iPodDailyNews - Where iPod news comes first

Music now comes in different formats, with different quality, at different price points. The industry is changing. What is the problem with that. Hey, with DVD you can get wide screen or full screen. Soon we will have high definition music. The whole idea that your player must play my music is ludicrous. Welcome to the future. Get used to it.

The author is playing with words. True, AAC is not propietary, but Apple's DRM is. Hence songs purchased from iTunes can only be played on an iPod. Not saying that it's a bad thing, but the author's message is decieving.

Unfortunately, the rebuttal is on someone's blog, and the original FUD is in Time magazine. Sigh. It would be nice if long-time Mac guy Stephen Levy could do a more fitting rebuttal in his column in Newsweek.

The key is that you don't have to use iTMS to use iTunes and iPod. You can still buy CDs.

If you want to buy online music, then you're tied to iTMS if you want to use an iPod. Though I have a number of MP3 files purchased from Wippit. In fact, I have more Wippit tacks than iTMS tracks. For the most part though, DRM free CDs remain the sensible choice.

In fact, Wippit pretty much defeats the argument that you're tied to iTMS. Wippit is awful to navigate, but it's useful for proving a point.

FUD or no FUD, what it's about has nada to do with who sells and services which encoding scheme. What it's about is who ended up becoming the primary data management system of choice for the unprecedented and truly massive pre-existing music libraries that are now sitting on the hard drives of every Joe Blow and his cousin. And guess which company it turned out to be?

It's a done deal. Apple won. You gotta love it.

Wippit, there are a variety of other music download sites with DRM free songs that play on iPod, which also have a more difficult interface than iTMS. However, they generally have content that none of the other mostly-the-same major sites have.

RE: Hello -

Not only that, but he mentions that developers don't have to 'pay' to use AAC - it is a licensed technology that software and hardware developers have to pay to use.
The cost is 17 cents per channel per unit for hardware or software decoders if you have between 5,000,001 units and 10,000,000 units. (ie- 34 cents each for stereo.)
More details available here:http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/license.terms.html

Not to be a fly in the ointment here, and let me preface this by saying I do not like Real, Glasser, or RealPlayer. They are banned from my Mac.

But Real did sell a competing product to the iTMS that would work with iTunes and iPods. Yet Apple subsequently killed that compatibility.

I didn't authorize Apple to tell me which songs I can and cannont play on MY Mac or iPod. Sure it can do what it wants with iTMS, after all it is their store, but once they sold me the iPod and my Mac, they became mine. I should be able to put whatever songs I want on them. Now I understand that Apple has no obligation to make a device compatible with every tom, dick and harry format out there, but for heavens sake, if someone comes up with a format that works, with a DRM that works for them and on MY device, then Apple has no business breaking it at a later time.

my 2¢
Zac

"I didn't authorize Apple to tell me which songs I can and cannont play"...

Apple sold you an iPod and told you up front what formats it would play, making no promises to you that it would support third party hacks. Caveat Emptor.

ok, maczac, you've forgotten about the RIAA again.

whether or not musicians actually get the money, their copyright is still the only way for them to secure their intellectual property.

if apple, as a company, was going to sell the song "happy birthday" to you via iTunes, they would have to wrap it in DRM.

you don't like DRM, buy the CD. then nobody can tell you what to do with it. they've made sure you paid the money for the music.

finally, what Real "sold" - as opposed to give away - was software which circumvented Apple's contract to the RIAA. so, is that a "competing product"? if so, blatant piracy is also a "competing product." what the hell did you expect them to do?

get a clue. you don't like DRM - apple or otherwise? buy the CDs!

As far as the DRMed solutions go...

WMA = Windows-only
AAC = Mac, Windows and Linux (via CodeWeavers)

Non DRM solutions...

MP3 = all platforms
AAC = all platforms
OGG = all platforms
WMA = Windows (and laughable support for Mac)

So which is more proprietary?!

Well, well...

I am not talking about that, read my post.

Apple intentionally broke a 3rd party format that prior to them breaking it worked on an iPod. This is exactly the sort of thing that MS does. I for one, don't like it.

