Arn, unless I'm mistaken or missing something, none of the CD players you linked to can play protected WMA. In the legend there is a star that means "Music Service Friendly" and none of the CD players on that page have that star next to them. Also this link shows that microsoft does not recognize any car stereo which is "Music Service Friendly."
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.
Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Arn, unless I'm mistaken or missing something, none of the CD players you linked to can play protected WMA. In the legend there is a star that means "Music Service Friendly" and none of the CD players on that page have that star next to them. Also this link shows that microsoft does not recognize any car stereo which is "Music Service Friendly."
Differences between iTMS and Napster
This seems to be going round in circles.
Arn's point is that the DRM is about the same except for subscription, which has never been very successful.
When most average users choose between the services, they will not choose because one has better DRM. They probably won't even choose because of the format (WMA/AAC) - they won't even know the difference.
The choice will probably be made on brand awareness and marketing, support for their portable player of choice and ease of use.
This is Apple's advantage at the moment - especially the iPod and ease of use.
The lead on each of these points can change with a bit of effort from Napster or Apple - Apple needs to continue to innovate and market.
A concern for Apple is the fact that support for WMA (and therefore Napster with a small download) is built in to Windows (just like Internet Explorer). Does this make iTunes too hard for the average user? Will every PC magazine have the iTunes client on its cover CD?
Just my 2c.
This seems to be going round in circles.
Arn's point is that the DRM is about the same except for subscription, which has never been very successful.
When most average users choose between the services, they will not choose because one has better DRM. They probably won't even choose because of the format (WMA/AAC) - they won't even know the difference.
The choice will probably be made on brand awareness and marketing, support for their portable player of choice and ease of use.
This is Apple's advantage at the moment - especially the iPod and ease of use.
The lead on each of these points can change with a bit of effort from Napster or Apple - Apple needs to continue to innovate and market.
A concern for Apple is the fact that support for WMA (and therefore Napster with a small download) is built in to Windows (just like Internet Explorer). Does this make iTunes too hard for the average user? Will every PC magazine have the iTunes client on its cover CD?
Just my 2c.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
Re: AAC over WMV
Here's the thing that many Mac users just aren't getting or are just ignoring so that have a leg to stand on when bitching about WMA.
WMA's flexibility is as good as AAC. You guys don't get it. Its companies like Napster and MusicMatch that implement restrictive or flexible Digital Rights and those comes from what terms they work out with the various labels.
You guys NEED to understand WMA can have literally NO rights on the files. (e.g. you can make 10,000 copies of the WMA if you like.) or make it restrictive as heck (e.g. you are only able to play on the original machine.) The rights can be set.
Codecs and open standard vs. close standard is an entirely diff discussion. I trust MS Media Player 9 codec (The codec MM and Napaster is using.) as far as I can toss the MS campus.
I do no trust MS from dicking with the format in the future if/when the encryption is cracked and I think its a forgone conclusion that WMA's DRM will be cracked, if for no other reason then to allow DRMed songs to play on Linux. Once that happens whats to keep MS from going back to the drawing board and creating a new codec for Windows Media 10, 11, etc and whos DRM is not compatible with DRM in Media Player 9?
Truth be told I expect AAC to be cracked as well once a clear leader in the digital music realm is firmly decided. Right now Apple is in the lead. Whether they stay in the lead depends on their marketing and their flexibility to adapt to their competitors offers. If Apple is still on top in 2 years I expect the headlines at news.com to read AAC encryption foiled. Dont kid yourself people. Any DRM can be broken with enough time and determination. Just because it has the Apple seal of approval on it doesnt make it hack proof.
Here's the thing that many Mac users just aren't getting or are just ignoring so that have a leg to stand on when bitching about WMA.
WMA's flexibility is as good as AAC. You guys don't get it. Its companies like Napster and MusicMatch that implement restrictive or flexible Digital Rights and those comes from what terms they work out with the various labels.
