Odds are you are reading this on a computer with iTunes installed. You may be a Windows user or a Mac user, but iTunes has become nearly synonymous with digital music distribution. Peter Kafka at All Things Digital notes that even Amazon, one of the biggest in online retailing, has only managed to gain a 5- to 10-percent market share for digital media sales, compared to an estimated 70 percent for iTunes.
Apple is known for being incredibly savvy when it comes to marketing its products and gaining user loyalty, and iTunes is no exception. The automatic install when you first set up your iPod or iPhone, the slick user interface, and the latest feature additions like Genius are all designed to do exactly what DRM does: tie you more closely to Apple's products. Why bother searching for a digital album on Amazon when it's right there in your Genius sidebar?
DefectiveByDesign.org is waging a battle with "35 Days Against DRM" and included iTunes as Day 11. The site urges consumers to boycott Apple's iTunes, including both gift cards and downloads, during the holidays to force Apple to finally make its downloads DRM-free. There's only one problem with this boycott: the majority of the people supporting iTunes simply don't care about DRM.
I spent the day taking an informal survey of digital media purchasers. Even my mother knows how to use iTunes, and she's helped along with gifting iTunes to others by the presence of iTunes gift cards everywhere you turn. Apple even makes festive holiday-themed gift cards and offers them in multi-packs. I've given them myself as gifts even though I personally use iTunes for purchases only on the rarest of occasions. The average users (and I'm including my mother in that group) never have to authorize more than five devices. They never want to edit their music or create ringtones or pass their music onto others. The average user simply wants to download music and play it on his or her iPod, and is quite happy with how easy Steve Jobs & Co. make it for that to happen.
Among those who are more tech savvy, there are still some who use iTunes, but most have quit using iTunes due to DRM issues. Amazon's selection is nearly equal to that of iTunes, and the prices are usually lower for music that isn't bound by DRM. Yet the site hasn't managed to even come close to iTunes' market share. The reason? DRM isn't the only motivating factor for users. The average user is more than willing to pay more money for hobbled music because of user interface, ease of use, and marketing. And Apple has managed to score exclusive content where Amazon hasn't bothered; the soundtrack for the much-buzzed-about movie Twilight is doing better at iTunes (currently the seventh biggest album seller there) than at Amazon, where it comes in at number 17. The iTunes version is $5.00 more for the album ($11.99 versus $6.99 at Amazon), yet includes three bonus tracks and a digital booklet. And Apple regularly features exclusive live sets from popular artists, while Amazon treats its digital media sales as one more commodity being sold.
While its intentions are certainly in the right place, and most tech-savvy users would support it, the boycott is simply not going to have an impact on Apple's DRM policies. Certainly, there are those like Yolanda, who views DRM as a ridiculous limitation on a purchaser's rights, saying:
"I switched to Amazon because of the DRM on iTunes. Got tired of Apple being all up in my face anytime I wanted to move around music that I purchased. I'm one of those suckers who buys Coach handbags. If i had to suddenly start notifying Coach of when I give one of my old bags to someone else or I decided to change the contents
Comments
Apple already provides a limited selection of their music DRM-free (the Pink Floyd catalog is a prominent example, also the most recent Coldplay release), with fewer licensing restrictions than the major competitors like Amazon, has publicly prodded the labels towards DRM-free releases, and is generally believed to be resisting pressure from the labels to charge higher prices for new titles and force titles into bundles that the consumer doesn't want. Do we really want to convince Apple to simply concede to these demands?
Avoiding iTunes completely sends the message that you're not happy with iTunes, but doesn't make it clear why. Buying DRM-free from iTunes but ignoring the stuff with DRM would send the message that DRM is the problem, and the message would make it to the labels, as they see good sales figures for DRM-free titles but stunted sales for titles with DRM.
Andrew, why would I pay even more money for the same music from iTunes? Apple's insistence on DRM has absolutely nothing to do with the labels and everything to do with keeping customers tied to their products. Still not sure? See OS X.
"Apple's insistence on DRM has absolutely nothing to do with the labels ..."
So where do you get off making absolutely false claims without doing any research? Or do you in fact know the truth but are choosing to shill for the record companies?