If some enterprising sort comes out with a product, heretofore unknown that happens to work with a product that I own. Then Apple has no business tell me I can not use that.

Michael, I haven't forgotten about he RIAA (again?). As far as I knew, know and understand, Reals product had some form of DRM. Apple threw a hissy fit, because it didn't want a competing store working with "its" iPod. Well let me tell you something, once Apple sells me "its" iPod, it is no longer theirs, but mine. If I choose to use the iTMS, (which I do, because I find it superior) so be it, but if someone else wants to use another store, that has found a way to interface with the iPod, then so be it too. Apple has no business breaking that after the fact.

Buying the CD has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

What bothers me about all of these iPod articles (aside from there being so many compared to the meager number of articles about Macs) is that it seems like people are a little vicious about any claims of unfair practices by Apple.

Whether Apple's DRM scheme is monopolistic or not is a subtle question, but a lot of people seem content just to claim that Microsoft=monopolistic and Apple=pluralistic. I'm tempted to believe that if Microsoft had a successful online store that sold songs that only work on Windows-branded hardware, we'd be jumping all over them as being "monopolistic." (In fact, that's exactly what we are doing these days.)

Personally, I have no problem with the Apple DRM model, but let's let people debate about it instead of crucifying anyone who claims Apple might do something that is less than nice to its customers.

Similarly, it makes my skin crawl when people crow about how great it is that Apple totally dominates the MP3 player market, but get all upset that Microsoft dominates the computer market. Why is domination good for one company and bad for another? I hate Microsoft and love Apple as much as the next guy, but it seems like we are being a little hypocritical.

"The author is playing with words. True, AAC is not propietary, but Apple's DRM is....the author's message is decieving."

The author is not being deceiving; he makes it quite clear in the column that Apple's DRM is proprietary. It helps if you actually RTFA:

"The only thing proprietary about Apple's solution is the DRM (digital rights management) system encoded in the AAC files you buy from the iTunes music store." [Author's emphasis]

yawn.. sticking with a WMP/Muvo combo to spite all the iPod lovers.. how positively UN-capitalist of you..

pffft...

Apple's not forcing anyone to get an iPod.. and yet look at that marketshare..

PREDATORY BEHAVIOUR?! YOU MEAN ADVERTISING?

Puh-lease.. If this was about predatory practices, they would have done the smart thing and licensed their DRM... they're stubborn.. not cunning.

"Why is domination good for one company and bad for another?"

Because if it is due to the fact that your product is superior and users CHOOSE to buy your product and nothing else, then it is GOOD.

If it is due because you FORCE competitors to use YOUR technology otherwise YOU crush THEM so that users CANNOT choose anything BUT your stuff, for how crappy it is then it is BAD.

Monopolistic bully action is when you FORCE your competitors to adopt your technology. Apple is doing exactly the OPPOSITE. It KEEPS competitors FROM using its technology so to be the one offering the BEST product.

Capish?

Not too difficult.

Those complaining about Apple "breaking" Real's iPod compatibility seem to forget that Real went about it in an underhanded way. After Apple officially knocked them back they went ahead and reverse-engineered it anyway. That puts them on the same level as hackers

Get a cream for your skin and look in the dictionary for MONOPOLY. Then, maybe, you'll understand BAD and GOOD dominion of a market.

MacJack, crackers, not hackers. But let's not start a flame on words

Time getting even for Apple giving Newsweek an exclusive on the iPod last year?

I'll probably get lynched for this....

So, my iPod plays music of different formats? Does that mean I can listen to country AND western music?

I am being good today and provide you the definition for monopoly so to stop this silly thing of comparing Apple dominance with iPod with MS monopolistic actions in the OS.

MONOPOLY:
The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in
some article, or of trading in some market;

Clues:
SOME ARTICLE is music player, not iPod. Everyone can produce and sell a music player. Apple is not forcing competitors in using iPod technology. The market is REWARDING iPod quality, not COERCED to buy it.

SOME MARKET is online music service, not iTMS. Apple is not forcing competitors in adopting iTMS as music service to sell music.

Let's stop even at hinting Apple being a monopoly in digital music market. They are offering the BEST products and the market rewards them.

hehehe: A ROPE AND A TALL TREE. NOW!

