Microsoft, Apple and Digital Music Cooperation?

[Cysecool]

I hope Apple realizes that this is SSL all over again

I was just thinking that the situation that iTunes is in is very reminescent of Netscape back in 1995. They have a clear format adoption advantage and a much better curve for growth than anybody else. The Pepsi promotion and HP stuff pretty much lock up the market assuming they don't stumble.

So, the WORST thing they could do would be to make the system (iTunes/AAC) interoperable with WMA. This would be analogous to the idiotic tactic that Netscape engaged in by licensing SSL to Microsoft. Without the SSL interoperability, Netscape might have been able to hold on to market share much more aggressively because MS would have had to fight a standards war over electronic commerce instead of just assimilating the Netscape technology.

Similarly, if Apple can lure MS into a standards war, it will cost MS ten times the money to compete based on the adoption vector that iTunes has. Music assets are MUCH harder to switch from than bookmarks. MS will tire of this because the only way they could win is to cheat - i.e. use low level API changes to disrupt iTunes or push Media Player conversion deeper into the OS (i.e. more "product tying" - and they may be fresh out of "get out of jail free" cards.

I think Apple should go ahead and fight this out and then they will be in a position of strength. MS will adapt when they have to. They don't make money from Music - it is a potential market - and they can afford to write off a potential market or two.

Just my 2cents.

 

[kcmac]

quote:
Originally posted by frankly
I don't have an iPod so I can't test this theory. There was a quote by Phil Schiller saying that the DRM was built into iTunes so this may have some validity. The question is, does the DRM get stripped as the songs are transferred to the iPod OR does the iPod simply ignore the DRM???

Does anyone that has an iPod want to test the theory? Is so, copy some iTunes music store songs onto your iPod and then use the Terminal (or a free program) to transfer those songs back to your Mac and see if they are still protected.

Later, Frank

Posted by WASH
The DMR stays with the song no matter where it is I know cause I try to copy one song out of my ipod to my brothers ibook and after I copied it ask me to authenticate the song with my user/password when I try it told me that my 3 computer limit was used and I have to unauthorized one for the song to work with the ibook.

Cheers

With AAC format purchased from ITMS, you can burn onto a CD and import it to another computer encoding it as mp3. This removes the DMR and anyone can play it.

Someone tell me if you can take a DMR version of WMP and encode it to anything else. I don't think you can but I stand corrected if this is possible.

For anyone giving any kind of choice option scenario to M$ you have a short memory. Word processing used to be very easy when they were text documents.

Now of course they are ruled by .doc documents in the business world and even in for the home user. M$ has made .doc compatability a moving target and will keep doing so with their form of "open format XML". Yah sure it's open. (No other word processor on the planet has been able to read .doc at 100% compatability for complex docs with tables, etc. Even Office v.X for the mac falls short in those areas and this was designed by you know who.)

If M$ wins this format battle with WMP, it is extremely hard to imagine that they will let this format stay as it is. Sooner or later, we would all be bowing down to the WMP format which would then be the defacto standard, not an open one.

 

[the_mole1314]

Well, I remeber saying something like this a while ago about conversion of formats while keeping DRM. It seems like it might happen. But from the looks of it, it seems the music companies are pushing this, not Apple or M$. I bet we'll see something soon that'll convert files and save DRM, but why would you do it anyway? If you have all your files in WMA or AAC, why waste your time to convert them? I frankly think that it's going to be some BS software that'll never get used, just like the Add/Remove software program from Windows, nobody uses it since software comes with their own versions.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by X86BSD
Oh for christs sakes. I'm so sick of stupid moronic comments like "Microsoft stole the BSD networking layer (because BSD gave a bit too liberal of a license which allows MS to sell what BSD gave away)"

So which is it?? They stole it? Or they used code which was G-I-V-E-N A-W-A-Y??

If you leave a bike out in your front yard and someone walks off with it, which is it:

1) Someone stole it

2) You were stupid in leaving it out front.

The answer, of course, is both.

The BSD code was poorly licensed, although the intention of that licensing was NOT to have it sold as a part of a for-profit OS. This is, effectively, proven by the fact that to get the TCP/IP stack they had to buy a company which had licensed the stack from BSD.

IOW, yes, Microsoft was within their legal rights to use it, just like they were within their legal rights to fully emulate the Mac OS in 1995 because of a stupid deal signed by Apple in 1987.

