Apple – Thoughts on Music

His logic just plain doesn't make sense. On the one hand, he says they can't license FairPlay because it wouldn't be secure enough and therefore the record labels wouldn't do business with them; but that statement is proven false by Microsoft's approach. They license their DRM and get the record companies' business.

My point / speculation about them DRMing the music even if the record companies didn't force them to was just that: speculation. Like I said above, that may or may not be true, and it's impossible to prove because the labels DO demand DRM. It's like me saying "If I had 100 million dollars, I'd give it all to charity"; it's a very easy statement for me to make since I know I won't have to prove it. Same with Steve or Bill or anyone else who says "we'd love to sell you DRM free music if the record companies would only let us"; easy to say because they know that the record companies will not let them.

That was only one small point of the article, though. I certainly could be wrong, and in a perfect world the record companies would say "OK, get rid of the DRM" and Apple and MS would comply. That would be totally fine by me, and I would be very happy to be proven wrong in that regard.

I almost brought up the whole numbers thing too, as it relates to full iPods, etc. but I didn't really want to open it up to all of that mess as well. It's nice that he acknowledges that a lot of people seem to prefer not to have DRMed music on their devices. Whether that's because they have a whole lot of legit CD rips or illegal downloads is a point he carefully avoids, but I will give him credit for taking one step closer to acknowledging P2P music "sharing" as being a key factor in the initial growth of the iPod market, even if he didn't put it that way.

As for Microsoft's model "not working for them", I don't see any evidence in his letter of that. The paragraph he mentions them in:

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. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

still doesn't quite make sense, since Microsoft's plan still involves licensing their DRM to other companies. It's a bit more confusing since they now have a second, more closed model, but they have committed to continue to support their licensed DRM for the foreseeable future. Having two options (one more open and one just as closed as Apple's) may be confusing, and I don't think it's a great idea, but that's the way it is for now, and until that changes it will stand as evidence against Steve's claim that they can't license FairPlay and keep the record companies' business.

For him to bring up Microsoft isn't necessarily a knock. It reads that he's acknowledging MSes dominance in licensing DRM and how it's not working for them because it's not a viable option.

Wow, I thought you didn't read it but I guess you did. I don't think my "kool-aid" effects me as much as your hard pressed stance on hating anything Apple does or says. I really cannot believe what you're saying right now. I'm surprised you're not a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

So if Gates says the same thing would you believe it?

What about Yahoo?

I really don't think he's blowing smoke just as a publicity stunt in order to get out of the EU problems. He backs it up with numbers not hypothetical statements that intentionally point to closed is king. He does the opposite, he essentially says what you want him to say but you're so stubborn you can't believe it.

Why wouldn't he just say the best option is the closed one then? Oh yeah, to lie because your speculations makes more sense, of course.

Dan, you must have had a huge glass of the Apple kool-aid to help you swallow that load of crap.

Of course companies like Apple and Microsoft implement DRM schemes primarily at the request of the music companies. That's a no brainer. Personally, I believe that they would still do it even if the record companies didn't force them too, but that's a mute point and speculation because it will never happen, so it would be very easy for Steve or any MS representative to say that they would love to sell DRM free music.

Of course, we both know that Job's real motivation behind the iTunes store is to push iPod sales, not profit from the songs themselves. What really gets me is he has the balls to try and claim in this letter that the iTunes/iPod combo is not a lock-in strategy. Does he really expect anyone to believe that?

He then immediately goes on to defend their practice of not licensing FairPlay to non-Apple players. This is the cornerstone of their lock in strategy, and here he is defending it right after he denies it.

To top it all off, he then tries to spin it as putting Microsoft in a negative light for following in Apple's footsteps by pointing out that they are becoming more "closed". ("Sure we're closed, but they are too!"). Not only is this funny since he's trying to put down Microsoft by claiming that they're becoming more Apple-like in this regard, but it's also totally misleading.

Yes, Microsoft's new DRM is more restrictive than its previous incarnation, but it's still FAR more open than Apple's implementation, since you can purchase devices from any number of manufacturers to play MS encoded songs, whereas Apple encoded songs can only be played (legally) by Apple products. That's the very definition of lock-in, and it's pretty sad watching him try to deny it.

if you like seeing jared being wrong, you should read your wife's blog! :-)