competition from starts to eat away and outperform sales from iTunes, Apple may buy Adobe (or Adobe's Media Player branch) and then kill it off. Kinda like how it did back with PowerComputing :eek:



:p
 
Why would media companies pour X dollars into developing their own DRM if one exists that fits their needs?

If there was a software application out there that fit one of your needs, but you couldn't use it, would you spend money on education and training and develop your own application that you could use? Especially if there was an alternative that worked and also fit your requirements.

You're altering the premise, however. If Apple isn't making their DRM technology available to be licensed, then it doesn't fit "one of your needs" and it doesn't "fit your requirements" as a business. Your requirement is that it can be licensed. Apple doesn't offer it. Any business should take that into account prior to attempting digital content distribution. Just because Apple has a successful DRM implementation doesn't automatically mean it's yours for the taking. Since when does that happen in software?

I hear the arguments that Apple could make this easy on their partners for licensing their technology to others, but there's no precedent for this. There's no "right" and "wrong" way to do this. What I see is Apple putting in the hard work and funding their own R&D to create their DRM for their purposes and then others coming along and whining and bitching because they can't have access to it.
 
Is it just me, or do these seem like outrageous system requirements for a "lightweight" (Adobe's words) media player?

Mac OS (PowerPC)
PowerPC® G5 1.8GHz or faster processor
Mac OS X v10.4.9–10.4.11 or 10.5.1–10.5.2
1GB of RAM and 64MB of VRAM
Mac OS (Intel)
Intel Core™ Duo 1.33GHz or faster processor
Mac OS X v10.4.9–10.4.11 or 10.5.1–10.5.2
1GB of RAM and 64MB of VRAM

My dual 1.25GHz G4 can play 720p h.264s just fine in Quicktime, VLC, etc... but even the ads stutter and skip in Adobe Media Player. I've found nothing yet (worth watching, anyway) that will play. The audio stutters, and framerates seem to range from 1 to 12fps.

So, yeah, TiVo's still lookin' pretty good.

I have a mbp c2d 2.33 2gb and the to play these vids my cpu usage is over 120% !!!! way too much, thats more than a 720p on vlc!!!! they need to do some optomizations!

I like it though! its a good start! For everyone who complains they cant watch it on there tv!!! buy a cable, hook your comp to the tv!!!!!
 
Definitely. And I'm certainly not arguing against that. I'm just saying that I personally don't care one bit about being compatible with other non-Apple products. I'd prefer no DRM, but that's a pipe dream, so I'd rather just buy everything from one company so that I know it's always going to work. I choose Apple.
Fair enough.
Others might choose M$ or Adobe or whomever. Being able to buy media files from all these random online stores doesn't interest me. I just want the media companies to license everything to Apple (and M$ and Adobe), let each company apply its DRM, and then let the consumer decide which total experience is best.
That's fine. However, each company will be fighting for "exclusive" content to promote their store. You probably will never have all content available through all channels.
I don't want to get movies from Netflix or Amazon. I want to get them on my Apple TV. Netflix is never going to win me over as a customer because I can't watch their movies on my Apple TV. Likewise, I'm not going to use Amazon. I have a Tivo and I still don't use Amazon because I prefer the Apple user experience.
It seems that all of your arguments are only supporting your needs. Yes, Apple content will work on your Mac, your iPod, your iPhone, and your AppleTV...seamlessly. However, this isn't everyone's configuration. Not everyone has an AppleTV, iPhone, etc.

People are arguing that Apple should allow these other media companies to license their DRM so they can publish their content on the Mac as well. Just because you don't want Netflix or Amazon movies, doesn't mean that other people don't. Apple probably doesn't want this because it's competition that could take away sales/rentals from the iTMS (business is business).

As for me, I don't have an iPod, iPhone, or an AppleTV (though I'm really looking into one). I do have a Netflix account and I end up going through more than enough movies a month that the same rental cost off iTunes would be at least triple. I'm not going to go out and say Apple is evil unless they license its tech out to everyone and make plans to sue 'em or anything (that's just crazy talk). But hopefully something will eventually work out since Netflix offers free movie streaming with my subscription and it would be great to have the playback ability in OS X (would love to watch movies during lunch at work -- or during staff meeting con calls :p).
It seems like you're arguing for interoperable DRM. I'm not. I don't think that will ever happen. I'm simply arguing for each content provider - Apple, Netflix, Amazon - to get the same catalog and then let the consumer decide which combination of hardware and software best meets his or her needs. By not licensing all media to all companies, the media companies themselves are creating the frustration and, ultimately, the need to rip.
If anything, maybe a crossplatform unified DRM so any media company can release content for any system (something to what you were saying I think). Though, like you, I'd prefer no DRM. However, DRM exists because people still pirate the crap out of things -- which kinda kills it for the rest of us.
 
