August 04, 2004

• I love Apple computers and do think they're a pretty cool company, but you won't here me defending them for this move. It makes sense to have a big, powerful online store dominating the market, since a big advantage of music downloads over bricks and mortar stores is that you can consolidate everything at one location, and ultimately have much better selection than any bricks and mortar store. But competition is _still_ good. Right now the only way any online music store can distribute major label material is with some sort of DRM. And every online music store has it's own DRM. Apple and Microsoft both intend to lock people into proprietary DRM, software _and_ audio playing hardware and this is really bad for consumers. I guess it's a consequence of the major labels' unwillingness to consider the interet as a viable medium for music downloads - the old channels for creating media standards that were used to create the CD and DVD formats apparently couldn't be used to create a standard for audio download DRM. My only hope is this total failure of the major labels will be a huge opportunity the independents will exploit to try out new and less constrictive means of music distribution.
• Good link- it's great to see a writer thinking long term. People yell about DRM constantly, but I can't see why. iTunes couldn't have got a distribution deal without DRM-encoded music, but it can be bypassed by anyone with a minute to spare. What's more interesting is Apple maneuvering themselves into position as a content provider. Would you patronize the iMovies Store?
• If I were Apple, I'd be against Harmony because it restricts design decisions. What happens if Harmony becomes widespread and a future iPod breaks it? Will Real get blamed when all those songs no longer play? If Apple wants to implement something new that would break Harmony, would they have to consult with (or even pay) Real to develop a new version of Harmony? While it might be a good feature for owners of songs from RealNetworks, Harmony is a parasite from Apple's point of view.
• One of my big concerns with DRM is what happens if it becomes ubiquitous. There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence for the problems which can arise (think creating your own music, or movies, which are automatically DRMed and which you can't then access even though you MADE them). It's like getting photos processed at Walmart, only worse. (For those who haven't heard that story, many people have reported being unable to get reprints of their photos at Walmart because the pictures were too good. Too good = clearly professional work = you don't own the copyright) If DRM is everywhere, then making sure that that RAW file you just uploaded from your camera stays free of it, and can hence be viewed anywhere you please, becomes a real challenge.
• Good, though long winded, essay reminding everyone of what would have been obvious 2 years ago when DRM paranoia was all the rage, but sort of got lost in the iPod hype. Of course, he didn't bother going into the obstacles to this potential plan of Apple's - chiefly the studios holding the content. The studios, both music and movies, are too greedy to see beyond the next immediate sale. They're already trying to raise the prices at iTunes. Even once you work out the tech-bugs, it's going to be hella-frustrating trying to get them to sign on to video sales at a realistic price. That same greed will also make the studios very loath to inaugurate anyone other than themselves as the gatekeepers. They'll want to control/own the digital pipe from start to finish, as they currently do in analog.
• I agree that DRM is mostly pointless - annoying, and mostly easy to crack... the thing that I don't like above all, though, is Apple (and Microsoft and Real) using it as a tool to prop up their monopolies.