LOL

Okay, iPodder, I get that you think Apple and Microsoft are different. I agree.

What I object to is jumping all over anyone who even QUESTIONS Apple's policies. Apple is open to scrutiny, as anyone else is.

I'm afraid you proved my point quite well by the way you jumped all over me. I wasn't even saying Apple is a monopoly, I was just saying let people talk about it if they want to, since most things aren't black and white.

"Let's stop even at hinting Apple being a monopoly"...I couldn't have wished for a better example of what I am objecting to.

"Get a cream for your skin"? No idea what that means.

And back on topic: Yes, ITMS and iPod are both non-monopoly products. But when you start tying products together in dependent ways (remember Internet Explorer and Windows?), the lines start to get fuzzier. What's the harm in discussing that?

I've bought one, count 'em one, song from ITMS.

All the songs I like to listen to were made before many of you reading this were even born and I bought the CD's long before iTunes was even a dream. To read the reviews you'd get the impression that I listen to that one song over and over and over again.

So now that everyone knows that Apple will not support any hacks from Real or anyone else, will everyone continue to use iPod? Or will they eschew the platform for some other product and format? How upset is everyone that Apple has dared to provide a ground-breaking product that work perfectly and fills a market niche previously unknown to Real or MS?
Apple is a capitalist company. They don't owe anything to Real or MS, and they are NOT obligated to anyone to maintain the hacks of other companies. If you want your iPod to stay the same as when you bought it, don't update it.

Ted max, "jumped all over you" ? boy, you must be new to the forum

Let me remind you your own words

"unfair practices by Apple"
"Whether Apple's DRM scheme is monopolistic or not is a subtle question"
"people crow about how great it is that Apple totally dominates the MP3 player market, but get all upset that Microsoft dominates the computer market"
"we are being a little hypocritical"

Concerning the skin cream: "it makes my skin crawl"

Either you have problems with English or I do. I cannot see from your post anything but talking about how unfair it is that Apple only allows iTMS to support the iPod or that the iPod does not support... what is missing on its supported formats... ah yes WMA. Or that you cannot use the iPod with other wanna-be web-sites jumping like mushrooms on the internet. Right. So you are questioning a manufacturer for not using, or be interfaced to services that have great potential to ruin the quality of the product. Good.

So, with your comments above you were not hinting that Apple are using monopolistic practices, or unfair, or leveraging on its dominion like Microsoft does on the computer market "Why is domination good for one company and bad for another?". Right.

Back on topic? Exactly, back again on monopolistic practices "remember Internet Explorer and Windows?". Ted, looks like I understand your English better than you do. Here you go again.

Re-read the MONOPOLY definition, please. It is not at all fuzzy to layers. They see pretty well the difference.

Now, if you want to start discussing simply why the iPod and iTMS are tied together, that's a totally different issue than all your previous comments.

It all relies on quality of service. First, the iPod is not forced to use iTMS. Any MP3 downloaded by other services can play on the iPod. Wait, the other services only sell you WMA? K, so you are asking Apple to pay Microsoft royalties for its proprietary format of a worst quality than MP4 (aka AAC). Right.

The actual question would be why Apple is not letting others use its DRM so to deliver directly to the iPod. Those services do NOT, and declare they will NOT (remember Real?) work on the Mac or native on OS X. So, the question really is "Why at Apple are not all idiots and do not shoot their foot on a daily base?".

When Real was told - essentially - by Apple "not on a Mac? then not with the iPod" Real replied by cracking Apple DRM. Right. Why oh why then Apple did not reply "Oh Glaser, you clever. You won. Here is the gold key to the iPod".

So, which of the two topics are we discussing about? Monopolistic unfair practices by Apple, or Apple not being nice with its consumers by not letting the iPod become another Rio, "play for sure" not?

In case you do not know, no one has to pay Apple royalties to use and let you download AAC format tunes: it is MP4. In Japan they are doing that already: you download music on your mobile phone, and then play it on the iPod.

AAC is open. Are you starting to see now how it is working in that market and why Apple is so tight? If they wanted to, EVERYONE could TODAY sell you MP4 music instead of WMA. Open standard instead of Microsoft proprietary format.