Actually, yes, I'm fine with Apple providing all of my media needs.
As long as they're not the only channel.
If M$ or Adobe want to create a closed loop system too, that's fine. The point is, for the user experience to be worth ANYTHING, the system must be closed.
Not necessarily true. There are many opensource projects that are great (there are a lot that are crap too).
That's why we use Macs, isn't it? We appreciate the vertical integration of the product: software and hardware from *one* integrated manufacturer. Everything works.
I use Macs because I like the Mac OS. I wouldn't care if I was running OS X on a HP, Sony, or Dell :eek: system as long as it ran the Mac OS (back when there were Mac clones, I bought those as well). People will be quick to point out issues with drivers and hardware compatibility if it's made by Apple, but I ran Windows on several different systems (for StarCraft, Half-Life, and at my other company) and I had no issues (sure there'll be some people with some issues, but I think general use -- email, web browsing, IM -- should be fine). How the hardware looks is also not important to me either.
Competition is over-rated. What has it brought? More expensive cable TV bills. More expensive satellite bills. Increased phone bills. Etc. I'm not seeing the price-lowering effects of competition when it comes to media and internet services, just balkanization and frustrated users.
As for cable/satellite TV, I think it's technology that's raised prices rather than competition. They feel they can charge you more if you want digital TV, HD channels, on demand, DVR capabilities, etc. I'm sure if there weren't different cable providers or satellite providerse, prices would be higher.

As for my phone bills. Each time I change carriers or plans, I get more features, more minutes, more capabilities, and pay less -- especially if I'm switching from one carrier to another.
I don't care one lick about interoperability. I'm an Apple customer. There's no product I'd rather buy. What I want is a *seamless* experience.
So you'll only by Apple products? That's a little silly. So I'm guessing your only digital camera is the Apple QuickTake 150?
And, if I can't get that, or I'm so confused by which file works on which product, which service supports which platform, etc., I'll just stick with buying CDs and ripping DVDs.
I've got many non-Apple products that work. I've got a Samsung monitor, Kenstington trackball ... oh wait, were you just referring to digital media?

Quite frankly, most of the media being produced today isn't worth all of this frustration. The music industry is churning out one garbage act after another and TV is so painfully bad that I can't believe I spend $70 a month on cable for the sake of two or three decent shows.
Can't quite argue with you there. Though, "quality" is a matter of perception. People think heavy metal is quality and I just can't listen to that stuff (though some are cool).
Apple's solution is elegant and simple, from the software (iTunes) to the hardware to the flat pricing model. If the media companies want me to buy more of their product, they need to make it available via Apple. If not, I'm not buying. Instead, I'm ripping or filesharing.
Hypothetical situation. One company and Apple are offering the same content, same quality, both work in iTunes, iPods/iPhones, and the AppleTV, but Apple's is twice as much (say no DRM on either), you would still buy from Apple?
 
It just seems to me that Adobe is now trying to do everything instead of just focusing on what they used to do best. The famous saying comes to mind:

"Jack of all trades, master of none."

I just wish they would focus more on their professional apps instead of stuff like this.

Totally agree - I'd be upset if a company I relied on to develop the professional software I need to do my job started concentrating on things like, oh I don't know - a phone?

For the record, Im not fussed either way - bring on the competition, it can only be good in the long run.
 
It really just needs to become like stores in person - everything should be available everywhere. No more of this studio exclusivity crap, DRM, and all this nonsense. It should be about everyone more or less selling the same thing but with different UI, and then trying to attract the consumer with hot deals, bundles, and other sales we've come to expect.

Anything that will stimulate the release of high quality, DRM Free music on iTunes is a good thing.
 
Aperture and Adobe-Apple relations?

So... when Aperture came out, wasn't Apple careful to let Adobe know that they weren't stepping on Adobe's toes, maintaining the good relation between the two companies? Why would Adobe go and try to do something that's not really that consistent with their own product line, attempting to bum some market away from iTunes? Well at least nothing will really dent iTunes' #1 spot in music sales.
 
Man! Adobe sure has it in for you, making your 3 year old CPU work hard. In order news, Leopard's media playback is more CPU consuming than Tiger's! Shocking!

Flash has always been CPU intensive on OS X. Blame Macromedia.


Yeah, except that Macromedia is now Adobe. The Macromedia folks still work there (for the most part), and even if they didn't when you buy a company you buy all their baggage too.

Adobe's Flash is crap on the Mac. By the way, it is also CPU-hogging crap on a brand new MacBook and a year-old MacBook Pro, oddly just as much so as on the G5, which leads me to believe it is intentionally sucking CPU cycles for busy work (otherwise the C2D would see a fraction of the CPU usage of my G5 tower).

In any case, Adobe's had the ball in their court long enough to do something about this, and it appears that they just don't care. Instead, they're trying to shoehorn Flash into the iPhone and talk Apple out of continuing to support Preview for PDF rendering. They're smart folks. It's not the first time in the history of the world smart folks made and distributed crap software. It's not even the first time it was done intentionally, if that is the case.
 
