SanDisk does up its own "Open Letter," drops the ball
By Paul Miller 
posted Feb 8th 2007 12:15PM
posted Feb 8th 2007 12:15PM
If we didn't know any better, we'd accuse SanDisk of a bit of anti-Apple-ism right here. Sure, it's hard for Eli Harari, CEO of SanDisk, to come out in agreement with a competitor of his whose market domination makes his 2nd place standing look completely inconsequential, but there was really no need for SanDisk to shoot themselves in the foot here. See, while Steve Jobs laid out quite clearly the ridiculous nature of DRM for digital distribution, even if sidestepping the issue on FairPlay interoperability at the same time, Eli seems to be perfectly fine with the way things are in DRM land. "SanDisk is looking at the big picture, by creating solutions rather than conflict. Building an infrastructure to give consumers fair access to digital content while protecting content creators is vital for the long-term health of the music industry, as well as to our business and to our competitors. SanDisk stands committed to making this happen." SanDisk's open letter highlights the numerous music stores its players interoperate with, and poo-poos proprietary systems which is all well and good, even commendable, but lines like "the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers." don't really win them a lot of points with consumers. This all especially rings false since Mr. Harari seemed plenty miffed by the music industry's stance on DRM at his recent CES press conference, stating that he hoped the industry was coming around. So what's it going to be, Eli?[Thanks, Matt]
I dunno, my e280 is open.
I rip all my own stuff from CDs of course, but it's just plain ol' MP3s.
Let's see what the devices do, regardless of the press speak.
Maybe he's just talking the nice nice to placate the industry dudes and lay low while the other stands in the line of fire?
I'd call that not getting shot if it were the case.
"Building an infrastructure to give consumers fair access to digital content while protecting content creators is vital for the long-term health of the music industry, as well as to our business and to our competitors. SanDisk stands committed to making this happen."
He neglected to add: "Of course, I completely ignored how much this hurts the customers, but seriously - fuck those guys! Who needs 'em?!"
Another dinosaur that hasn't looked around to find his kind are becoming extinct. Some will adapt and evolve, most will continue to roar, thus making it clear to avoid them.
ass-licker
That open letter completely misses the point. It states that you can use SanDisk players with a variety of stores and that the songs from those stores can be used on non-SanDisk players as if that was a DRM-free system. It's clearly not (with the exception of emusic who's songs also work on an iPod) the only difference with the scenario SanDisk describes is than none of the companies mentioned invented anything - the all just licensed it from Microsoft who has now abandoned them. SanDisk still lives in a 'walled garden', it's just a slightly bigger one than the individual ones of the Zune and the iPod. To take the analogy further, they're in a walled garden where the gardener has left to move onto a bigger project and the plants have all been left to their own devices... how long before it becomes an overgrown, derelict wasteland..?
I read this article and the linked one and honestly, Engadget you guys really come across as iPod zealots. You bash Sandisk here and the Zune in the other article (for things that are also missing from the iPod). Someone link a Creative bash article and we have most of them covered.
Apple has more to gain from losing DRM simply because it only works with one type from one online outlet. That is Mr. Jobs motivation. Face it, iPods are old tech and the newer players are leaving them in the dust.
Bye Bye SanDisk! Hello Apple! As a consumer Apple is now a much more pleasing company. While sandisk seems to have dug themselves a new hole. But any thought of me buying a sandisk sansa is now out the window.
so basically anything apple do or say they side with the opposit
> "SanDisk is looking at the big picture, by creating solutions rather than conflict."
No conflicts? Did I miss anything?? SanDisk works with DRM under Linux/MacOSX????
No? They're still shills of M$?? (And the sounds quality of their players is the same as before???)
The guys are "looking at big picture" - but self-delusions prevent them from actually seeing anything.
"works with DRM under Linux"
Linux has DRM?? ROFL... unless your talking about the host of nefarious "utilities" that allow protected content to play, Linus doesnt have/support ANY form of DRM....
Seems like just nice talk to me. If you look at the devices you see who supports DRM and who doesn't. I have a e250 because it's open, I don't HAVE to use propietary software.
The simple fact that you HAVE to use iTunes with iPods is DRM in and of itself.
The products speak for themselves.
