Jobs Favors DRM-Free Music Distribution

Another anonymous reader tips an essay by Steve Jobs on the Apple site about DRM, iTunes, and the iPod. Perhaps it was prompted by the uncomfortable pressure the EU has been putting on Apple to open up the iPod. Jobs places the blame for the existence and continuing reliance on DRM squarely on the music companies. Quoting: "Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."

Which means...

Dear governments, please Gang-Bang the big studios for us. (Which I believe would be a very nice thing to see)

Re:Which means...

No, no, no. In capitalist America, Big studios Gang-Bang YOU!

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

Apple will blame anyone but themselves and try to spin it so that they don't look bad.

Apple's CEO just said that they will make all the music they sell DRM-free if the labels allow them to. Where is the spin here?

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

Bah.. having read the article myself, I think a better summary would be, Nate Anderson lists some reasons why Apple benefits from DRM, and uses an unnecessarily controversial title as a hook to draw reader attention.

Here's a tip: Nate isn't an official Apple spokesperson. His views and opinions are his own, and have about as much bearing on Apple's strategic goals as yours or mine do. Now, if you can point me to an article that has a single verifiable quote from someone who oficially speaks for Apple saying, "hey, we're right behind DRM," then you might have a point. Otherwise, the best legitimate summary you can get is, "Nate thinks Apple likes DRM."

If you want to see DRM's best friends, look at the RIAA and MPAA. They're the ones who continue to spend tons of money lobbying Congress for laws that would make hardware DRM mandatory in any device that touches any device that could ever potentially touch content. They're the ones who've spent tons of money on markting campaigns that say, "you wouldn't commit genocide against an entire, harmless, sentient species, so why would you consider letting another person watch a rented movie on your HDTV screen without paying us theatre royalties?"

Or perhaps look at the DRM that Microsoft has rolled into Vista. Show me how Apple has loaded its flagship products with restrictions that turn them into crippleware as soon as one sees anything that looks like protected content.

Hell, if you want an opinion piece, try this one: How Apple Could End Up Being DRM's Worst Enemy:

The labels wanted to use DRM to control the consumer's access to content. They'd be happy to legislate away fair use and sell it back to us, impose bullshit like tiered pricing for anything that actually sells, and screw hardware vendors for the infamous $1-per-Zune "because we all know your customers are criminals" fee.

But they can't, because Apple doesn't like those ideas. And the labels famously failed to strong-arm Apple at the last contract negotiation because they need Apple more than Apple needs them. The iPod is the dominant product in the market, and the only way to sell DRM'd content for the iPod is through Apple.

In short, Apple is using DRM to screw the labels harder than the labels have been able to screw the consumer. And the labels are getting so tired of being screwed by Apple. They're so tired, in fact, that they're starting to look at dropping the DRM just to take some of the edge off Apple's market dominance.

Let's be clear here, boys and girls: if the labels do away with DRM, it won't be because they've spontaneously turned into "information wants to be free" idealists. They'll do it because it's hurting their bottom line. And who's the company that's used DRM to hurt the labels's bottom line rather than using DRM to help the labels screw consumers? Apple.

All the ethical rants, consumer hostility, and technological circumvention to date have failed to make the labels back away from DRM. They've only entrenched the labels more firmly in the idea that they need legal control over everything up to and including the consumer's eyes and ears.

If the labels decide to drop DRM, it will be because of how Apple used DRM to screw the labels out of money. Period.

Show me a more effective enemy than that.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

It's obviously an all-or-nothing deal. He wants a consistent user experience so that the customer knows what he's getting every time. Microsoft caught shit for pimping the Zune's squirting and then turning around and selling tracks that certain artists didn't want to be squirted. That kind of inconsistency adds complexity. The iTunes store is supposed to be simple. There's no conspiracy here. On average, barely 3% of the music on an iPod is from the iTunes store, so if a customer really wants to move to another player, he's not going to feel "locked in" by 3% of his music collection. If you'd read the damn essay, you'd know that.

Re:Bullshit

If Jobs wanted a consistent, all-or-nothing experience, he would make iTunes encrypt all music -- ripped CDs, MP3s from the intarweb, etc.