"Stole", then, was a bit too extreme of a verb. "Used", though, would be a bit too understated. I'll have to consult my thesaurus before commenting next time.

Second MS BSD networking code came from a *company* that MS bought. That company just happened to have been using BSD licensed network code. Big Friggin Deal. That is what BSD code is there for. To be used. By anyone. For any reason. We're not interested in dictating usage of that code to people. We are only interested in getting that code into as many hands as possible. To further quality code use across the board. Not just for selective people that agree with a socialist philosophy. If you don't like the BSDL, fine don't use it. But stop spreading total garbage like "You stole freely available code that was given away!"
It makes you look like a FSF monkey.

Quotes from BSD developers at the time tended to use words like "stole" when referring to MS using their code. I apologize if you are offended by that, but I think it is historically inaccurate to say that "We [were] only interested in getting that code into as many hands as possible." That may be the BSD philosophy today, but it certainly wasn't the case when MS started using BSD code. There were a lot of sour grapes flying around at the time.

OTOH, I think the sour grapes would have been nearly or even completely dispelled if MS had in any way acknowledged the BSD origins of its TCP/IP stack.

By now, of course, the point is largely moot. While many utilities are still BSD-based (ftp.exe, for instance), MS minions claim that the TCP/IP stack was rewritten for NT 3.5 or one of the later NT variants (which one, precisely, varies by minion; the fact that the TCP/IP stack was rewritten is largely agreed upon, though).

 

[kcmac]

By the_mole

I bet we'll see something soon that'll convert files and save DRM, but why would you do it anyway? If you have all your files in WMA or AAC, why waste your time to convert them?

I don't want to convert them, just stated that you can. I don't think you can convert the protected WMP files which then means WMP is more of a concern than protected AAC files which you can convert.

 

[X86BSD]

Originally posted by jettredmont
If you leave a bike out in your front yard and someone walks off with it, which is it:

1) Someone stole it

2) You were stupid in leaving it out front.

The answer, of course, is both.

The BSD code was poorly licensed, although the intention of that licensing was NOT to have it sold as a part of a for-profit OS. This is, effectively, proven by the fact that to get the TCP/IP stack they had to buy a company which had licensed the stack from BSD.

"Stole", then, was a bit too extreme of a verb. "Used", though, would be a bit too understated. I'll have to consult my thesaurus before commenting next time.



Quotes from BSD developers at the time tended to use words like "stole" when referring to MS using their code. I apologize if you are offended by that, but I think it is historically inaccurate to say that "We [were] only interested in getting that code into as many hands as possible." That may be the BSD philosophy today, but it certainly wasn't the case when MS started using BSD code. There were a lot of sour grapes flying around at the time.

If I leave my bike out in my yard and someone takes it, thats THEFT. That's private property they are trespassing on.
Go ask any law enforcement officer your same ridiculous question.

BSD code is not poorly licensed. It does *exactly* what it is licensed to do. Get adopted widely and with no strings attached. Saying that BSD licensed code was not intended for being sold for profit is absurd. And you clearly understand nothing of the license itself. And no MS did not have to buy a company to get a BSD stack. Nor did that company *license* a BSD stack. The company they bought merely did the obvious, grabbed the *freely available with no strings attached BSD network code* and put it in their product. Then MS bought that company and their products. It's that simple. MS merely chose to buy that company and as part of the assets of that company was a stack that used BSD network code. Since they paid for the company they might as well use the assets they obtained with it. But they did not have to, they could have just as easily CVS'ed the entire BSD source tree and picked anything they wanted.
I'd love to know who you got your quotes from. Because if you ask Kirk McKusick about what the BSDL philosophy was, he will tell you, and in fact he's quoted in the oreilly open source book, that the goal was it was not copyright, nor copyleft, it was copy center. As in take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want. So again id love to see who's quotes you are quoting as gospel over MS using BSD code. Because im betting it's not even a BSD developer. So if you can provide quotes and sources id love to see them. The philosophy of BSD Licensing has not changed since day one. Make quality code available to all, with no strings attached.

 

[jasonbw]

Originally posted by singletrack
AFAIK, the iPod has no DRM in it at all. When you copy DRM'd songs to it in iTunes, the Fairplay DRM part is removed by iTunes. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

The DRM only relates to your Mac/PC, not your player.