Your statement would be true if accessing your music through iTunes suddenly locked them down with DRM... but that's of course not the case. The fact that Apple requires iTunes to sync with the iPod is merely their desire to create a seamless experience. iTunes software does not lock your music, iPod does not lock your music... if you don't like the interface, that's a personal preference issue, not a DRM issue.
There is plenty of alternative software that will manage your iPod.
I agree. Sandisk gives many options unlike some other companies.
Derek, you don't really "have" to use iTunes with iPod if you don't need DRM. There are several pieces of software that can transfer files back and forth between your computer and iPod.
Obviously, Sandisk is doing a "suck-up."
They're No.2, and they can't wait to get some favors from people who really call the shots. After all, recording companies do own these content. They can do whatever they want whether we like it or not.
This is sobering, but true.
Can you place a regular MP3 on an iPod? No, you have to convert it to AAC as far as I know. Whether they allow the source to be DRM or not is not the problem. The fact that you can only use that one file type is enough to consider the player "locked" down. The Sansa is open to MP3's and WMA's that are unprotected or protected.
There's more flexibility from SanDisk as far as I am concerned.
The only non-mp3 files I have on my ipod are the .mp4 videos. Everything is unconverted, same as the day I ripped them, mp3s. Granted the ipod doesn't support all file formats (ogg, etc.) it does support the main ones (except wmv of course).
According to the apple website, the ipod supports the following:
"AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF"
iPods support MP3 just like every other digital audio player on the market. There is no DRM involved.
You are misinformed. The iPod easily plays MP3 files. In fact, my 40GB is full of mp3's and I have NEVER... repeat, NEVER bought a song from iTunes. So get your facts straight.
"Can you place a regular MP3 on an iPod? No, you have to convert it to AAC as far as I know."
You don't know, and you're wrong. If you wanted to know it would be pretty easy to figure it out.
"The fact that you can only use that one file type is enough to consider the player "locked" down. "
Again, you're wrong. From the tech specs for the iPod on Apple's site:
Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV.
I don't usually say this to people, but seeing as you've posted multiple times with totally wrong information:
You Sir, are an idiot.
i dont see any contradiction in what he said
at CES he wanted the industry to change it's stance on DRM, then he says that DRM is up to the industry. Basically he is saying that the industry has the right to do what it wants with its content, however, DRM is not good for business.
Sandisk is partnering with Rhapsody and trying to pioneer monthly subscription service, which requires some DRM to make it work. Apple does not offer subscription service, so it has no reason to support DRM. That doesn't make Sandisk the bad guy. For people like me who love subscription service, Apple is the bad guy here. It wants to kill subscription service.
You know if Apple were really serious about not wanting DRM, Steve Jobs already defined the path to take to get there... open up fairplay for everyone... he said it himself... if it were opened up it would make DRM worthless.... so how about Steve??? are you serious or what?? Just open it up and lets makes it worthless and we all are winners....
"You know if Apple were really serious about not wanting DRM, Steve Jobs already defined the path to take to get there... open up fairplay for everyone... he said it himself... if it were opened up it would make DRM worthless.... so how about Steve??? are you serious or what?? Just open it up and lets makes it worthless and we all are winners...."
An interesting idea, but it's still flawed, because DRM still limits what you can do with your music. Even if apple opened up fairplay, I still wouldn't be able to listen to tracks from the iTunes store on a mp3CD/DVD player, or stream it to an open source media box. This is exatcly the reason that I won't buy tracks from the iTMS (or anywhere with DRM). I bought a few shortly after the store launched (pepsi bottle caps), once I realized how limiting DRM really is I swore never to by tracks with it again.
Paul
"Bye Bye SanDisk! Hello Apple! As a consumer Apple is now a much more pleasing company. While sandisk seems to have dug themselves a new hole. But any thought of me buying a sandisk sansa is now out the window."
If you actually owned one, then you would realize that Sansa's are more open then iPods are. But then again the public will just read the corporate speak like you did, instead of actually using the product first.
Some moron said:
"Can you place a regular MP3 on an iPod? No, you have to convert it to AAC as far as I know. Whether they allow the source to be DRM or not is not the problem. The fact that you can only use that one file type is enough to consider the player "locked" down. The Sansa is open to MP3's and WMA's that are unprotected or protected."