You guys NEED to understand WMA can have literally NO rights on the files. (e.g. you can make 10,000 copies of the WMA if you like.) or make it restrictive as heck (e.g. you are only able to play on the original machine.) The rights can be set.
Codecs and open standard vs. close standard is an entirely diff discussion. I trust MS Media Player 9 codec (The codec MM and Napaster is using.) as far as I can toss the MS campus.
I do no trust MS from dicking with the format in the future if/when the encryption is cracked and I think its a forgone conclusion that WMA's DRM will be cracked, if for no other reason then to allow DRMed songs to play on Linux. Once that happens whats to keep MS from going back to the drawing board and creating a new codec for Windows Media 10, 11, etc and whos DRM is not compatible with DRM in Media Player 9?
Truth be told I expect AAC to be cracked as well once a clear leader in the digital music realm is firmly decided. Right now Apple is in the lead. Whether they stay in the lead depends on their marketing and their flexibility to adapt to their competitors offers. If Apple is still on top in 2 years I expect the headlines at news.com to read AAC encryption foiled. Dont kid yourself people. Any DRM can be broken with enough time and determination. Just because it has the Apple seal of approval on it doesnt make it hack proof.
deepkid
macrumors regular
Re: Re: Re: Re: And what's more
Sure knew that about iTMS, but that's why i went "Hmm." in an earlier reply about Napster, based on their published terms and conditions. Lawyers could have a ball playing with the wording in there. But if they let you burn 5, then shuffle.. God bless them.
But to emphasize what was in my last post, I believe that the more flexible end user liberties are, the better for what we're currently paying.
If I'm going to pay $9.99 for a Cesaria Evora album at an online music store over paying $12 at cdconnection.com for the commercial cd, let me do more with the purchased digital files since I'm not getting the physical cd, case or artwork.
I may not burn 10 copies of a given playlist consisting of songs bought from these stores, but it sure as hell makes me feel better about my purchases that I can.
How is this useful? How many of us have scratched cdrs before? Misplaced them? If you're fond of a particular playlist order, these are just two examples of where the extra burns come in handy. It helps to compensate for not receiving the traditional commercial cd, which will hopefully drive more people to buy online.
Sure knew that about iTMS, but that's why i went "Hmm." in an earlier reply about Napster, based on their published terms and conditions. Lawyers could have a ball playing with the wording in there. But if they let you burn 5, then shuffle.. God bless them.
But to emphasize what was in my last post, I believe that the more flexible end user liberties are, the better for what we're currently paying.
If I'm going to pay $9.99 for a Cesaria Evora album at an online music store over paying $12 at cdconnection.com for the commercial cd, let me do more with the purchased digital files since I'm not getting the physical cd, case or artwork.
I may not burn 10 copies of a given playlist consisting of songs bought from these stores, but it sure as hell makes me feel better about my purchases that I can.
How is this useful? How many of us have scratched cdrs before? Misplaced them? If you're fond of a particular playlist order, these are just two examples of where the extra burns come in handy. It helps to compensate for not receiving the traditional commercial cd, which will hopefully drive more people to buy online.
This goes for all the AAC players out there. I don't believe they can use the protected AAC format.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
Re: Differences between iTMS and Napster
Interesting,
I would hold that Apple has a better brand awareness then Napster. More accurately a more appealing brand then Napster.
Any time I've ever heard about Napster its usually in ref to that music service for stealing songs or something similar. I think the average person somewhat knows of Napster and any person under the age of 25, yes its a general statement so take it as a guess, definitely knows of Napster. (I wonder what % of the high school population has D/Led the prelegal version of Napster?)
There is a brand recognition there but its a vague one. One attached to massive legal problems, along with bankruptcy, and pirating.
Now look at Apple. Its almost always in a generally good light albeit a proprietary one. I dont make up the facts guys. Its how apple is perceived. The iPod is known as a solid music player and you can bet with Apples advertising campaign they will increase their brand awareness even further.