I said a consistent experience with the store, you blitering idiot. Why the hell would Jobs forcibly have iTunes DRM legitimately-ripped CDs? Hell, this is an argument in favor of Jobs' comments today, not against them. iTunes doesn't even offer the user the option of DRM'ing their rips, unlike Windows Media Player.

The current situation is inconsistent. If a user wants to make a MP3-CD for their car player, some of their songs can be copied (MP3s ripped from original CDs) and some can't (iTunes Store purchases).

Wrong [jakeludington.com]. iTunes will simply convert the protected AACs to MP3's to create the MP3 CD.

How the fuck is that consistent? The average user doesn't understand why there's a difference. They don't know that iTunes Store tracks are encrypted, and they certainly don't know how to tell which is which. They just have a bunch of music and want everything to work the same way.

Bullshit, you retard. There's a "Purchased" category in iTunes that shows you exactly what you've bought from the store, and all music bought from the store has the ".m4p" extension. Have you ever used iTunes?

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

Comvenient cop-out? The record labels are to blame. Why is it wrong to blame the people whose fault it is? In case you have a short memory, Jobs is about the only person yielding any significant power within the industry to seriously fight DRM. He spent months trying to get the studios to back away from draconian DRM when he was in negotiation with the record labels for the iTunes Music Store Launch. He really did not want it, and negotiated the best compromise he could at the time.

Don't you even remember those days? If it was all about lock-in to the music store, why did Apple start with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" iTunes ads? Don't you remember how Apple was a major target of the RIAA and labels for that campaign? Jobs was demonised for encouraging music piracy - and it was reported in many places as if Apple was the new Napster for encouraging people to "rip" their CDs. Under the pressure, they added "please don't steal music" stickers to the iPod. Other companies would probably simply have removed the ability to rip CDS from their product - or put DRM on the ripped files like Microsoft is wont to do.

You whiners should remove your heads from your asses. Without Jobs, we wouldn't have any high-profile people with the power to influence DRM and the labels in a positive way. We'd still be in the dark ages, with the labels denying it was even possible to make money selling music online, and your only choices would be CDs or bittorrent. Now Apple is in a position to fight for the repeal of DRM on music altogether. But you just want to undermine it. Fucking idiots! You whine all the time about how DRM is evil - then someone comes along with the capacity to get rid of some of it, and you just diss him? You don;t even know what's good for you.

Seriously, which tactic is going to work - whining all the time and running lame "defective by design" campaigns with the FSF - or having an ally who is successful and influential, with contacts within the actual record labels? Someone who actually makes the labels money and has revolutionized their business? Yeah, I'm sure they are going to listen to some FSF protestor who says he won't buy music online anyway, over someone who makes them millions of dollars.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

It sounds like you didn't read Steve Jobs' original message. He explains why licensing DRM to other companies would not work due to the stringent contractual requirements that the music companies have placed on Apple in regards to maintaining the integrity of the DRM system. He also explains that only 3% of the music iPods are capable of storing are DRM'd/from the iTunes store, the other 97% is likely pirated or legally ripped from CDs or other sources. So most people are not locked in since most if not all of the music on their iPods is not DRM'd.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

He also explains that only 3% of the music iPods are capable of storing are DRM'd/from the iTunes store, the other 97% is likely pirated or legally ripped from CDs or other sources. So most people are not locked in since most if not all of the music on their iPods is not DRM'd.

Well, DRM keeps me from buying the music online and therefor would look like I'm not locked in. No I'm not in. I'm locked OUT! I cannot download music from their musicstores, because if I do, I (or rather, my music) will become a part of those 3%. I don't want to be locked in. And I'm getting damn tired of ordering CD's online, waiting for the CD to arrive, put it in my computer and rip it, when iTunes and other musicstores offer me to download it within a minute.

This a holding me back at buying music. They are loosing money, while the music I do buy, will be counted in as "DRM free" and will help the 97% to get even bigger.