Actually, the iPod CAN play MP3s. And it can also play:
AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV
Oh, and MP3 is no more "open" than AAC, considering that both of them are licensed codecs.
Do some research before running off at the mouth. You'll make yourself look less like an idiot.
Some other moron said:
"
Some moron said:
"Can you place a regular MP3 on an iPod? No, you have to convert it to AAC as far as I know. Whether they allow the source to be DRM or not is not the problem. The fact that you can only use that one file type is enough to consider the player "locked" down. The Sansa is open to MP3's and WMA's that are unprotected or protected."
Actually, the iPod CAN play MP3s. And it can also play:
AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV
Oh, and MP3 is no more "open" than AAC, considering that both of them are licensed codecs.
Do some research before running off at the mouth. You'll make yourself look less like an idiot."
Maybe you want take a few english classes while I'm doing my research. Did you read the "as far as I know" part? That means what I said is not fact, nor did I state anywhere that it was indeed fact. The last time I checked into an iPod this is the way it was. Idiot.
"Building an infrastructure to give consumers fair access to digital content while protecting content creators is vital for the long-term health of the music industry, as well as to our business and to our competitors. SanDisk stands committed to making this happen."
Look how many buzzwords are in that. It's so full of marketing, it has no meaning.
And the problem (if it even needs to be said again), is that this infrastructure is a pipe-dream. To consumers, fair-use means a non-intrusive system that automatically works with all the devices you own. Just like a CD, which will work in your car, your PC, or your diskman, with no fuss. The problem is that you can't guarantee that a particular device belongs to a particular person. And the music industry being an industry, their priority is making money. If they can't guarantee you're using it right, then, *sigh*, you're "regrettably going to have to purchase another copy".
Get real, Sandisk.
Karl
Quote:
Did you read the "as far as I know" part? That means what I said is not fact, nor did I state anywhere that it was indeed fact.
End Quote
Please don't share how much you know. You're embarrassing me.
Actually, you are very wrong.
The iPod has been able to play MP3's since day one. You really do need to do research before posting.
> Maybe you want take a few english classes
By newsgroup rules, invoking "poor language" excuse marks you by default a looser.
Not that you had any argument to begin with.
I have replaced my Sansa e260 because (1) sound quality sucks and (2) the damm thing needs about 10 seconds to boot. It was replaced by iPod Nano - which has neither of the problems. And plays MP3/AAC (and lossless!!!) perfectly. [Tiny bit worth mentioning, Sansa doesn't support WMA lossless - not that with its sound quality that did matter.]
Josh says:
Did you read the "as far as I know" part? That means what I said is not fact, nor did I state anywhere that it was indeed fact.
I see. So it's fine to spout out as long as you follow it with "as far as I know". Like, "as far as I know", Zune can't play mp3's, only stuff from the Zune music store. Or, "as far as I know", SanDisk has the consumers' best interests at heart when it sucks up to the RIAA.
It would have taken two seconds for you to look up the facts, but you couldn't be bothered.
Hey, here's one for you: as far as I know, you're an idiot.
Oh noes, the rabid fanboys are attacking! I better hide.
The iPod has ALWAYS supported MP3s
No need for any fanboys to attack, Dubb. You've already made a complete fool out of yourself multiple time, and every time you open your mouth, it gets funnier.
BTW, the iPod has supported MP3 and MP3 VBR from Day One.
Idiot.
The difference here between Apple and Sandisk is that Sandisk is not a content provider, so they basically have no say in how DRM is or isn't used. It would be like Dell releasing a statement because I listen to music on my laptop.
He says "the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers." Well, the music industry is not only the RIAA, but those online content distributors (iTMS, Rhapsody, emusic, etc), who work with them. I don't think the hardware manufacturers (which is what Sandisk is) have a whole lot of say in the DRM matter.
However, Sandisk nicely makes their players (or at least the Sansa) both MTP compatible and UMS compatible, so they play well with PlaysForSure subscription services and WMP11 and more, or as a drag 'n drop OS-neutral devices. That pretty much covers your all your options if you're not using itunes/ipod.
I'm not convinced that "protecting content creators is vital for the long-term health of the music industry" via the current DRM system is at all true, but at least Sandisk's products give you plenty of options to use the system in its current state.