The apple T.V defenders are out on this thread.

Huh?

The Apple TV doesn't compete with this. The only light it can possibly shed here is as a positive for iTunes (the iTunes system allows for living room display through the Apple TV).

In other news, the Photoshop defenders are out on this thread.
 
People are arguing that Apple should allow these other media companies to license their DRM so they can publish their content on the Mac as well.
If Apple licensed its own DRM scheme, the record companies would not be forced to abondon DRM, as that is the only way they could push an alternative online music store to iTunes. Otherwise they would probably force Amazon sell songs with Apple's DRM or let Amazon's customers chose either Apple's or MS' DRM schemes when purchasing.

Online video is different, as renting or purchasing videos online is not really more convenient or cheaper than DVDs. However, I don't think Apple could license DRM just for videos, so I am glad it did not.
 
Why would Adobe go and try to do something that's not really that consistent with their own product line, attempting to bum some market away from iTunes? Well at least nothing will really dent iTunes' #1 spot in music sales.
This is probably more of a defense against MS' Silverlight than an attack against iTunes.
 
As unnecessary as this may seem for us Mac-only users, the cross platform nature and 1080p capability of this excite me greatly. Will have to hook my computer up to my TV soon.

I think Adobe may be putting themselves in an excellent position to define the standards for IPTV.

Thats great that you can watch video on your computer ... Generally speaking I DONT WANT to sit in my home office and watch video on my computer screen.

The next (possible) stage for Adobe would be to license the player to a multitude of set-top box manufacturers. Then anyone could build a box and play Adobe compliant content.

I believe this may be how the BBC will deliver cross platform iPlayer downloads.

Exactly. I wonder if lots of channels or networks could make an Adobe player feed... which could then play on Mac/Windows or any Adobe player compatible device.

(I guess the Adobe player device would also run AIR applications?)
 
Do we really need this? I appreciate the argument about cross-platform DRM, but seriously, do we *really* need this? How easily can I move this content to my iPod? I don't want to watch it on my computer. I want it on my TV screen. Apple TV lets me do this easily.

The media companies need to stop being so afraid of having a single gatekeeper. It's the only way to ensure a consistent user experience. Or *they* need to get together and define a standard and require all hardware and software manufacturers to adopt it - or get no media. By allowing all the tech companies to battle over how best for us to consume media, the media companies are alienating consumers and creating confusion.

I don't want *another* media player. I want a standard. And I want all this battling over formats, DRM, and all this other stuff to stop. Because, quite frankly, I don't think most of the media being produced today - be it crap television or even more crap music - is worth this much aggravation.
Welcome to the club, robbyx.
 
I keep getting an error message when I try to install it:(

I was able to install it on my Tiger partition on a Dual 1.8Ghz G5, but it will NOT install in Leopard! Probably same nondescript error message you got...

"Sorry an error has occurred.

This application cannot be installed because this installer has been mis-configured. Please contact the application author for assistance."

My Leopard drive has all the updates done on it.
Is it not compatible with Leopard or is Safari 3.1 the problem ???

Either way, poor Adobe. What a joke!

Update: Repaired disk permissions and tried again, no go.
Same error message. It appears that Adobe AIR has actually been installed, because that part of the installation process does not repeat, but the application itself will not finish installing. Same error message each time. Authentication? I'm at a loss for a reason, but I'm certainly not going to waste an entire day trying to figure it out, that's for sure.

Now how do I get rid of Adobe AIR since I cannot use Adobe Media Player!?!?!?

Absolutely pathetic Adobe. NEXT...
 
Totally agree - I'd be upset if a company I relied on to develop the professional software I need to do my job started concentrating on things like, oh I don't know - a phone?

For the record, Im not fussed either way - bring on the competition, it can only be good in the long run.

+1 I dread the day the iNocular line of stylish and easy to use brushed aluminum telescopes is announced by the company formerly known as Apple Computer. :apple: I'm glad Adobe has come out with a media player. Hopefully in a few years all this cmpetition will kill DRM once and for all. DRM harms paying customers, not pirates.
 
Ok, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. After uninstalling Adobe AIR from my main Leopard partition system, I made a 3rd attempt to install Adobe Media Player on another slimmed down Leopard 10.5.2 partition that I use as a backup and got this Adobe error message....

"The same version of the application you opened already exists on this system.

Would you like to run the version already installed?"

Of course, I've NOT INSTALLED it YET!

But it appears that once again Adobe AIR has installed from the installer process.
So I figured, hmmm, maybe I'll just copy Adobe Media Player from my Mac OS X 10.4 drive onto my Leopard drive and see what happens.

I get the error message... "This software requires Adobe AIR"!!!

What a cruel joke this is! I cannot believe no one else but a couple people are having this problem!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WAY TO GO ADOBE! :-(
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.