Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
French 'iTunes' Law Passed
- Thread starter edcrosay
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jahutch said:
I understand your explanation however the opinion you make about Apple having a fear to compete I disagree with for software development reasons.
You see, Apple has had almost complete freedom to change their technology on the fly as they improve their product line. Many who have purchased just before new product releases complain about this but this is the nature of rapid development.
I think Apple just wants to maintain control over the entire solution. Apple wants to avoid this scenario: Making agreements with competetive music player manufacturers (who invest heavily in being compatibly with iTMS), then releasing an update that is NOT compatible with those music players. Apple can easily maintain compatibility with iPod because they control the software in the iPod. Apple does not control the software in other music players so how can Apple assure these companies compatibility in the future?
Being compatible with other music players involves the whole interface Apple has with iPod that not only trasfers songs but updates play counts, downloads pictures from iPhoto, postcasts, and TV shows. Later movies. So anyone buying another music player is not even going to get all of the features iPods have. If third party developers create solutions they will still only offer limited features.
The only way for other hardware manufacturers to compete with Apple is to do everything Apple does (create their own iTunes). Anything less and THEY are not competing.
gauchogolfer said:
First, the market at issue is the music download market, not the music market as a whole. True, one can always purchase CDs, but in my mind, as well as a lot of others (including, apparently, the French government), CDs are a VERY different product than a music download. Given this, music downloads are properly considered a SEPARATE market from CDs. In this separate market, iTMS is close to achieving near monopoly status. You are correct the iPod came first, but what came first doesn't matter. iTMS has the near-monopoly, iPod, while a market leader, decidedly doesn't. Thus, Apple is using its strong market position with iTMS to further push for iPod's domination of the mp3 player market. That's my view of it anyway!
dmsgregg:
I don't see how licensing FairPlay would limit Apple. Apple would be free to upgrade iPod, to upgrade iTunes, and so on as they wish. So long as whatever encoding scheme is used to enforce the DRM, other players with FairPlay would continue to be compatible. If Apple did change FairPlay, they'd simply provide the changed version to their licensees who could put it in a firmware patch. Innovation issues come up with other kinds of licensing, but not with licensing a DRM scheme.
I don't see how licensing FairPlay would limit Apple. Apple would be free to upgrade iPod, to upgrade iTunes, and so on as they wish. So long as whatever encoding scheme is used to enforce the DRM, other players with FairPlay would continue to be compatible. If Apple did change FairPlay, they'd simply provide the changed version to their licensees who could put it in a firmware patch. Innovation issues come up with other kinds of licensing, but not with licensing a DRM scheme.
iPod + iTunes is different than windows + ie. ipod + iTunes IS one product, every single advertisment, and I mean ALL of them say " iPod + iTunes." If you buy into one of them you have absolutely no right to complain, you did buy into both.
Well considering the music stores are very US centric (i'm not complaining as it's a US company) we don't have TV shows yet, music videos are abysmal and have not been updated in a while. Music is crappy quality 128kbps I couldn't care less, now if I can play WMA or Ogg files on my iPod that would be cool, and if I could play the odd purchased song on another player that would be pretty good also.
I dont see this as a bad thing, in fact it may even enable a couple of the other media player manufacturers to support the Macintosh platform which is good!
Oh while i am on my soap box, another gripe I have with the store....... WHY THE HELL CAN I NOT PURCHASE SONGS FROM THE GERMANY / FRENCH / PAN EU store????????!!!!!!!
My RIGHTS as a EU citizen state that I can purchase anything anywhere anytime in any state I have free movement and are able to live / work in any state, so why am I restricted to the UK store because my bank is a UK bank ???
I am able to order cd's and dvd's from amazon.de or fnac.fr and have them delivered in 2 / 3 days.
Anyway, Apple have created a very sucessful business model out of their closed DRM and iPod, It seems a little they don't want anyone taking a piece of that, and why should they??? but they have to be careful of the line when they stop thinking of the consumer.
I dont see this as a bad thing, in fact it may even enable a couple of the other media player manufacturers to support the Macintosh platform which is good!
Oh while i am on my soap box, another gripe I have with the store....... WHY THE HELL CAN I NOT PURCHASE SONGS FROM THE GERMANY / FRENCH / PAN EU store????????!!!!!!!
My RIGHTS as a EU citizen state that I can purchase anything anywhere anytime in any state I have free movement and are able to live / work in any state, so why am I restricted to the UK store because my bank is a UK bank ???
I am able to order cd's and dvd's from amazon.de or fnac.fr and have them delivered in 2 / 3 days.
Anyway, Apple have created a very sucessful business model out of their closed DRM and iPod, It seems a little they don't want anyone taking a piece of that, and why should they??? but they have to be careful of the line when they stop thinking of the consumer.
