Steve Jobs 'Thoughts on Music'

[50548]

SJ is simply THE BEST CEO out there, and a true leader for Apple...it's amazing to see how much passion he puts in the company, and how promptly and openly he addresses some of the most annoying questions put forward by users and market alike...

He is an example as executive, and a true inspiration behind the rebirth of Apple...KEEP WALKING, STEVE! GO APPLE!

 

[failsafe1]

It's happened: emusic.

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.

 

[Yvan256]

iTunes, DRM vs CDs

First of all, Apple doesn't have to do anything to "support" most of the other music players. Make a playlist, then select all and copy to the MP3 player that's probably mounted as a USB drive. Less practical than a real sync, but it works.

Second, I feel I have to add the following argument to Steve's comments about Fairplay:

Its hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future.

Especially when you consider that 3% of music will sound the same coming from a Mac, a PC or a burned audio CD. Of course you won't get the same audio quality as a real CD, but it won't sound any worst than when your computer plays it.

 

[Stella]

What happens when and if microsoft over takes the iPod - Your tune will change.

As for taking a crack at Europe - for wanting to give consumers MORE choice - that is lame.

People may be happy enough - because it made iTunes #1, but why not improve the suituation for the consumer. Markets shouldn't be static.

iPod+iTunes. Period.

The Zune is a joke. If people want to use a Zune with iTunes they can suck it and buy an iPod.

Apple spent their time and energy (and money) to develop a system that actually works and now because of some Wigs in Europe that don't know s*** from s*** they're gonna screw Europe out of the only system proven to work for people that they are *mostly* happy with.

Steve's response to this- he doesn't just tell them how it is, but how it is going to be. Maybe they'll figure it out now.

 

[TheBobcat]

The day DRM dies will be the day the labels realize their business model is no longer effective, and they themselves are no longer necessary.

Industries who find themselves bypassed by technology are the real ones who stifle progress, and unfortunately, don't die until consumers say enough is enough and endorse alternative means.

 

[Project]

By the way, it's not the 22 DRMed songs that keep people from buying other players, it's (in addition to crappy designs) the whole library organized in itunes that does it.

Thats a poor argument. iTunes uses standard tagging for its MP3s and as thus can be imported by Windows Media Player, Zune Software, Winamp, MediaMonkey etc pretty much intact. All you will lose is stuff like playcounts and ratings.

 

[BillyShears]

Good article, but stats seem a bit off

That's a good article, and goes along with what a lot of people have been saying for some time. Some of the terminology is mixed up, but it makes sense. It's good to hear Apple would sell DRM-free music "in a heartbeat".

One thing I didn't think was very good was his talking about the "average" iPod. Jobs uses the term "average" in the sense of the mean, showing that the average (mean) iPod has 22 songs, or 3% of its music from the iTunes store. He claims this (costing roughly $22 to rebuy the songs) wouldn't lock someone into an iPod -- if someone wanted to buy a Zune, $22 likely wouldn't stop them.

But that's not really representative, in my opinion. Some people have bought more than 22 songs, while others have bought none. More stats would be helpful here.

Another thing is that that's 22 songs so far. As more music is released, and people are more familiar with digital distribution, this could rise.

 

[illw!l]

iTunes on future portable music players

Thinking ahead a few years, affordable devices (including those by Microsoft) will likely be running full versions of a desktop OS, meaning they will have the capacity to install iTunes and play FairPlay DRM, which eliminates and competive advantage or lock-in (as far as I see) that Apple currently enjoys.

Thoughts?

 

[szark]

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

See how indendent lables we sell DRMed music of refuse to sell that same music without a DRM... oh wait, nevermind.

The reason why Apple sells all iTunes music with DRM is to maintain a seamless experience. All music purchased from iTunes has the same restrictions and the same usage rights -- that makes it easier for the user.

They don't want the mess that exists at the other music stores -- where some songs can only be played through a subscription, some songs can only be purchased, different purchased songs have different usage rights, etc.

 

[eenu]

I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.

Same - I couldn't find anything on that site it was crap!

 

[dongmin]

I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.

Obviously, how useful emusic is depends on your musical tastes, since they don't offer music from the Big Four. However, many people, such as myself, enjoy music from independent lables. Hence, emusic is VERY useful to me.

For $10 a month, I get 40 DRM-free downloads. That's 30 more songs than I can get from the iTunes store. Also, since emusic doesn't restrict what users do with their music, I can download the same song as many times as I want. So if I lose a particular purchased song, I can just re-download it. Very consumer-friendly.

I still use iTS because I like the interface and there are certain genres (like Hip Hop) that're not well represented on emusic. But from a DRM point of view, the emusic model is WAY more compelling.

 

[ChrisA]

Just finished the article. Itunes music uses DRM if you purchase it in the music store. I don't believe other players can sync with itunes.

It's more work but any non-iPodMP3 player can be used with iTunes. It's not hard. The MP3 player typically looks like a USB disk to Mac OX. All you have to do is tell iTunes to export a playlist as MP3 files and have it place the exported tunes on the MP3 player. Takes more clicks then if using an iPod but not hard.

 

[BillyShears]

Too much choice

Apple: It's not us, it's them! Not our choice! See how plays for sure was cracke...oh wait, nevermind. See how indendent lables we sell DRMed music of refuse to sell that same music without a DRM... oh wait, nevermind.

Too much choice might scare the customer off. I heard that is why Apple prices all songs at $0.99. They want users to have the same experience. It would be completely annoying if there were 5 different DRM schemes. All I want to do is buy a song, but now I have to think, "OK, if I buy this, how many CDs can I burn it to? Oh and I can only have it in two playlists at a time..."