Personally I think Napster isnt the one to worry about. Ive downloaded their software. Its not good. In fact after a day of use I uninstalled it. Its POS. No its Music Match that will be the competition in the long run. The player is solid. The features are broad. The Digital Rights are almost as good as iTunes. The big question I have is this: Can music from Napster play on Music Match and Media Player and vis versa? Both are DRMed WMA files handled by MSs DRManager. If this is the case its possible that one could download music from both Napster and MM possibly having a very large combined selection of music.
I think the only thing at this point that could really hurt iTMS, and something Ive pointed out time and again, is the 70% of the digital audio market that are not AAC based devices. (30% market share by iPod is states stated by Jobs himself in October.)
So little Johnny that just got a shiny new MP3/WMA audio player for X-mas last year gets a Pepsi that wins an iTMS song. He goes home, installs iTunes for Windows, downloads the song, mistakenly copies it to his MP3 player, and ..nothing happens. He then says screw this and tries Napster and low and behold his downloaded song runs. I dont care what you guys say this will be an issue in the future unless Apple can drastically increase the market share of the iPod.
Interesting,
I would hold that Apple has a better brand awareness then Napster. More accurately a more appealing brand then Napster.
Any time I've ever heard about Napster its usually in ref to that music service for stealing songs or something similar. I think the average person somewhat knows of Napster and any person under the age of 25, yes its a general statement so take it as a guess, definitely knows of Napster. (I wonder what % of the high school population has D/Led the prelegal version of Napster?)
There is a brand recognition there but its a vague one. One attached to massive legal problems, along with bankruptcy, and pirating.
Now look at Apple. Its almost always in a generally good light albeit a proprietary one. I dont make up the facts guys. Its how apple is perceived. The iPod is known as a solid music player and you can bet with Apples advertising campaign they will increase their brand awareness even further.
Personally I think Napster isnt the one to worry about. Ive downloaded their software. Its not good. In fact after a day of use I uninstalled it. Its POS. No its Music Match that will be the competition in the long run. The player is solid. The features are broad. The Digital Rights are almost as good as iTunes. The big question I have is this: Can music from Napster play on Music Match and Media Player and vis versa? Both are DRMed WMA files handled by MSs DRManager. If this is the case its possible that one could download music from both Napster and MM possibly having a very large combined selection of music.
I think the only thing at this point that could really hurt iTMS, and something Ive pointed out time and again, is the 70% of the digital audio market that are not AAC based devices. (30% market share by iPod is states stated by Jobs himself in October.)
So little Johnny that just got a shiny new MP3/WMA audio player for X-mas last year gets a Pepsi that wins an iTMS song. He goes home, installs iTunes for Windows, downloads the song, mistakenly copies it to his MP3 player, and ..nothing happens. He then says screw this and tries Napster and low and behold his downloaded song runs. I dont care what you guys say this will be an issue in the future unless Apple can drastically increase the market share of the iPod.
But he would encounter the same issue with the protected AAC format. The protected WMA format will not play either and the only players it will play on is that Samsung player that Napster's got it's name on. And Music Match has Dell's DJ. To me what I'm wondering if MusicMatch and Napster use the same protected WMA format or are they different which could be the case, if so then they are in same boat as iTunes. Now if they have same exact protected format then they will some advantage having two players on the market that will play protected WMA tracks.
Sabenth
macrumors 6502a
Freaking hell fire !!!
ITS BEEN STATED I DONT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES BY ARN THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE AT ALL BETWEEN iTunes and Napster ..
Just that Napster offers a subscription option which is no better or worse than anyone else....
WMA AND AAC PLAYERS IN CARS OR HANDS OR HOUSES why arnt you people just putting your music to mp3 ... jeezzz
_____________-----__________------_
Audio quality my Ass if your buying songs online well exspect them to be of lesser quality than say cd or dvd ...
ITS BEEN STATED I DONT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES BY ARN THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE AT ALL BETWEEN iTunes and Napster ..
Just that Napster offers a subscription option which is no better or worse than anyone else....