Other issues aside, I don't even understand why the French government is trying to "solve" this "problem."
iTMS is a great online music store. Revenue is coming in where there was piracy before. The iPod is a great music player, and it is fairly priced. Plenty of people buy iPods without even using iTMS or using iTMS as a deciding purchase factor. Sure, there's some restriction in choice, but the customer doesn't really end up sore in the end. And Apple deserves to get boosted iPod sales, as iTMS really isn't a profit-generating machine, and Apple took the time and risk to develop and implement this DRM solution.
I don't think that Apple's done anything wrong, but even if it has - nothing bad's really happening. You get some sore people at Rio and Sony, but the average customer's just fine. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Go address other more important and customer-damaging monopolies.
iTMS is a great online music store. Revenue is coming in where there was piracy before. The iPod is a great music player, and it is fairly priced. Plenty of people buy iPods without even using iTMS or using iTMS as a deciding purchase factor. Sure, there's some restriction in choice, but the customer doesn't really end up sore in the end. And Apple deserves to get boosted iPod sales, as iTMS really isn't a profit-generating machine, and Apple took the time and risk to develop and implement this DRM solution.
I don't think that Apple's done anything wrong, but even if it has - nothing bad's really happening. You get some sore people at Rio and Sony, but the average customer's just fine. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Go address other more important and customer-damaging monopolies.
jahutch said:
Should Apple do the same for iPhoto? How about iMovie and TV Shows? If the French government is only talking about music, then it is just a part of the iTunes package. My point is the playing of music is only a feature of the iTunes+iPod solution. Consumers are missing out on all the other features of iTunes by using other players. Do they know that? For example, if I play an audiobook on my iPod and stop in the middle, then sync with iTunes, it remembers where I left off in iTunes so I can play the rest on my computer. This stuff is not going to work with other players because they don't control the software on the computer.
Apple made it difficult for people to copy music by allowing it to only play on 5 computers using iTunes. If DRM is opened up for other players besides iTunes will that rule still be in effect? Who will enforce it? What if a company creates a music player like iTunes but allows unlimited computers to play the songs?
It gets more complicated and governments just don't understand the technology enough. Goverments just need to stay out of it and let technology run its course. By the time a solution is made the software will change. The hardware will change. Standards will change. What ultimately drives everything is (like I said in the first article) supple and demand.
For now people who want to play iTunes songs on other players will just have to burn a CD and import it into another desktop player designed for other music players.
well its just not right, music should not be imposed upon by the shop and sold in a way that restricts its use. you can say apple have done nothing wrong and to be honest they have done something right by saying 99c a song, but all in all this is a really cheap way of getting people to buy an iPod. admit it
HGW said:
The music files are stored on the hard drive. Who will stop someone from creating software with no limitations from turning iTunes music into free downloads on the internet like Napster?
dmsgregg said:
Most of your concerns deal with other companies reverse engineering / changing FairPlay. That wouldn't be permitted, indeed, it may not even be possible. If iRiver licenses FairPlay, they are licensing it as is. The license would not permit changing the number of computers allowed, etc. You'd get FairPlay as is, almost as a "plugin." And everyone knows iPod will have the most features when it comes to working with iTunes. I think most people just want basic functionality with their other players - e.g., the ability to transfer iTMS songs to an iRiver player and listen to them.
jahutch said:
I think my main concern is setting a precedence that would put Apple in the position indirectly supporting other manufacturers and catering to more and more requests to interface with iTunes in order to take advantage of Apple's market share. Apple already offers a developer kit for integration with iTunes. See http://www.kaisakura.com/dreamsicle.html. If this works for the Sony Walkman Phone, then I don't see the problem. The government must want Apple to make iTunes work with every device, but it is the hardware manufacturers responsibility to develop the software.
NickCharles said:
Whatever. I'd like to see what you have to say abou this after the iTunes Music Store is classified as a virtual monopoly and/or after a couple of Microsoft style anti-trust lawsuits are filed. Sorry buddy but Apple is not above the law.
Time to move the stuff.......
I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs has been kissing up to Le French in nearly every Macworld presentation, talking to some guy with a picture of the Eiffel Tower in the background. And then, he gets bit in the a++ by them.
We needed their help dealing with Iraq and the USA got bit in the a++ by them.
Who was dealing in the oil for food program behind our backs? Guess.....
My dad got mustard gassed in a foxhole in France while trying to save there sorry a++es in WWI and then, dummy us, we did it again in WWII.
France sucks.
Take your music store out of France, sell them no iPods and forget about them. You will survive without France Apple.
I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs has been kissing up to Le French in nearly every Macworld presentation, talking to some guy with a picture of the Eiffel Tower in the background. And then, he gets bit in the a++ by them.
We needed their help dealing with Iraq and the USA got bit in the a++ by them.
Who was dealing in the oil for food program behind our backs? Guess.....
My dad got mustard gassed in a foxhole in France while trying to save there sorry a++es in WWI and then, dummy us, we did it again in WWII.
France sucks.
Take your music store out of France, sell them no iPods and forget about them. You will survive without France Apple.
I think the primary reason I have a hard time following this argument/law/whatever is that it's (apparently) seperating the online music market from the offline market.
