France is right to complain, and Apple is right to stonewall them.
@33: The difference is that OS X is Apple's content, but the music sold on the iTunes store is not. Limiting Apple's content to Apple's devices is totally reasonable, especially when the performance of the content is at least partially dependent on tight hardware integration.
Limiting a musician's content to Apple's hardware, even when sold through an Apple-owned and Apple-promoted channel, is less defensible. What are the consumer-visible "features" of FairPlay AAC DRM versus the "features" of other DRM schemes? There aren't any. The principle feature of a DRM scheme vs. another is only visible on the Microsoft/Apple side of the equation: the security side is (at this point) a red herring; cross-format incompatibility IS the featureset.
The strange (and somewhat damning) part of this is that by refusing to license FairPlay to other companies, or to support PlaysForSure on the iPod or in iTunes.app, Apple is revealing some lack of faith in the basic iPod design and features.
To those of you who scrutinize every device's battery life, etc, that makes some sense. But from a gut-level product desirability standpoint, the pandora's box of iPod demand is wide open and not in danger of closing. Apple could license FairPlay, support PlaysForSure, and still rule the online music business and consumer mp3 player markets. For once, they're the VHS and everyone else is the Betamax.
So why is it okay for Apple to stonewall on this? Because for the time being, their engineers have bigger shit to worry about than making PlaysForSure work on the iPod, or accepting a deluge of FairPlay implementation support questions from iRiver and whoever else comes knocking for a FairPlay license.
If people are still complaining 10 quarters from now (and they will be), maybe it'll be time for Apple to give a little.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
France is right to complain, and Apple is right to stonewall them.
@33:
The difference is that OS X is Apple's content, but the music sold on the iTunes store is not. Limiting Apple's content to Apple's devices is totally reasonable, especially when the performance of the content is at least partially dependent on tight hardware integration.
Limiting a musician's content to Apple's hardware, even when sold through an Apple-owned and Apple-promoted channel, is less defensible. What are the consumer-visible "features" of FairPlay AAC DRM versus the "features" of other DRM schemes? There aren't any. The principle feature of a DRM scheme vs. another is only visible on the Microsoft/Apple side of the equation: the security side is (at this point) a red herring; cross-format incompatibility IS the featureset.
The strange (and somewhat damning) part of this is that by refusing to license FairPlay to other companies, or to support PlaysForSure on the iPod or in iTunes.app, Apple is revealing some lack of faith in the basic iPod design and features.
To those of you who scrutinize every device's battery life, etc, that makes some sense. But from a gut-level product desirability standpoint, the pandora's box of iPod demand is wide open and not in danger of closing. Apple could license FairPlay, support PlaysForSure, and still rule the online music business and consumer mp3 player markets. For once, they're the VHS and everyone else is the Betamax.
So why is it okay for Apple to stonewall on this? Because for the time being, their engineers have bigger shit to worry about than making PlaysForSure work on the iPod, or accepting a deluge of FairPlay implementation support questions from iRiver and whoever else comes knocking for a FairPlay license.
If people are still complaining 10 quarters from now (and they will be), maybe it'll be time for Apple to give a little.