WMA AND AAC PLAYERS IN CARS OR HANDS OR HOUSES why arnt you people just putting your music to mp3 ... jeezzz
_____________-----__________------_
Audio quality my Ass if your buying songs online well exspect them to be of lesser quality than say cd or dvd ...
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
Interesting. Well looking at:
http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_PMDs.asp
I'm seeing every device from creative supporing DRMed WMA. The iRivers which i think is #3, after iPod and Creative, do not support DRM, however keep in mind that this can be solved by a simple ROM flash update. AFAIK this is as simple as any update Apple has put out for the iPod. I think, assuming our question about DRMed WMA files being cross compatible is YES, that many of these players will scramble to get DRM support else they will be blown away by those devices that slap a sticker on their box stating: 100% compatible with Napster and Music Match. In the mean time Apple is sitting pretty due to 100% compatibility. Point to Apple.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
Wow Sabenth. Cool off. You are going to have a heart attack if you aren't careful. Which would suck over something like Napster. If you are going to die do it over a Windows vs Mac rant. 😛 😉
Oh and there is a difference - The software and that IMHO is rather important.
Well a good number of players do support AAC but not the protected format because I believe Apple right now is keeping it to themselves..which might be good and bad. Bad that there is no other player to use but iPod with iTunes. Good is that it's the top player and probably will stay on top when the 4 gen comes out next yr.
All I know I'm buying a new iPod this coming yr if it comes with more features and possibly video play back.
All I know I'm buying a new iPod this coming yr if it comes with more features and possibly video play back.
Well, actually, I have seen the questions asked many times but never answered:
1) Is it possible to de-authorize one of your three Napster authorized computers so that another, fourth computer can be authorized in its place?
2) Is it possible to download to a player songs downloaded using one of the two additional downloads Napster allows?
Until those two questions ARE answered it is not possible to say that there is no difference between iTunes and Napster in terms of DRM.
you are correct. apologies.
This list is the supported Napster/BuyMusic Ones:
http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/CoolDevices.asp?page=4&lookup=CoolDevices
and I don't see any CD players.
arn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And what's more
You can claim this if you wish. But I'd be willing to bet that if suddenly, Napster provided 10 playlist burns and Apple only 5 playlist burns... that you would not suddenly switch services.
In other words, I think you're making rationalizations to support Apple's service just because you like it for other reasons.
And I will be the first to say, I prefer Apple's service.... but I'm not going to try to convince myself and others it's due to a trivial # of playlist burns which is not a practical limitation. (since simply creating a new playlist with the exact same songs will reset the burn count)
arn
You can claim this if you wish. But I'd be willing to bet that if suddenly, Napster provided 10 playlist burns and Apple only 5 playlist burns... that you would not suddenly switch services.
In other words, I think you're making rationalizations to support Apple's service just because you like it for other reasons.
And I will be the first to say, I prefer Apple's service.... but I'm not going to try to convince myself and others it's due to a trivial # of playlist burns which is not a practical limitation. (since simply creating a new playlist with the exact same songs will reset the burn count)
arn
deepkid
macrumors regular
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And what's more
I did not base my disinterest in Napster solely on playlist burns. Check the earlier posts to see that I listed several reasons why iTMS is arguably a better service over Napster. I know that you're focuing on DRM, which is important, but the average customer will judge those rights as only part of the total experience. In fact, I don't think that many will care, until they bump into a wall. How much of the total potential customer universe would bother to discuss this to the depths that we're doing?
But to directly respond, even if Napster decided to add 15 playlist burns, that would be a step foward for end user liberties (which would be great) but it still would not interest me (and a number of others) because of WMA. Until/unless they support the iPod with an offering that comforts the record industry (not mp3, but similar to Fairplay+AAC), it's not an option for me. I'll also add that even if Apple decides to support WMA, I likely won't.
Thanks.
I did not base my disinterest in Napster solely on playlist burns. Check the earlier posts to see that I listed several reasons why iTMS is arguably a better service over Napster. I know that you're focuing on DRM, which is important, but the average customer will judge those rights as only part of the total experience. In fact, I don't think that many will care, until they bump into a wall. How much of the total potential customer universe would bother to discuss this to the depths that we're doing?