Apple has been trying to persuade the other labels (other than EMI) to drop DRM for several years now. Apparently, the labels are about to give in, having found they can't break the iTunes Store by letting Amazon have unprotected product at reduced prices:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/ria_gives_up_on_suing_customers_drm
Whether it comes off we shall see. And, if it does, we'll also see what concessions Apple will have had to agree to make to get unencumbered product - variable pricing, one wonders?
In any event, what you claimed was totally false. Don't shill for the RIAA.
Shill for the RIAA? That's hysterical, and reeks of fanboy.
The reality is that Jobs wants control, period. He wants to control the labels as well as the consumers, and his recent "victory" with NBC only reinforces his belief that he can control the media industry. Apple has zero interest in dropping DRM, because it untjes consumers from its electronics. Speculation is that Apple is bowing out of MacWorld and not sending Jobs not so much because of cutting ties with the event, but because they have no new, innovative product to launch there. People can only own so many iPods and iPhones.
The RIAA is only giving up on suing consumers because they can now force the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, and users are going to have even LESS online privacy as a result. Take a look at what New York AG Cuomo has been poking around in when it comes to monitoring users' online activities. If you think the labels are caving in ANY regard, you are mistaken. They are even more invasive.
And god forbid Apple offer variable pricing. When I look at how many albums I've purchased from Amazon over the past year that were deals of the day or Friday 5s, I realize that Amazon sees profit in volume rather than set pricing. If they went more out of their way in updating their user interface and getting unique content, I think they'd make an awful lot more inroads into iTunes' market share.
>Shill for the RIAA?
>reeks of fanboy.
Real professional guys and gals.
>The reality is that Jobs wants control, period.
I would suggest that so does everyone, whether they admit it or not. The DRM in iTunes is the least intrusive of widely deployed DRM systems. I believe that it served the purpose of preventing Microsoft from dominating the digital media industry and shutting out Apple's Quicktime, and the open codecs it supports. Neither Mr. Jobs nor Apple need the FairPlay DRM any longer, and for years have been requesting that the labels remove the requirement that iTunes wrap their content in DRM.
I would suggest that Andrew was on point, and the rest of this conversation, to me, was not.
I'm new here. This article, and especially the replies in the comments, has served me well in that The Industry Standard is not where I will be returning for logical, professional information or discourse.
Regards, and happy holiday.
Bill, at the point at which I'm told my opinion is that of a "shill for the RIAA" I take offense.
I disagree that iTunes DRM is the "least intrusive" of DRM systems; their method of device authorization is beyond confining for my family. I can't purchase music for my children on iTunes without automatically killing two device authorizations for music I'll never listen to. And I'm not letting a nine-year-old have an iTunes account.
The real problem is that the record labels fear digital media, and Steve Jobs fears user freedom. His control over Apple has seen the company return to its glory days, but at the expense of users, and, probably, the company itself. What is so awful about PC users being able to install OS X on their machines? What would be so terrible about letting someone like me purchase music and then transfer it to my children, who are the ONLY people in the house who will ever listen to something like the Jonas Brothers?
The second you digress from anything other than a pro-Apple, Steve-Jobs-is-God mantra, you are a shill for someone. I'm a user with an iPhone, a MacBook, and four kids with Apple-branded devices, and if I can't be frustrated as a user without being called a spokesperson for an agency that is single-handed destroying the music industry, then the RIAA wins yet again. DRM is wrong, but so is defending Apple's support of it, claiming that their hands are tied. I refuse to believe that a company with 70% of the digital media market has less sway with the labels than a retailer with 10%.
>> The second you digress from anything other than a pro-Apple, Steve-Jobs-is-God mantra, you are a shill for someone.
No, the point at which you publicly recite questionable ideas regarding the motives and capabilities of a company, and in doing so back the case of a vested interest known for dishonesty and questionable business practices (ie. music labels) is the point at which you could be seen to shill.
>> DRM is wrong, but so is defending Apple's support of it, claiming that their hands are tied. I refuse to
>> believe that a company with 70% of the digital media market has less sway with the labels than a
>> retailer with 10%.
You don't understand this, do you?