I believe that ipods simply ignore DRM. Thats why you can transfer to unlimited ipods. I'm not exactly sure how wma players deal with it. could be the same method. walmart says you can transfer to unlimited drm-capable players, so i'm assuming there is some generic drm approval built in.

 

[billyboy]

the drm is the key to release AAC

Apple were the guinea pigs who volunteered to show the Big Five how to do music online. Apple has demonstrated that the technology and the business model work. Apple have done their bit and are in the driving seat, well, Steve Jobs is. He must have known the music world would be round the iTunes honeypot when it worked, so he must have had a plan for stage 2 and he must have outlined that plan to the big five.

It seems to me that this recent co-operation talk, if it is true, was probably driven by the music industry big five super brains, trying to get it straight in their own heads what the hell is going on.

Probably every person who matters at these dinosaur outfits owns an iPod and knows there is still no alternative anywhere near as potent as Apple. AAC is sweet, the DRM is secure, the public seem to like it, and the independent figures show that the public look set to like it even more for years to come. However, the seeds of doubt are being sown. The Big Five are having their ears bent by the struggling WMA brigade plus MS, who are pleading and giving bs predictions of what they can theoretically do for music if only they had the time to get their acts together. And to be fair, the Big Five have to listen to the WMA lobby because on the surface it sounds so powerful - even if sales figures say nothing serious is really happening. It is a good bet that their wavering dodderinesses are the ones slowing down iTunes Europe.

Technically, if the Big Five caved in to proprietary standards and said they didn't want to support the Apple way, then that's game over for iTMS once the current contracts run out. The main saving grace for Apple is that

a) iTunes works, and is working too well for any number cruncher in the big five to ever justify dumping the 70% market leader and industry darling.

b) Apple have the infrastructure and marketing ability to develop music stores on a global scale.

b) SJ hasnt spoken with forked tongue yet, his vision has panned out, so his vision for stage 2 has to carry a LOT of weight. He seems to have the respect of the music industry and although he is out to do well for Apple, it seems that the model so far has proven good for the music industry and consumers.

Hopefully SJ can keep talking fast enough to get the point across that Apple has set the industry standard and stage 2 is to make that standard truly open, now it is known to work. For his part, in return for the Big Five's continued support of AAC, SJ will have to make Fairplay DRM available to all and sundry by 2005. The "beta" will go into general production and the gloves are off for an AAC stampede.

I think that would fit in quite nicely for Apple and suit the music industry. Another year and a bit of iTunes mania till 2005, when Apple throws the doors open to a straight shoot out between the best music stores and the best digital music players. Real networks and whoever else on the AAC trail slip nicely into the market, but Apple can fight there corner better than anyone in the next few years simply because their "integrated player and music store culture" is two years more engrained into the company than most of the competition. The mindset of the consumers is more iTunes oriented too.

Quite how MS or the wannabe WMA music stores fit in to a free world of open standard music formats, I don't know. Just because they have spent hundreds of millions backing WMA desnt mean it is worth $$$$ in the market place - Apple spent $500m on a Newton that bombed.

I reckon a show of faith would be for Apple and the BIg Five to recompense the people who have downloaded WMA format music whilst iTunes has been going- $12 million so far? - and leave MS to do what the hell they like with their proprietary format!

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by X86BSD
If I leave my bike out in my yard and someone takes it, thats THEFT. That's private property they are trespassing on.
Go ask any law enforcement officer your same ridiculous question.

Which, of course, misses the point that (in many parts of the US as well as the rest of the world), it's still a really stupid thing to do. In other words, as I said, it's both. Which, to get back to what your original assertation was, it is certainly possible for one party to do something really stupid and for another party to take advantage of said stupidity, and, therefore, both parties being partly at fault for something.

At least, that's how I read your initial blustery response. I apologize if you were trying to make a different point.


Anyways ... sorry to get your panties in a bunch over a throwaway single-line comment (of which, I believe, you found only one word objectionable to begin with).