If Motorola can do it, the real question is why all others still stick to Microsoft WMA? Do you really need an answer?

Real did not "crack" the DRM. They reverse-engineered it, which btw is entirely legal. As much as I dislike Real as a whole, to say they are on the same level as crackers (or "hackers" as the OP put it, once again completely misusing the word) is utterly ludicrous. Crackers break into machines or create dangerous programs with malicious intent to cause harm to others. Real was attempting to enhance the options available to iPod owners. Did anyone ever stop to think about the fact that people with non-iPod players could purchase from iTMS, use Real's tool to convert and maybe be so impressed with iTunes that they purchased an iPod? Granted it's a long shot but there was no reason for Apple to break the compatibility except they want to keep the walled garden walled. It's the same reason AOL uses a proprietary mail system as opposed to POP3.

Apple subsequently consciously making a change to break the compatibility smacks of, yes, there's that word again, monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to reverse-engineer Microsoft's DRM to allow encrypted WMA tracks to play on the iPod, and Microsoft made a change to break the compatibility, the lot of you would be screaming bloody murder.

tubedogg: Microsoft owns the legal rights to their DRM. You have to pay them in order to use that format. You cannot 'legally reverse engineer it' and use without your consent.

Apple owns the legal rights to Fairplay, the DRM they put on AAC format. You cannot 'legally reverse engineer it' and use it without their consent.
Glaser asked to use it, Apple said no, Glaser reversed engineered it without their consent, and said "up yours".

It's not "bloody murder", it is "you cannot do it". Period. DRMs are proprietary and require you to pay a license to use it and no existing EULA in the world give anyone the right to reverse engineer a product for which you are supposed to pay fee or get an agreement and use it without the copyright owner consent. And that *legally*.

"consciously making a change to break the compatibility" LOL, "monopolistic behavior" ROFLMAO. Than exactly the opposite lad. Monopolistic behavior is when you FORCE competitors to use your techonology, not preventing any and the others to reverse engineer your product and re-use it without your consent.

LOL, you guys are way too funny. Talk to a business layer about monopolistic practices. ROFLMAO

WOW, this is even more funny: "If Apple were to reverse-engineer Microsoft's DRM to allow encrypted WMA tracks to play on the iPod, and Microsoft made a change to break the compatibility"

ROFLMAO, if Apple were to do that, it would be closed next day with thousands of Microsoft layers dismantling the very walls of Cupertino HQ.

Are you REAALLLLY that naive?

Magic MDN word "yes" as in: Yes, I really see you have no clue.

even more naive: "Real was attempting to enhance the options available to iPod owners"

LOL, Real was attempting to drive iPod owners to spend money on their service in that other MP3 players owners are not profitable. And tried to do that without required explicit consent to use proprietary Apple DRM Fairplay, which is COPYRIGHTED. Do you get the meaning of *copyright* or not?

"Did anyone ever stop to think about the fact that people with non-iPod players could purchase from iTMS"

How many other players, in addition to the iPod, play MP4 (aka AAC) in your world? They could not buy from iTMS even with the explicit consent from Apple in that they DO NOT SUPPORT AAC, that's an open not proprietary format. They support WMA for the most.
In addition to that, the MP4 iTMS sells you comes with a DRM, called Fairplay, proprietary of Apple, that has legal rights to use it. You have to have explicit consent from Apple in order to use it and distribute music protected by Fairplay DRM, an Apple copyrighted DRM technology.

So there are two steps for others to sell to iPod owners:

1) distribute music in a format supported by the iPod. Hint: no WMA in that Apple would have to pay MS for that.

2) Pay Apple for a license to use Fairplay. Refusing the license to use a technology is not a monopolistic action. Forcing competitors to use a specific technology of which you are the only, exclusive provider, in order for a competitor to enter that specific market, otherwise impossible to enter, IS a monopolistic practice.

Apple refusing the license to Fairplay is not forcing competitors out of any market. The iPod is not a market, is a specific product.

Since people like car analogies, it is the same of screaming "monopoly" if FORD happens to make a car model everyone want and forbid HONDA to copy it and sell it as well.
Do your OWN CAR.