I can't believe you wrote this without mentioning that Jobs did this under some threat of having the iTunes/iPod connection being broken up by European governments. The truth is Jobs lied about having DRM forced on Apple by all labels.
Sorry, but I'd love to see you prove that. It's a pretty well known fact that Jobs has been fighting the record labels for years to get their music DRM free, and in fact the only reason the iTunes store had DRM music was because it was a specific condition of the labels agreeing to let Jobs sell the music on the store.
Additionally, It's also a fact that Jobs had to concede to raising prices on the iTunes store to get the labels to allow him to sell the music without DRM. Furthermore, you know why Amazon was allowed to sell music DRM-free? Because they agreed to higher prices right up front. Since day one, Amazon's MP3s have cost up to $1.29 per song.
Apple was the only holdout staying at $.99/song which is the specific - and the only - reason it took so long for Apple to be able to sell the music without DRM.
Suggesting that Jobs was lying about the labels forcing DRM is really ignorant, since it's been well documented for years exactly what Jobs has had to go through with the labels.
You're talking about the situation with the three major labels that held out long after the others decided DRM wasn't working for them. Jobs continued to claim ALL labels were forcing DRM on Apple when they weren't. Apple loved DRM when it helped them keep their music ecosystem closed but chose to negotiate their way out of it because that was preferable to having iTunes and the iPod separated.
If you are not aware of the role European governments played in all this then the ignorance is yours.
Not even close. You appear to be ignoring the simple facts that I already laid out for you. Saying Apple "loves" DRM is ignorant in and of itself. Again I'll ask: what possible reason could Apple have to promote DRM? How is it possibly in their best interest? What does Apple gain from having DRM? They don't own the content, they only sell it. You are basically saying Apple prefers to make things difficult for their customers, which frankly borders on real stupidity.
You'll also note that the instant that one record label agreed to let Apple sell their music DRM free, they DID. It took longer for the other three labels because they wanted more money. At no point did Apple ever continue to sell music with DRM on it when they had the option to sell it DRM-free.
The European governments had nothing to do with the record labels' greed, and that was the specific - and only - reason the iTunes store had DRM on it at all. Denying THAT is ignorant in every sense of the word.
Apple DOES prefer to make it more difficult for their customers to use their content on the products of other companies and DRM has helped them do that in many areas of their business. That's why you can't sync Palm products with iTunes.
Apple did NOT drop DRM as soon some labels dropped their demands. It was a scandal then and Jobs has been criticized for it many times since.
You simply seem to be unaware of the historical facts and are filling the gaps with your own assumptions.
@Marbles Bullshit. The library file is written in human-readable XML and several companies have written software that synchs with a user's iTunes music no problem. Palm just took a lazy, hack-job approach, not to mention they were in violation of the USB-IF rules re: vendor IDs.
You're completely wrong again about the timing of Apple's DRM-free offerings. The music store didn't move to an entirely DRM free, variable pricing structure until 2009:
For someone who claims to be so versed in the history of this issue, you make some extraordinarily ignorant statements. Apple moved to drop DRM entirely, rather than share the technology they invested in (and still use to this day) to appease the concerns of other shortsighted media industry executives.
As soon as EMI was willing to play ball, Apple delivered. Amazon was used as a tool by the other labels to force Apple into a variable pricing structure, and unfortunately, they won. We now have DRM-free tracks, but Apple had to concede the $0.99 pricing model.
As to your EU red herring, why in the world should Apple be obligated to share a technology they developed? I don't see any other company opening up their proprietary media encoding schemes for free use by all and sundry. Until the old-guard media execs get their collective heads out of their asses or get replaced by new blood that understand the digital age, Apple has every right to keep their tech to themselves.
You CAN sync Palm products with iTunes. The reason the Pre keeps getting blocked is because they're doing it WRONG by making the Pre impersonate an iPod. That's because Palm are really being idiots. iTunes uses a standard XML file that ANY DEVELOPER can use to sync their product to iTunes. The fact that you appear to be ignorant about that too is just adding to long list of Apple-related facts you seem to be ignorant about.
DRM hasn't helped Apple at all.You know what would have helped Apple even more? If all the songs on the iTunes store had been DRM free right from the start. Why wouldn't Apple want that? You have yet to answer that question.
Yes, Apple DID drop DRM as soon as the labels didn't require it. I'm not sure what planet you're writing from, but as soon as Apple finalized the deal, the music went DRM free. Do you just have a bad memory or something? What is your problem?
As soon as you'd like to stop making things up and have a real discussion, let me know. Until then, I'd suggest you do some research.
Here is the story from Engadget. Keep in mind that not all labels required DRM at this time, in fact some never did. You can google for further reading.
"No telling how this will end up playing out, but we're sure Apple isn't going to give up its little cash-cow ecosystem without a fight."
@Marbles Red herring. The EU was pressuring Apple to share their Fairplay technology, not drop DRM entirely. And, as I said in my previous reply "supporting" your position, Apple is under no obligation to share a technology they developed and continue to use for the other content available in the iTunes store.
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.
I can't believe you wrote this without mentioning that Jobs did this under some threat of having the iTunes/iPod connection being broken up by European governments. The truth is Jobs lied about having DRM forced on Apple by all labels.
@Marbles
Shuuush
Hail oh mighty and righteous Steve slayer of DRM and savior of us all.