But to directly respond, even if Napster decided to add 15 playlist burns, that would be a step foward for end user liberties (which would be great) but it still would not interest me (and a number of others) because of WMA. Until/unless they support the iPod with an offering that comforts the record industry (not mp3, but similar to Fairplay+AAC), it's not an option for me. I'll also add that even if Apple decides to support WMA, I likely won't.
Thanks.
Because if you use those CD-R's in the car they degrade over time ... at least out here in the California sun they do. Lifespan of a CD-R in a car stereo is significantly shorter than the lifespan of a pressed (ie, commercially produced, like the kind you buy at Best Buy or Sam Goody or Strawberries or whatever) disk. Over time, you'll start noticing the last tracks skipping, and then eventually they are unplayable.
Re-burning the playlist onto another CD solves the problem.
It is pretty nice, if you want really tiny (smaller than iPod because it uses a 1" drive instead of 1.8"). The only fault with it is interface: I believe it's just plain impossible to have a usable interface for selecting music files on a device smaller than the iPod, at least for my somewhat average-sized American fingers ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And what's more
I know this is going nowhere... but I felt I should point out that this was all sparked from the following exchange:
1. If flexibility is what we're talking about, Protected WMA could be considered more "flexible" (supports more # of players)
2. Napster has 5, iTunes has 10 (per playlist).
3. We've pointed out that iTunes can't share DRM'd tracks either.
So, yes, I do think you've based your "Apple's more flexible DRM" on the playlist option. And perhaps it offers slightly more, but as I said in an above post, it's of trivial significance.
I know, I know - there are plenty of reasons for a Mac user to prefer iTunes.... and as I said I prefer iTunes. That being said.... the contention that continues to be the basis of this entire thread is your claim that iTunes DRM is more flexible than Napster DRM.
Perhaps it is - based on playlist burns... but trivially so.
I'll maintain Napster rights are essentially equal to iTunes rights. That is my point. No one should claim to choose one or the other based on "better or worse" digital rights.
arn
I know this is going nowhere... but I felt I should point out that this was all sparked from the following exchange:
1. If flexibility is what we're talking about, Protected WMA could be considered more "flexible" (supports more # of players)
2. Napster has 5, iTunes has 10 (per playlist).
3. We've pointed out that iTunes can't share DRM'd tracks either.
So, yes, I do think you've based your "Apple's more flexible DRM" on the playlist option. And perhaps it offers slightly more, but as I said in an above post, it's of trivial significance.
I know, I know - there are plenty of reasons for a Mac user to prefer iTunes.... and as I said I prefer iTunes. That being said.... the contention that continues to be the basis of this entire thread is your claim that iTunes DRM is more flexible than Napster DRM.
Perhaps it is - based on playlist burns... but trivially so.
I'll maintain Napster rights are essentially equal to iTunes rights. That is my point. No one should claim to choose one or the other based on "better or worse" digital rights.
arn
MorganX
macrumors 6502a
That's an excellent post. Before iPod I owned 3 different Rios, 600, 800, 900. I was always frustrated with the UI and the limited screen size.
You know, listening to all this and seeing all the competition sprouting up, I think the end result will be Apple realizing that an iTunes that supported all these new players and WMA (even if only on non-iPod players) could be sold for $39.95. I know I'd buy it. Heck, if iPod does lose marketshare, Apple should turn iTunes into the universal music store client. Sell it for $39.95 or license it to the music services. I know it's free now, but add player and WMA support and charge for "iTunes Plus!"
If you really think about it, personal preferences for UI and form factor asisde (which tend to even out), the clear undisputable difference that no one has yet to come close to imitiating, is iTunes, the software.