I would just love it, if they would remove DRM for good. I would probably go from $ 10-20 to $ 100-200 a month, if I could have the ease and speed of downloading it. (this last line was just added to remind the "big four" about what they are missing out on... :-)

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

My only complaint with the apple drm is the quality. I like everything to be 192+ as I can hear the difference in anything under 192.

# AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be "indistinguishable" from the original uncompressed audio source.
# AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps [apple.com].

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

have you ever thought that your "listening tastes" actually diminish the music for you? I dont constantly hear these differences, and I enjoy the music just as much as you. In fact, I enjoy it better, because I am not driven to post to slashdot about how much mp3 and aac sucks.

Is your quality of life better mister audiophile?

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

I like to listen to music using my stereo.
An audiophile likes to listen to their stereo using music.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

"I'd like to meet these "expert" listeners."

Boo.

AAC at 128 kbit is good enough for me. I certainly cannot hear any artefacts on my system (Sennheiser HD-600 connected to a Denon DA convertor and AHA headphone amp).

With MP3, you certainly can hear some artefacts, an aquarium-like effect in the higher regions. But this seems to be not the case for AAC.

With respect to your comments on "transience", "Timbre" and stuff, show me some measurements. Show me some real stuff, not some huggy-feely analysis, be more like the people at Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprincipl es/index.php).

Please point out the differences in balance in a frequency spectrum that might be perceived by the human ear, then I'll be happy to agree with you.

B.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

"You will hear loss of dynamic transience."

But that can be fixed with some magnetic phase-inducers and cable-elevators. And wooden knobs [referenceaudiomods.com]. Can't go wrong with those knobs....

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

My girlfriend has a pair of E2Cs, which she can easily tell the difference betweek 192k VBR mp3 and lossless.

Wow, you and your girlfriend should get jobs as audio engineers. In double-blind listening tests, even the guys at Hydrogenaudio can tell no difference between most modern audio codecs at 128kbp or higher and CDDA. I remember doing my first ABX test back in 1999 and laughing at how bad even 192kbps MP3s sounded. I recently ABXed a dozen codecs after reading the Hydrogenaudio results, and outside of classical music couldn't tell the lossy from the lossless until the compression was 112kbps and below. Audio compression has come a long way since BladeEnc.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

Are you aware that Apple is compressing all the Music from their digital masters which have a much wider frequency and dynamic range than a shitty Audio CD? I bet some of those 128 AACs actually sound even better than their CD counterparts, compressed or not.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

immediately rip it back to mp3 with myfairtunes ... it's 100% of the quality of the original file just shy the drm

Say what? You can not convert an AAC (regardless of DRM) to an MP3 and not lose quality. They are differnet compression algorithms and your decompress/recompress inherently loses quality. You could convert it to a WAV file without losing quality (or APE, or FLAC, or even windows media lossless) - but compressing it back to any format will lose quality. If you had to decompress it to get around the DRM (which you may or may not have to do) they you'd generally still lose quality turning it back into an AAC file.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

It isn't piracy: you're free to burn the music to cd. In fact, you're encouraged to make back-ups of your purchased music.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

why should it be easier to be a pirate than to be a honest man?

'Tis just the way 'tis matey. The seas are an alluring wench. Plunderin' makes many a scurvy dog's heart race. You better watch yeself though, Jim-lad. It may seem easy at first, but all that easy booty weighs heavily on the heart. Eventually ye'll be drawn to the darker side, and before ye known it ye be headed for Davy Jones' locker like a dinghy fitted with a galley.

Being an honest man was never easy, 'tis easier to be an honorable swine.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

And I'm sure Jobs would LOVE to move those programmers to work on another project. Devoting a good chunk of his staff simply to appease the record companies, when they could be working on products that actually make profit, isn't exactly the best use of employee time.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

If you read TFA you'll see that Jobs explains exactly why they don't license their DRM. It's because a requirement of their license to sell the music of the record companies is that any holes discovered in the DRM are patched within a certain time limit. He says that by licensing the technology to a bunch of 3rd parties, that there is more chance of a particular implementation of FairPlay leaking out, yet it would still be Apple's resposibility to fix the holes - but this time for more devices and software platforms. The effectively makes it impossible for Apple to submit to 3rd party licensing because they don't have the resources to be able to take on that level of responsibility.