@Marbles
Sorry, but I'd love to see you prove that. It's a pretty well known fact that Jobs has been fighting the record labels for years to get their music DRM free, and in fact the only reason the iTunes store had DRM music was because it was a specific condition of the labels agreeing to let Jobs sell the music on the store.
Additionally, It's also a fact that Jobs had to concede to raising prices on the iTunes store to get the labels to allow him to sell the music without DRM. Furthermore, you know why Amazon was allowed to sell music DRM-free? Because they agreed to higher prices right up front. Since day one, Amazon's MP3s have cost up to $1.29 per song.
Apple was the only holdout staying at $.99/song which is the specific - and the only - reason it took so long for Apple to be able to sell the music without DRM.
Suggesting that Jobs was lying about the labels forcing DRM is really ignorant, since it's been well documented for years exactly what Jobs has had to go through with the labels.
You're talking about the situation with the three major labels that held out long after the others decided DRM wasn't working for them. Jobs continued to claim ALL labels were forcing DRM on Apple when they weren't. Apple loved DRM when it helped them keep their music ecosystem closed but chose to negotiate their way out of it because that was preferable to having iTunes and the iPod separated.
If you are not aware of the role European governments played in all this then the ignorance is yours.
@Marbles
Not even close. You appear to be ignoring the simple facts that I already laid out for you. Saying Apple "loves" DRM is ignorant in and of itself. Again I'll ask: what possible reason could Apple have to promote DRM? How is it possibly in their best interest? What does Apple gain from having DRM? They don't own the content, they only sell it. You are basically saying Apple prefers to make things difficult for their customers, which frankly borders on real stupidity.
You'll also note that the instant that one record label agreed to let Apple sell their music DRM free, they DID. It took longer for the other three labels because they wanted more money. At no point did Apple ever continue to sell music with DRM on it when they had the option to sell it DRM-free.
The European governments had nothing to do with the record labels' greed, and that was the specific - and only - reason the iTunes store had DRM on it at all. Denying THAT is ignorant in every sense of the word.
@Jack
Apple DOES prefer to make it more difficult for their customers to use their content on the products of other companies and DRM has helped them do that in many areas of their business. That's why you can't sync Palm products with iTunes.
Apple did NOT drop DRM as soon some labels dropped their demands. It was a scandal then and Jobs has been criticized for it many times since.
You simply seem to be unaware of the historical facts and are filling the gaps with your own assumptions.
@Marbles Bullshit. The library file is written in human-readable XML and several companies have written software that synchs with a user's iTunes music no problem. Palm just took a lazy, hack-job approach, not to mention they were in violation of the USB-IF rules re: vendor IDs.
You're completely wrong again about the timing of Apple's DRM-free offerings. The music store didn't move to an entirely DRM free, variable pricing structure until 2009:
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/04/07/itunes-drops-all-drm-adds-variable-pricing/
A full two years earlier, an agreement with EMI allowed for DRM-free 256kbps tracks.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/02/emi-music-on-itunes-now-drm-free/
For someone who claims to be so versed in the history of this issue, you make some extraordinarily ignorant statements. Apple moved to drop DRM entirely, rather than share the technology they invested in (and still use to this day) to appease the concerns of other shortsighted media industry executives.
As soon as EMI was willing to play ball, Apple delivered. Amazon was used as a tool by the other labels to force Apple into a variable pricing structure, and unfortunately, they won. We now have DRM-free tracks, but Apple had to concede the $0.99 pricing model.
As to your EU red herring, why in the world should Apple be obligated to share a technology they developed? I don't see any other company opening up their proprietary media encoding schemes for free use by all and sundry. Until the old-guard media execs get their collective heads out of their asses or get replaced by new blood that understand the digital age, Apple has every right to keep their tech to themselves.
@Cromagazine
You need to re-read the discussion. You start by missing my point, then go on to support it.
@Marbles
You CAN sync Palm products with iTunes. The reason the Pre keeps getting blocked is because they're doing it WRONG by making the Pre impersonate an iPod. That's because Palm are really being idiots. iTunes uses a standard XML file that ANY DEVELOPER can use to sync their product to iTunes. The fact that you appear to be ignorant about that too is just adding to long list of Apple-related facts you seem to be ignorant about.
DRM hasn't helped Apple at all.You know what would have helped Apple even more? If all the songs on the iTunes store had been DRM free right from the start. Why wouldn't Apple want that? You have yet to answer that question.
Yes, Apple DID drop DRM as soon as the labels didn't require it. I'm not sure what planet you're writing from, but as soon as Apple finalized the deal, the music went DRM free. Do you just have a bad memory or something? What is your problem?
As soon as you'd like to stop making things up and have a real discussion, let me know. Until then, I'd suggest you do some research.
@Marbles "The truth is Jobs lied about having DRM forced on Apple by all labels."
A simple link corroborating what you're asserting would go a long way.
@hey buddy
Here is the story from Engadget. Keep in mind that not all labels required DRM at this time, in fact some never did. You can google for further reading.
"No telling how this will end up playing out, but we're sure Apple isn't going to give up its little cash-cow ecosystem without a fight."
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/24/france-and-germany-pile-on-the-eu-itunes-anti-drm-pressures
@Marbles Red herring. The EU was pressuring Apple to share their Fairplay technology, not drop DRM entirely. And, as I said in my previous reply "supporting" your position, Apple is under no obligation to share a technology they developed and continue to use for the other content available in the iTunes store.