Wait, what was the purpose of Harari's statement again?
This is how it will all play out in the end:
The music industry will realize that the logic used by Steve Jobs in his letter is sound. The only option going forward is to remove DRM completely from the equation.
The music industry will eventually cave and Apple will be allowed to open access to FairPlay to the world. They will probably even distribute a program that un-DRM's your current iTunes music to make them playable on any digital player you own.
This will allow the world with any digital player to use the iTunes music store to purchase music.
We all know that the ITMS setup and ease of use will make it the dominate music store and this will boost Apple to the number 1 position on their list of top sellers of music (pass Target, Walmart, etc)
This is Job's goal... and the route to that goal is un-DRM'ed music so every person with any music player can buy music from him.
I think the most unfair and biased reporting that goes on here at engadget is the engadget attacks in the comments section. It would seem to me that most of the writers are pretty smart, and have pretty good BS meters. They've ripped every company a new one at least once that I can figure, and I've seen praise for just about every one too. They just seem to be better at picking what is bunk than you comment haters.
What I see in that quote is 'long-term health of the music industry.' I'm all for the long term health of music. Art is an important part of society and represents 'who we are now'. Art needs to survive, it reminds us of our individuality, something that's being stripped away from us. The survival of the music INDUSTRY however is a real problem. Listen to just how much individuality there is out there now. They're stuck in that shampoo business model: "Lather, rinse, REPEAT."
Does a company looking out for the industry deserve some criticism? Yeah. Is the music industry the hand that feeds? Yeah. It's a hard place to be in for a 60 y/o fat white dude. Is Steve Jobs really in the right place either? No.
What everyone is too chicken shit to say is the people in the right place ARE the pirates. If something isn't worth the price charged for it, don't buy it. If napster hadn't been shut down, if it hadn't turned into a coroporate shill, if had continued to grow at the rate it was, then it would have been in the right place. We can take care of the distribution. Plenty of people wholly believe an artist deserves compensation for what they do. Plenty of people would have come to love an easy built in link in songs that allowed a buck or two to be donated to the artist. Tell me why it is though that a label that has done nothing but make it harder for me to enjoy the artists work deserves two to every one I give the artist? The pirates of this country are the execs stealing the work of others under the guise of shameful contracts.
I think getting rid of DRM on purchased songs is totally doable. The incentive not to share your purchased tracks will be that they will tag each song you buy with your information, making it easy to track back to you and take legal action if the file shows up on a P2P network. Renting tracks (through subscriptions) would probably have to remain DRMed.
I'm not sure why everyone is jumping on Jobs for this. Sure his reasons are selfish and politically motivated, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Convincing the labels that DRM is not in their best interest won't be easy, and Steve is in the best position to push this on the big labels. Remember when they wanted to raise prices (they called it 'more flexibility')? There was a bit of public back and forth, but in the end the labels lost the fight. I have a feeling that this battle is going to be a lot more nasty, so we'll need all the help we can get.
MORE THAN 20 COMMENTS A PAGE!
I beg you Engadget.
For the love of angry debate make it 50 a page.
Anyway, this guy is a sad dinosaur. No wonder the meteor rocks took them out, they were too busy staring at the ground.
Sandisk propaganda states:
======
As a leader in the digital music industry, SanDisk has always supported freedom of choice for consumers. At the same time, we believe that entertainment companies and artists must be compensated.
======
Agreed. But what about independents?
SanDisk doesn't do lossless. Or open, royalty-free formats. The music 'industry' is a joke. How is hearing independents distributing with royalty-free codecs, perhaps offering us some, you know, independent music and ideas at low cost...how are they going to be played back on SanDisk hardware? How is a lossless format going to be played on SanDisk hardware? It isn't.
So 'consumers' (a marketing term if I've ever heard one) miss out legal, independent, royalty-free content by independent distributors/artist/producers on SanDisk hardware (who do not wish to bend over and pay royalties for use of MP3 and AAC, let alone distribute their work and give up the bulk of their income by distributing in iTunes and other RIAA-approved ways..)
Ogg Vorbis: not supported on Sandisk hardware.
FLAC: not supported on SanDisk hardware.
http://www.vorbis.com
http://flac.sourceforge.net