I have not opened WMPlayer (for audio purposes) since iTunes4W was released. And 90% of my time in iTunes is spent managing my library, browsing the music store, and creating playlists for the gym. Syncing with the iPod is a transparent afterthought (credit iTunes again). The iTunes experience has universal appeal that is only tied to iPod and iTMS because that's makes the best business sense for Apple right now. A codec's a codec, download a new one; flash firmware for new DRM. But the user experience is in the software and that is what will always be in demand if people know about it. Right now, I don't think more than 3% of PC users realize how great iTunes is. When more do, they would pay for it.
BaghdadBob
macrumors 6502a
I agree with arn here, the DRM is remarkably similar, and the limit on playlists is minutia. The subscription option is a nice option. although I, myself, would not use it, it's just another way to make money. However, it opens the door wide open for hacks to proliferate huge volumes of ill-gotten music. As one poster noted already, I don't think it'll last long once the reprecussions are realized, much like the internet sharing option in iTunes.
SpyMac was making a big deal about promoting the abuse of that iTunes feature, and now no one gets to enjoy it. Thanks *******s. That really makes me mad, the one time I took advantage of it I discovered some music I really liked. Thanks again, guys!
AAC is a big factor, I think, that has been largely ignored here. Are these other services selling 128-bit MP3? If so, they're ripping their customers off. MP3 sounds like crap, which is why, until iTunes 4, I never got into ripping tunes onto my computer, because at a reasonable bit rate, MP3 sounds crappy. AAC at 128 is really quite good. So what are people actually getting for their dollar? That's the important part.
If a store opened selling DVDAs for $13, and three others were selling CDs for the same price, if you could use the DVDA format, which would you patronize?
Plus, the integrated experience is a selling point. But I don't know anything about the Napster interface (nor do I care to) so I won't comment, except in that I know the iTunes experience is great. Howzabout Napster?
[Edit] OK, so WMA is the format of choice for this sevice, and I think the BuyMusic stupid store. So how does WMA compare with AAC? If it's anything like WMV vs. Quicktime...well, I think that analogy speaks for itself...
SpyMac was making a big deal about promoting the abuse of that iTunes feature, and now no one gets to enjoy it. Thanks *******s. That really makes me mad, the one time I took advantage of it I discovered some music I really liked. Thanks again, guys!
AAC is a big factor, I think, that has been largely ignored here. Are these other services selling 128-bit MP3? If so, they're ripping their customers off. MP3 sounds like crap, which is why, until iTunes 4, I never got into ripping tunes onto my computer, because at a reasonable bit rate, MP3 sounds crappy. AAC at 128 is really quite good. So what are people actually getting for their dollar? That's the important part.
If a store opened selling DVDAs for $13, and three others were selling CDs for the same price, if you could use the DVDA format, which would you patronize?
Plus, the integrated experience is a selling point. But I don't know anything about the Napster interface (nor do I care to) so I won't comment, except in that I know the iTunes experience is great. Howzabout Napster?
[Edit] OK, so WMA is the format of choice for this sevice, and I think the BuyMusic stupid store. So how does WMA compare with AAC? If it's anything like WMV vs. Quicktime...well, I think that analogy speaks for itself...
After asking about Napsters prem service. I was told by Napster that you can DL an unlimited number of tracks and unlimited number of streams. You have to renew your music at the end of each month unless you pay your monthly fees.
I asked if there was an limit and apparently according to the email I got they don't. This means hackers will have field day with Napster...and so will RIAA.
I'm going to ask Napster how do artist get paid if I pay for the service and I download over 20 songs a month and I don't pay the 99 cents to allow me to burn them and such? I doubt they can answer that.
I asked if there was an limit and apparently according to the email I got they don't. This means hackers will have field day with Napster...and so will RIAA.
I'm going to ask Napster how do artist get paid if I pay for the service and I download over 20 songs a month and I don't pay the 99 cents to allow me to burn them and such? I doubt they can answer that.
BaghdadBob
macrumors 6502a
But how do the formats compare for audio quality? We know how AAC compares to MP3, but I don't know about WMA for quality.
I should hope that WMV is superior on the Windows side, cause it sure sucks on the Mac side.
As for WMA...I've never bothered.