The way I see it, iTMS is used primarily because it's easy, efficient, and immediate (versus buying in real life, which takes time to find the cd/vinyl, etc.). All online music stores are used because of this ease, as I'm pretty sure most people would prefer to have a hard copy of a disc somewhere.
That being said, I dont really think what Apple has done is "wrong" in any sense of the word: it's pretty much widespread knowledge that if you purchase music from iTunes, you can only play it on an iPod. I guarantee it's somewhere in the contract that you "sign" when you purchase music at the store, and for people to get upset because their Zen player or whatever can't play songs they buy from iTMS is just kind of silly.
If there's such a huge market for a breadth of music downloads which can be played on other players, why aren't the other businesses successful? The beauty of a free market is that competition naturally drives progression, and consumers are always looking for the best deal.
It's almost like people getting mad at hybrid cars that can use mixtures of fuel (thereby getting more mileage): if you want to ride the slide, you have to pay to enter the park.
Besides, you can always just listen to the music on your computer
.
The way I see it, iTMS is used primarily because it's easy, efficient, and immediate (versus buying in real life, which takes time to find the cd/vinyl, etc.). All online music stores are used because of this ease, as I'm pretty sure most people would prefer to have a hard copy of a disc somewhere.
That being said, I dont really think what Apple has done is "wrong" in any sense of the word: it's pretty much widespread knowledge that if you purchase music from iTunes, you can only play it on an iPod. I guarantee it's somewhere in the contract that you "sign" when you purchase music at the store, and for people to get upset because their Zen player or whatever can't play songs they buy from iTMS is just kind of silly.
If there's such a huge market for a breadth of music downloads which can be played on other players, why aren't the other businesses successful? The beauty of a free market is that competition naturally drives progression, and consumers are always looking for the best deal.
It's almost like people getting mad at hybrid cars that can use mixtures of fuel (thereby getting more mileage): if you want to ride the slide, you have to pay to enter the park.
Besides, you can always just listen to the music on your computer
.finalcoolman said:
Apple is not breaking the law. Apple created a huge market and now companies want a piece of Apples market.
Napster was breaking the law. The Apple DRM helped solve that problem for music companies.
iTunes lets you burn a CD which in effect is the same as purchasing a CD to do whatever you wish and like I said before there are companies writing software to interface with iTunes and transfer music to other devices.
it wouldnt be a problem if it was something apple had created, but its not its music and music at the end of the day belongs to the user creater whoever
the french realise this and have done their best to give us more use from it
forget how well apple are doing, they are really that good most people will still want an iPod to go with their iTunes.
wheres the problem
looks like the rest of europe are set to follow france. stupid fanboys
(run on mac without windows, same thing)
the french realise this and have done their best to give us more use from it
forget how well apple are doing, they are really that good most people will still want an iPod to go with their iTunes.
wheres the problem
looks like the rest of europe are set to follow france. stupid fanboys
(run on mac without windows, same thing)
Saxking20 said:
You mean the French actually tried to solve the problem instead of immediately killing thousands of people and starting a civil war that is not going to end in the coming decades?
Saxking20 said:
The USA and a couple of other countries, including France. But I suppose Fox News didn't tell you that.
Saxking20 said:
A lot of French soldiers fought for the independence of your country. The French helped the US every time they were in need. They even were so kind to tell your government that their intelligence services gathered that terrorists were planning an attack in New York and Washington, D.C. on 11 September 2001. However, your government decided that it was not in their best interest to prevent such an attack. I guess Fox News didn't tell you that either.
But then again, this is way off-topic. It is not relevant to the discussion at all. The point is that French lawmakers are attempting to prevent companies from imposing a vendor lock-in on consumers.
In my opinion, this is a necessary measure to remain a healthy market. I would, however, have preferred it if DRM was forbidden altogher. It is rather insane and it benefits only record companies, but not consumers and artists.
HGW said:
Quite simply, when you go to a store, whether it be physical or online, and buy music - you do not own the music. You pay for certain rights to the music. When you purchase a song from iTMS, you pay for the right to listen to the music on your computer or on an iPod, not for the right to play it on a Rio.
Licensing might be a way to help solve the problem with profits, but there are many extranalities that Apple is hurt by in the case of licensing. Good part with licensing is that Apple will turn profit from iTMS, just from the sales of rival music players in addition to the profit margins off sales from iPods. An extranality, though, would be that you'll have fewer people exposed to Apple, and therefore have a weaker 'halo effect'. (Yes, the 'halo effect' does occur.) And seeing as Apple makes about half of its profit off of computer hardware, and seeing as Apple has been seriously stepping up its attempt to become a serious competitor in that industry, fewer iPod sales (even though compensated partially through licensing revenues) will hurt the company.
rjgjonker said:
You just don't like it because you must pay for your music from ITMS instead of stealing it. That's what you are about. With ITMS, FINALLY the artists have a shot at getting paid.
No one is stopping you from going to a store and BUYING a CD for a change.