Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by nateDEEZY, Apr 6, 2007.
This part made me laugh a little.
Where will MS be without Apple, one wonders.
*lost in thought*
You've got to rembember that Jobs didn't ask EMI to sell music without DRM, EMI asked Jobs. It was also made clear that EMI would be happy to sell DRM-free music through other vendors, too. Microsoft just happened to be the first one to take the offer after iTunes. I'm sure they won't be the last, either.
Basically EMI decided that they were fine with allowing the selling of DRM-free music and they made the first official deal with Apple, probably just because they happen to be the biggest online music vendor.
There is no logical reason for Microsoft to refuse to sell non-DRM music.
Microsoft would have a 64bit MS-DOS 2007 that is fast, with integrated driver support, and the ability to toggle screens with true multitasking. The Command Prompt would have AutoComplete(tm) to assist in commands such as dir, erase, and common program names.
EMI asked apple, yes but i think it was a direct response to jobs' letter. They approached apple because they new apple was ready, willing and able to accept. I believe EMI may not have even come up with this strategy, at least at this stage, if Jobs didn't write that letter.
Regardless of that, they still made those comments about Jobs and now what they're doing could be considered hypocritical, no?
That's not entirely true. If you listen to the EMI webcast, you will hear Eric Nicol mention that "We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter."
This to me sounds like Apple wanted to go DRM-free all along. Even in the intial introduction of the iTunes Music Store, Steve Jobs' mentioned that DRM was only there because of the labels.
It just took EMI years later to finally pull the trigger, and Apple was ready.
>>dvd.. <-- instead of cd..
I hope all of this wont help the crappy Zune...
I read an article earlier this week that spoke a little bit about the sales of ipods and a GOOD number of the ipod that apple sells are the flash based ones, and then the hard drive based ipods have a very small market share and how the zune has a very very small marketshare of the hard drive based sales.
I mean this move won't hurt microsoft, but I hardly see it helping them much.
+others who disagreed with me
Yes, true, but I doubt there are many online music vendors that would have said "no" to an possibility to sell DRM-less music.
Jobs just was the first one to pubicly say he would like to sell drm-less music. Microsoft and others had a lot less hope for the big record companies and thought the idea that the big record companies might allow the selling of drm-less music was just idealistic and naive. There have been occasions when Microsoft and others have said they think current DRM is too restrictive, though.
In any case, Microsoft is not doing this "just because Apple did it". That is my point.
i think i'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.
i think Microsoft feel a bit forced to take the DRM free route. in all honestly, they WANT you to use their DRM, it means you're using their system, which is good for them. Apple has never been about the Fairplay software, its always been about moving iPods, Microsoft though has been about the software, touting the good and awesomeness of their DRM, but now they are back tracking on that. because they have to in order to stay competitive.
And I'm going to have to disagree with that.
Microsoft doesn't want you to use their DRM, they want you to use their own audio format, WMA. They have been trying to make the WMA in to an industry standard for a long time, because they have total control over the format. If they could have made an deal with EMI before Apple (and better yet, could have made an exculsive deal), the only DRM-free mainstream music would have to have been bought in WMA-format from Microsoft and that would have been GREAT for Microsoft. It would have been a HUGE win for the WMA-format.
Do you seriously think that Microsft would have turned down a deal like that? Hell no.
while i agree with you that Microsofts agenda is pushing wma, their only means to truly do so have been through the propagation of their DRM. get one one using their media store, or a store that uses their DRM, and keep selling it to them so they keep using wma.
If you buy music in WMA format, you are locked in to using WMA-format, whether or not it has DRM doesn't matter. It would be easier to re-encode non-DRM'd WMA in to another format, but does it really matter?
Your average Joe won't bother to re-encode his WMA-music in to another format, even if there wasn't DRM. Someone who cares about sound-quality won't do it because re-encoding in to another format will cause sound artifacts. An advanced user who wants to re-encode the file isn't going to be stopped by DRM, because circumventing it is trivial if you are willing to re-encode (the hardest thing is stripping a file of DRM without re-encoding, and in that case the WMA-file will still be WMA, just without DRM).
I must admit that it is true that if a big recording company allows everyone to sell music in non-drm'd format, 3rd party music stores (napster and the rest) won't have to use DRM'd WMA (which is pretty much the only choice for everyone except Apple), though. They could just sell the files in MP3. But Microsoft can't change a recording company's mind, so Microsoft has to jump aboard as quck as possible. They would have certainly preferred to be first (and perhaps they could have tried to make a deal to make it exclusive, at least for some time), but second is okay, too.
They will do everything to give WMA the edge over other formats, or at least keep it in an equal playfield with the others. Offering non-drm'd music in WMA is doing exactly that. It isn't about mimicing Apple.