The labels don't like Apple having 70% of the digital media market, because Apple effectively cap the price they can charge for the music via the iTunes Music Store, and it dilutes their de facto control of the market. As has been pointed out (and as you conveniently ignored), the move to Amazon was also an attempt to break the iTunes stranglehold. If you believe for one minute that the labels would not hike the prices at the very first chance they got, then you have not been paying attention to their methods and tactics.
As has also been pointed out, Apple do offer DRM free music where they can. If they were so hell-bent on DRM, why would they do this? Why have DRM-free tracks that stand out like a sore thumb to the tech-savvy when they could have uniform DRM, and thereby make a much more persuasive argument that it's simply the way things are due to the label etc?
>> What is so awful about PC users being able to install OS X on their machines?
Well, such a tactic nearly killed Apple in the past. OS X is a key differentiator for Apple computers, and as such is an integral part of their product. There's a good case that selling it on the open market would damage their brand, as at the moment they have close control over their hardware configurations and so can support the chosen hardware in terms of drivers and quality control etc.
OS X in the open market suffers from issues with drivers and flaky configurations for use with OS X. At that point, not only do Apple have to divert significant resources to extra testing and driver development they also have the problem of lots of people buying OS X to find it's not as stable as they'd like on their esoteric hardware, and all of a sudden Apple's hard-won reputation for ease of use and comparatively minimal problems in terms of driver issues etc goes out of the window.
As Bill has said, I will not be returning to articles on this site - the lack of what I feel should be rudimentary insight renders it unsuitable for serious discussions.
The labels aren't going to hike any pricing if they break the iTunes market domination, and using that as an argument FOR Apple's way of doing business is misleading. The labels are well aware at this point that pricing albums past a certain price point drives users to illegal filesharing, and aren't about to jack the prices up just to push people toward pirating. They just aren't that stupid. Variable pricing makes sense from a consumer perspective, plain and simple. I expect to pay more for a new release than I do for a back-catalog issue, and the reality is that those back-catalog sales cost next to nothing for distribution; it's bread-and-butter money.
As for the argument that allowing OS X off Apple machines due to "driver issues" is detrimental to the company, you are right; it is. And if Microsoft had been as lazy as Apple is about it, they'd never have the current market share that THEY do, would they? It's this type of decision-making, focusing on marketing and reputation rather than truly building product that ANYONE can use rather than those who have the cash to burn on Apple products, that alienate consumers against the Cult of Mac, cause them to view Apple users as elitist, and set the company up for a massive fail once it is no longer under the obessive-compulsive thumb of Steve Jobs.
>> The labels aren't going to hike any pricing if they break the iTunes market domination
You presumably have some signed contract etc telling you this? Otherwise you're in the same boat as me - you're basing it on instinct and analysis.
>> The labels are well aware at this point that pricing albums past a certain price point drives users to
>> illegal filesharing, and aren't about to jack the prices up just to push people toward pirating. They
>> just aren't that stupid
I believe that they are. I believe that their actions show them to be. Look into their legal escapades; they have effectively zero impact on piracy, and yet they kept that little scam up for a while. I say scam, as their evidence identifying their targets was flimsy at best.
People who download music fall into several camps; there's no real single template. There are those who would never buy the music in the first place, those who are listening before buying in a convenient manner, those who already have the music on CDs or tapes etc who want it on their mp3 players in a convenient manner and so on.
There are two groups there who are oblivious to the retail price, plain and simple.
Another example is DRM on computer games. Put bluntly, I don't know why they bother. These games will appear on file sharing sites very soon after launch, with the DRM removed. And in that form, they are actually more convenient! I know I've bought games and installed versions from filesharing sites with the DRM removed so I can play them without having to have the CDs to hand etc. The same with DVDs; why should I have to sit through an unskippable warning about piracy being theft (which it's not, in many technical definitions depending on where you live) when I've actually bought the DVD? Do you not think that's the first thing to go when it gets copied to filesharing sites, and so people who have obtained the film through downloading it don't have to sit through that annoying unskippable section, and yet _I do_ having _bought_ the thing?
So yes. Yes, I do believe that media companies are "that stupid".
>> Variable pricing makes sense from a consumer perspective, plain and simple. I expect to pay more
>> for a new release than I do for a back-catalog issue, and the reality is that those back-catalog sales
>> cost next to nothing for distribution; it's bread-and-butter money.