Bob

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

If you don't use Windows or Mac, I'm guessing you're a Linux user. If you're technically competent to use Linux as your primary OS, I doubt you'd have any trouble installing and using Rockbox [rockbox.org], which is OSS that would make an iPod behave the way you want it to.

Of course, if you don't see any other advantages to iPods, then there's no point. A lot of people like their price/form factor/clickwheel/battery life/reliability/style/customer service.

As least MS Fanboys are consistent, I guess...

Microsoft releases an OS that won't run software that ran on it's own earlier operating system, and also tends to corrupt a music device which is in competition with their own music device and it's Apple's fault? Microsoft has pushed multiple DRM setups and then stopped supporting it's own damn standards but Apple is the bad guy?

I don't buy any drm'd music, but Apple's is surely the least abusive...It allows you to burn it to a cd, which can then be ripped back into an un-drm'd format...Pretty obvious that they did the minimum amount of work that would satisfy record companies that were so damn drm obsessed that they were shipping cd's with a free rootkit included.

Re:As least MS Fanboys are consistent, I guess...

OS APIs change all the time. If I wrote an audio driver to work with the Linux 2.2 kernel, should I expect it to work in 2.4? Hardly! That's why Linux has the odd releases. I should try my driver under 2.3 and see if it still works. If not, I should learn what's changing in the kernel and port appropriately.

I've had developer releases of Vista coming through my office for the better part of a year. If Microsoft changed something at the last second (which they didn't) Apple would have a case (which they don't).

If anything, Microsoft changing the way its OS works is a great thing. There has been a lot of criticism in the security world because Microsoft has tried to be *too* backwards-compatible, to the point of ignoring security ideas in favor of still being able to run Edgar the Virus Hunter. Microsoft has been responsible in responding to security threats and changing The Way Things Work. To me (an Apple user and Apple lover) it looks like a decision-maker at Apple messed up, and figured that Vista wasn't going to be much different than XP. Oops.

mod jobs up

finally, somebody in the business had a shot of insight.

Re:mod jobs up

It's not Jobs' insight that we have to admire, but rather his willingness to not only rationally assess the situation, but also publicly acknowledge the failure of DRM as a means to an end.

In this case, Jobs demonstrated that common sense CAN dominate over greed, even in a corporate environment. Jobs realizes that DRM may lock some users into iTMS, and they might lose some market by dropping it. However, he also realizes that users are growing more irritated with DRM in general. But more importantly, he understands that by abolishing DRM, he can dramatically boost the sales of music online.

Therefore, it is only logical that he supports abolishing this monstrosity - it hurts B&M distributors, while boosting internet sales.

Re:mod jobs up

In this case, Jobs demonstrated that common sense CAN dominate over greed, even in a corporate environment.

I disagree. Oh, I think banning DRM from media companies is good for everyone, but I think in this particular instance getting rid of it benefits Apple more than keeping it. Right now Apple faces the possibility that they will no longer be able to leverage the iPod to promote FairPlay. Since MS can still leverage Windows to promote PlayForSure, that means if Apple is forced to take this action Apple will lose (as will consumers) as MS eventually monopolizes that market segment as well. Job's press statement capitalizes upon all the bad press they have been getting lately and turns it from a liability to a benefit. Instead of looking like a greedy exec, he takes the people's side against DRM in general, which would leave a relatively level playing field and the iPod and macintosh computer could both compete on their merits (something Apple is not afraid of). Considering a likely alternative is Apple being forced to license FairPlay, while MS is not forced to allow any given party to license PlaysForSure or whatever they decide to bundle, this is not common sense over greed, but common sense that happens to coincide with greed.

Re:mod jobs up

I don't think it's a case of Jobs suddenly realizing DRM is bad and becoming a generous benefactor by disregarding his greedy interests. First, he's been against DRM from the beginning. It's come up again and again, and I don't know whether any public statements have been made before, but by all accounts Steve Jobs did not want DRM on iTMS. The record companies just required it.