Even if they only had two levels, DRM and DRM-free, it would still be annoying for users to think about, and they would have more questions. Especially since so much of the music would have DRM, while some wouldn't. Users would have to be educated on the differences.

By having the same DRM for everyone they make this decision easier. Either you like their DRM terms or you don't.

 

[lopresmb]

Awesome!!

That was awesome, at the very least we know Steve Jobs "gets" it.

 

[jklps]

I really agree with what SJ has to say.

Apple made it easy to move and manage files using iTunes, and easy to download them legally.

If these countries have a problem they are only doing a disservice to their citizens.

 

[shelterpaw]

Some other players were able to "sync" with iTunes... but only with non DRM music. I haven't tested this lately, so don't know if this has been dropped

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548

Remember iTunes existed before the iPod.

arn

It's super simple to write a script that could sync with iTunes and therfor be super simple to write an application that worked with iTunes. As far as showing up within itunes, that may be more difficult.

 

[dongmin]

The reason why Apple sells all iTunes music with DRM is to maintain a seamless experience. All music purchased from iTunes has the same restrictions and the same usage rights -- that makes it easier for the user.

They don't want the mess that exists at the other music stores -- where some songs can only be played through a subscription, some songs can only be purchased, different purchased songs have different usage rights, etc.

I don't see how the end-user experience would be any different. iTunes handles the back-end of the downloading and media management. The DRM songs and non-DRM songs would co-exist in your library just like they do now.

 

[gsnixon]

That was awesome, at the very least we know Steve Jobs "gets" it.

Exactly. ****ing right on Steve. This has really allayed my doubts for a while.

 

[MacVault]

OMG! Yes! Down with DRM! I love you, Steve Jobs!

I am jumping for joy after reading that Steve Jobs is publicly bashing DRM and saying Apple would rather sell DRM-free music than music with DRM!!!! I LOVE YOU, STEVE JOBS! All this time I thought you had no clue about this! Please, Steve, force the industry to embrace DRM-free-NESS. I would TOTALLY BUY MORE MUSIC ONLINE (from iTunes) IF IT WERE NOT SHACKLED BY DRM! THAT'S RIGHT - THE RECORD COMPANIES WOULD BE GETTING WAY MORE OF MY MONEY!!! But until it's DRM-free, FORGET IT!

And, next, do the same with the video content!!!!

 

[rxse7en]

I think this statement, combined with the recent Apple Corp. announce is just Steve's way of prepping us for something different. I believe that Apple, Inc. is now free to produce their own, DRM-free music with every unsigned musician out there and will do so offering artists the opportunity to be iTunes Exclusive Artists. The end user will be free to purchase DRM-free music and the currently contracted artists will abandon the big four as their contracts expire. I for one welcome our new ant overlords...er, Apple's paradigm-shifting move into the music industry...yet again. Go Steve!

B

 

[trevorlsciact]

beatles

I think that the Beatles will be DRM free. I know it's out there but, I believe.

 

[ShavenYak]

It's happened: emusic.

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

Probably for the same reason all the tracks are $0.99. Just to keep it simple. And also for security. Imagine if there was a 'flag' that had to be set for every track saying whether or not the store would add the DRM wrapper... what would happen the first time a major label's music got set up wrong and went out unprotected?

 

[superleccy]

Right or wrong (and I think it's mostly right), this is very clever.

This argument should make those pesky Europeans back down, whilst keeping Apple's (and SJ's) halo intact.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.

In other words... "if I open up FairPlay, then don't blame me if the whole concept of legally downloadable music comes crashing down... impacting the Big 4s' cashflow... and Apple's".

For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard.

In other words... "Vivendi, EMI and BMG... you huge powerful companies you, if you want your gravy trains to keep a-rolling, please can you give your local governments a wake-up slap"

Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

In other words... "Hey, we're Apple so we're still the consumers' friend, we're cool. OK, so we'd be hit too if the music companies actually agreed to this... but we know that they never will. Highfive!"

Apple 2, Europe 1.

Regards
Superleccy of Europe

 

[BillyShears]

DRM isn't about "theft" (copyright infringement)

I'm glad I read it, though I have no personal problem with DRM, since I have no reason to steal music.

There are lots of reasons not to buy music that uses DRM. I don't buy it because I want to be able to do whatever I want with my music in the future, and not have to worry about authorizing/deauthorizing my computers. Or worrying about if I want to use music in a movie or presentation in the future, wondering if I'll be able to do that. For me it's nothing really concrete, I just don't like the idea. That's fine; I don't agree to Apple's terms and I don't buy music from Apple. I buy CDs and copy them into iTunes.

As Jobs points out, DRM doesn't prevent "theft." All it takes is one person to buy the CD, rip the songs to whatever format, and put it on the Internet. Even with a perfect DRM solution, music could still be recorded by running an audio cable from your computer to a recording device (or, at the very worst, into a microphone). It only takes one person to do this. So DRM can't prevent theft. It prevents casual uses for everyday people, and that's why I don't like it.

 

[manu chao]

Sure, the big labels sell most of their music DRM-free (on CDs). But it is not that they have not tried to protect them (copy-protected CDs, Sony's trojan). They just hope that slowly more and more of the music sales will migrate to DRMed platforms (downloads and maybe DRMed SACDs).

Remember, 15 years ago, long before Napster, the main avenue to get music was actually buying it from the labels (+ what you could get from your friends on tapes). I am not sure any reliable statistics exist but what I learn from anecdotal evidence that a non-neglible part of music on peoples computers and iPods has not been aquired legally. Admittedly, people would not have bought all their non-legal music, but only a part of it.

My main point is that while I hate DRM (and whenever possible try to buy the music on CDs instead of from the iTMS) you cannot blame the labels for denouncing illegal downloading.

(Side point: can you bequeath or inherit DRMed music?)