When variable pricing means that all but a small proportion of the catalogue becomes more expensive, and that's what I believe will happen, it doesn't make sense from a consumer perspective.
>> As for the argument that allowing OS X off Apple machines due to "driver issues" is detrimental to
>> the company, you are right; it is.
Not just driver issues. Apple are a hardware company; their software exists to sell their hardware. If they no longer have that advantage, there might not be an Apple for too much longer. See the clones issue I alluded to in a previous post.
>> And if Microsoft had been as lazy as Apple is about it, they'd never have the current market share >> that THEY do, would they?
Yes, they would - they got there on the back of some clever and timely deals, and by being the business standard. Quality of software was something of a side issue; for the longest time, MS operating systems were quite arguably inferior to many other systems. They have a large driver community because they're the standard, not the other way around.
That's a simplistic reading of it (MS do driver testing etc to certify things), but describing Apple as
"lazy" because they want to focus on their core competency (vertical integration) is like saying Boeing is lazy for not making washing machines. It's just not what they do.
>> It's this type of decision-making, focusing on marketing and reputation rather than truly building
>> product that ANYONE can use rather than those who have the cash to burn on Apple products, that
>> alienate consumers against the Cult of Mac, cause them to view Apple users as elitist, and set the
>> company up for a massive fail once it is no longer under the obessive-compulsive thumb of Steve
>> Jobs.
Analysts have been saying this for years, and yet Apple keep on trucking. They do so, in part, because they _do_ build products anyone can use, despite your assertions. If your argument was supposed to be "they don't build the cheapest machines on the market" then that's something else. Nobody makes full functional brand new desktop machines for $25, for example, and so nobody is building products truly anyone can use. And if they were, well, they're not making them for $10, so they're not truly making products anyone can use etc.
I find your arguments lacking - I don't believe you understand what Apple do, and how they are different from Microsoft, Sun etc
Cyndy-
> Andrew, why would I pay even more money for the same music from iTunes?
That seems a non-sequitur. The conversation was about DRM, not pricing. If you can get better pricing elsewhere, by all means go ahead. iTunes tends to be generally competitive on pricing in my experience, and I personally refuse to purchase from Amazon MP3 store because of their licensing restrictions. (Amazon MP3 terms explicitly disallow transfer of ownership - no selling your music if you need the money, no giving away an album that you decided you don't care for anymore, no willing your music collection to your heirs. iTunes doesn't have that restriction, or if they do I was unable to find it.)
Besides, I never said anyone should purchase from iTunes. I simply said don't avoid all of iTunes in order to make a point about DRM, because you wouldn't be making the point - instead, just avoid the stuff with DRM. If you have other reasons to avoid iTunes or simply prefer some other place for pricing or some other reason, then by all means purchase elsewhere.
DRM sucks. I refuse to "buy" an MP3 simply because I want the better quality and reliable physical media of a CD. As a perfect example of why forcing people to use DRM, I will tell a short tale that occurred in my life just two days ago.
I am a huge fan of Weezer. Weezer released a Christmas compilation album. I found out. I actually planned to go out in the middle of a severe winter snowstorm just to buy it. I was that eager. I called music stores; I found out that it was actually only available for purchase by DRM'd download. So I looked for a torrent. 16 minutes later (actual number), I had the album.
If Weezer had put this out as a physical CD for purchase, I'd have paid for it legitimately. I want 1440khz, and physical media I can own and re-encode as I like. Not some wishy-washy locked piece of software that may or may not work in a few generations of iPod, and will be lost if my computer crashes.
A classic example of how DRM just lost the music industry a sale.
Not only do I not use Itunes, I have encouraged people to not get ipods. You know, apple has been locking down the ipods all along so media goes on but does not go back off. The most recent generation or two of ipods, you cannot use your own software to load music on *or* off the ipod even if the music is restriction-free -- the Ipod itself generates restrictions. Apple has hassled the makers of free ipod software with legal threats, so they do not support the newest ipod models even for putting your own music onto it. And Apple doesn't make itunes for free OSes.
It's real easy to get people to not get new ipods when I can tell them "Oh you know, it's good you got that ipod quite a while ago, a new one will not work with your computer".
Post new comment