Second, by most accounts, Apple doesn't make much money off of the iTMS anyhow. They roughly break even. It's a marketing issue, to promote the iPod, and that's pretty much it. Third, even if Apple did make money from the sales, they don't need to make much. While record companies are spending money to actually produce the music, Apple only needs to make enough to cover their costs of running the store. Therefore, Apple doesn't need to worry very much about piracy.

So even if Apple took a small loss on the iTMS, it might be worth it for marketing purposes. However, keeping the DRM hurts their PR, and it's probably a nightmare to manage, keep up-to-date, etc. Plus, they've lost the business of people who might have purchased from iTMS, but who won't because of the DRM. DRM is a net loss for them, I'm sure.

Re:Why DRM on all iTunes songs?

The big 4 say iTunes has to to DRM everything, or they can't sell their music. Same goes for pricing. The big 4 won't let iTunes sell other people's music for less.

Re:Why DRM on all iTunes songs?

It's hard to say, but two immediate problems come to mind. First, and in my opinion most likely, is that they have in place agreements with the major record labels that involve giving the same treatment to all music sold via the iTMS, so that it all has to be FairPlayed. This strikes me as pretty likely, and something that the record labels would insist on; they must realize that online distribution closes a lot of the gap between a small record company, and them, and obviously they want to avoid direct competition as much as they can. So they'd want to suppress anything that a small, independent company could use as an advantage. Hence, demand that Apple apply the same "protection" to all iTMS-sold music.

The other problem, which isn't exclusive of the first, is that the DRM isn't applied once to each song in the store when it's being added to the database, but added at the time of sale (necessary because it's encrypted with a key that's specific to each user), somewhere on Akamai's servers. It might be difficult to the point of being cost-prohibitive to designate one song as being DRM-free, if the system wasn't designed with that capability from the beginning.

I've noticed that even songs that are free downloads (promo songs, etc.) from the iTMS have FairPlay placed on them, even when you can go to the band's or label's web site and download it as an MP3 (so it's obvious that the label doesn't care if it's protected); this makes me suspect that one or both of those problems exist.

It would probably be trivial for Apple to turn off DRM completely, for all the songs in the Store, but difficult both legally and technically, to disable it for just one.

(I'm not trying to sound like too much of an Apple apologist here, to be frank I think the iTMS is an abomination and I wish Apple had stood up to the record companies when they were screaming about the iPod and contributory infringement a few years ago, and remained a purely hardware company and stayed out of the music-retail business; however, at the time creating the iTMS was the best way of eliminating accusations of the iPod as a "piracy machine." It's ironic that Apple's own creation, created to soothe the record companies, is now coming back to haunt them. Well, that's what you get for dealing with the devil.)

Re:Why DRM on all iTunes songs?

The other problem, which isn't exclusive of the first, is that the DRM isn't applied once to each song in the store when it's being added to the database, but added at the time of sale (necessary because it's encrypted with a key that's specific to each user), somewhere on Akamai's servers. It might be difficult to the point of being cost-prohibitive to designate one song as being DRM-free, if the system wasn't designed with that capability from the beginning.

Actually... iTunes adds the DRM after it is downloaded. I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your argument though: It means that it is less server-intensive, but it also means that putting in a flag for 'don't DRM this file' would be much easier to abuse.

Re:mod jobs up

If they don't agree to the music industries terms they can't sell music. How does that help the fight against DRM. Being a hugely popular player/store in the world of online music advocating against DRM plays a more important role than just abandoning the market.

Re:mod jobs up

However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

With a provision like this, I wouldn't want to license the shit to anyone else either.

Why would they? It's suicidal.

Okay, poor choice of words. I just meant that they refuse to license it for use in other playback devices.

And why should they? Steve Jobs is obviously a smart guy; things he's said and written elsewhere make me think that he understands the inherent problems behind DRM.

In short, DRM doesn't work. It works, sort of, only by keeping the mechanisms out of sight, and changing them all the time, as people catch on and figure out what's going on "behind the curtain."