Do I have a library of quotes to reference? Of course not. I'm not a part of the BSD development program, nor have I ever been. I did frequent the BSD developer usenet groups at the time, however, and there were a hell of a lot of folks claiming to have developed bits and pieces of BSD's toolkit who weren't happy with MS at all. Was that somehow an "official" view? I don't know. Sounds like you know the "official" line from BSD, so I'll freely accept that, officially, BSD is just plain f'n pleased as peaches that Microsoft chose to use their code as one of the key selling points of Windows NT (without officially attributing the code to BSD). If you've worked for any development team in your life (as your username would suggest) you'll understand, however, that there is often a huge chasm between the Party Line and the Word on the Street, especially in projects as diverse as BSD.

So, I'll hereby bow out of the debate. This really isn't the place for it (Windows being or not being Unix was off topic ... Microsoft's TCP stack and the BSD connection is a few steps farther off).

That having been said ... Sheesh!

 

[csimmons]

Re: Re: Apple's behind

Originally posted by singletrack
OD2 have licences with 5 major labels in Europe. Apple do not.

OD2 are a tiny small company ran by Peter Gabriel and what was once a small 3d graphics software company. Apple are one of the worlds biggest computer makers, own the largest online store and have billions of cash.

Sorry, but the 'not their fault' thing bears no grounding in reality. Their strategy has been lame from the start.

Incidentally, the OD2 infrastructure will work with AAC files and Apple's DRM. They could have been up and running in Europe off the back of OD2 months ago.

Again, the actual numbers demonstrate how well OD2 is doing; not very well.

Here in Germany, T-Online has had it's Music On Demand service up and running since 2000. It hasn't done very well, for the same reason OD2 isn't taking off as many in the industry had hoped: The price of downloads, and the hassle of actually getting the music onto your player. Also, the iPod is the number 1 player sold in Europe as well, and neither OD2, nor T-Online's MOD work with it the way iTMS does.

The European music industry is a joke anyway. I know, because I work in it. Each country has it's own licensing schemes, royalty rates, fees, performing rights agencies, etc. so it is no trivial task for an American company to get the kind of rights that Apple was able to get for iTMS in the States. OD2 was able to get agreements from the "major" labels because in Great Britain only; It's not available in any other country on the continent AFAIK.

 

[Xapplimatic]

What about all those Macromedia-based MP3 players?

Won't it be terrible for the owners of those mp3-only players which don't have an upgradable EPROM when their players can't play the new formats? Remember there was a time when the iPod couldn't play AAC.. That was added later when the music store came online! I was never more excited when suddenly the iPod got the firmware upgrade that allowed it to play those AAC files that I had just tried encoding stuff in in the older iTunes (3?).. It will be nice to see it upgraded again with a unilateral standard, if that ever comes to be.. I am not intimidated by the proposition of an upgraded cross-platform standard.. However, since iTunes AAC is somewhat cross-platform (excluding only Linux and old 16-bit machines nolonger developed for), I would insist that the standard is already here and now.. Embrace and use...

HP/Compaq has already thrown in the towel and is grovelling before Apple's feet. It's only a matter of time before one more chooses this example and then the avalanche consumes Micro$haft uh I mean Micro$oft too.. My prediction is they will succumb and give up plans for taking over the music format war to focus on content providing with MSN to make their precious greenbacks.. by no later than 2005.

 

[howtoplaydead]

this is what i was talking about in the superbowl ad thread. this is what i was feeling uneasy about. call it AAPL or ESP, I had the intuition that something bad was on the verge of happening, something along the lines of 1996. this is Microsoft shooting Apple down again. (maybe this is an extremist poin of view ) I believe that sound quality below 160 is less than acceptable for music, if I'm listening to Carlin, i don't mind it at 80. (most of my 32gb music collection is at 192)

 

[748s]

hope steve's first words to gates were "knife the baby bill". if not i hope he went in with that attitude.

 

[singletrack]

Re: Re: Re: Apple's behind

Originally posted by csimmons
Again, the actual numbers demonstrate how well OD2 is doing; not very well.

I don't know about that. The market for WMA DRM'd players is tiny and there's more of a culture of downloading off of Kazaa amongst Windows users.

Not being able to use an iPod must hurt OD2 quite badly.

And although they have 260,000 tracks, they also cost almost twice as much as in the Apple store.

Originally posted by csimmons
OD2 was able to get agreements from the "major" labels because in Great Britain only; It's not available in any other country on the continent AFAIK.

France and Spain do ok also but yes, OD2 have taken a piecemeal approach to signing up labels in each country whilst not holding back for the whole of Europe.