The more people you let see behind the curtain, the harder it is to make work, and keep working, even in the shoddy way that it does currently. Licensing means that specifications and technical documents need to be written, and such documents can be leaked (and are far more likely to be leaked when they're being sent to some licensee in Europe, than kept within a particular technical working group inside Apple US). So if Apple licensed out FairPlay, it would mean that FairPlay would get broken more often, and they would have to dedicate more effort to fixing it, and those fixes would be harder to roll-out, because there would be more users, and multiple online music stores, run by various licensees who might take their responsibilities for updates more or less seriously, etc. etc.

DRM isn't a single technology that you can sell. It's not a word processor. It really is defective by design; that's not just some dumb slogan -- that is reality. Anyone who buys a DRM system, thinking that it's a product they can just use, and then forget about, is a fool. A DRM system is an arms race. It can only work when you're committed to throwing a lot of programmers behind it; programmers who are constantly shoring it up, as people pull the bricks down from the outside. And the work that it takes to sustain is directly proportionate to the number of people who are working to crack it.

Licensing out FairPlay would be a losing proposition for Apple on all fronts. It would force them to lose revenue from the iTMS, which isn't exactly a huge profit center anyway -- as others have pointed out, Apple makes a lot more money on an iPod than they do on the average user's iTMS purchases. Plus, it would mean that they would have to spend a lot more effort constantly fixing FairPlay, and it would create a huge logistical problem -- how do you roll out those fixes to users who may be using some licensee's music store? If Apple doesn't keep FairPlay's facade of security up, the music labels will use it as a bargaining point in negotiations, but they'll be dependent on their licensees, who they don't have total control over, in order to maintain that facade. It's a lose-lose for Apple.

Personally, I don't think Apple will ever license FairPlay. I think they'll pull all DRMed music from the European market, and close the iTMS there, before they'd open the can of worms that licensing would entail. Exactly what would happen at that point is anybody's guess, but there are a whole lot of iPod-owning Europeans who probably want some type of online music store, and Apple is pretty good at PR. They might be able to turn it into some sort of a victory against the governments mandating the interoperability, or against the music labels who won't sell DRM-free music. Or it might backfire horribly and cause a lot of people to run out and buy non-iPod MP3 players in order to use competing online stores (though I doubt it; I don't think that the presence or absence of an online store is a huge selling point of most music players, except those linked to subscription services like Napster).

Re:mod jobs up

but the iTunes store insists using a proprietary DRM that prevents playback on any device other than the iPod

Did you even RTFA? He addresses this. Since you appear to be "motivationally impared" (i.e. lazy), his argument is that DRM has to be kept secret in order to work. At the very least, the encryption key has to be kept secret, even if the algorithms were published (this last sentance is mine, not his). If the DRM is broken for a couple of weeks, the studios will take their ball and go home -- iTunes shuts down. So any breaks of DRM need to be pathed fast. Letting other companies means more eyes, more possible leaks, more software/firmware that has to be updated. In short, a logistical nightmare.

Face it, Apple needs the studios worse than the studios need Apple. Without music to sell, Apple is in a far worse position. Without Apple, the studios still have CD sales and Zune sales.

Re:mod jobs up

Without Apple, the studios still have CD sales and Zune sales.

Do they? I thought part of the issue is that a lot of people want digital downloads, and Apple is the only company that's doing it in a way that's profitable for the record labels. I know I feel guilty buying CDs-- all that plastic and paper when I'm just going to rip the CD and keep it on my computer anyway. On a side note, I feel more guilty for the waste of physical resources of buying a CD than I feel about "stealing" music by downloading it from P2P.

But really, how long do you think CD sales will last? Not forever. Internet connections are getting faster, hard drives are getting bigger, and people are getting more and more used to the idea that music is delivered to their homes instantaneously. And I don't think the two people who bought Zunes are going to make up for the loss of volume for iTunes sales.

Re:mod jobs up

Not really. MS has just released a new OS that is more locked down with DRM than any other OS so far. They have been active in promoting the use of DRM and even saying it will be to the benefit of consumers. There is no way that they were forced by the industry to implement that much DRM at the heart of their latest product. I'm not hearing any info that Leopard is going to be similarly encumbered. Make no mistake, MS is a wholehearted supporter of DRM.

Jobs on the other hand is actually saying that consumers don't want it, and that they'd drop it in a heartbeat if they were allowed to. This is the complete opposite of what MS are saying, not the equivalent.

Bob

Re:mod jobs up

Feh, he's only saying the exact same thing ("don't blame us, they made us do it!") that Microsoft says. Actions speak louder than words. Of course, this is Slashdot, so it will be proof of Apple's godliness and Microsoft's perfidy.

Except that Jobs comes off as sounding level headed and well thought out, while Bill Gates has managed to come off as whiny in his recent media appearances. Tone goes a long way towards persuasiveness.
-JMP

Re:mod work up

Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.

Actually, Jobs provides several alternatives, but says that banning DRM altogether is in the best interests of the consumer. Here's a question for you, what DRM scheme is used to protect most songs on people's computer's? Answer: PlaysForSure. There is only one reason for this, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OS's, with which they bundle Windows Media Player which adds that DRM when it rips CDs by default. Has any government stopped this illegal bundling? Nope. Now, however, there have been several governments trying to stop Apple from leveraging their near monopoly (possible monopoly) on portable digital music players, to promote their own DRM scheme, Fairplay, and keep it the second most common DRM scheme. Does anything about that seem odd to you? I mean MS was actually convicted in the EU of bundling this, but not stopped or punished in any meaningful way. Apple might have enough market to have a monopoly and government officials are making public statements about legislation and legal action.

Apple is the reason MS does not control the DRM market and use it to intentionally promote incompatibility. Apple's main concern was making sure this was not used to disadvantage macintosh computers. Now they have their iPod to defend as well. Making DRM go away results in a free market and both these products get to compete on their own merits in this market. Defanging Apple's ability to leverage the success of the iPod, while not doing the same for MS's ability to leverage the success of Windows has only one likely result and it is not good for anyone.

I completely understand why getting rid of DRM is good for both Apple and consumers. What I don't understand is why anyone would quibble about this and try to imly that just opening up Fairplay would do the same thing.

Re:mod jobs up

Feh, he's only saying the exact same thing ("don't blame us, they made us do it!") that Microsoft says. Actions speak louder than words. Of course, this is Slashdot, so it will be proof of Apple's godliness and Microsoft's perfidy.

As an Apple fan who hates Microsof's products, I have to say the following: I do not blame Microsoft for DRM in media files. Clearly the music companies and movie studios have demanded this.

The fact is that iTMS was the FIRST legal online music store. Apple had to do a lot of work to convince the music companies to allow legal distribution. They did not have the music companies over a barrel as I've heard some people claim. They were negotiating from a position of weakness. It was months before iTMS even had enough sales to say they were selling more than vinyl LPs.

As Bill Gates pointed out, from the point of view of the individual consumer, ripping CDs still makes more sense than iTunes music store for a number of reasons: no DRM, get a higher quality copy of the music, you have a physical media as a backup if your hard disk fails. The iTunes store however, is still more convienient. So, it is not without value, but I often choose to buy a used physical CD via Amazon marketplace rather than buy from the iTunes store for precisely the reasons I stated. So, ITMS isn't locking people into the iPod via DRM - DRM is often blocking people such as myself from buying from the iTunes store.

Obviously a DRM free iTunes store would be better than what we have now. I think it would be MORE popular, not less. Would iTunes have competition, yes they would since obviously other vendors could sell DRM free music. OTOH, I think Apple could still be competitive in such an environment. Their store is easy to use and nice.

I think this article basically says two things that I didn't know before I read it. First, it puts Apple on record as opposing DRM. Second, he gives an argument against licensing FairPlay to other vendors that I hadn't heard or thought of before (i.e. that other vendors would leak the keys and this would require the iTunes store to be shut down.)

Apple was already on record as opposing DRM.

First, it puts Apple on record as opposing DRM.

This quote's at least a couple years old:

"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.

What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it." -- Steve Jobs

Second, he gives an argument against licensing FairPlay to other vendors that I hadn't heard or thought of before

Yes, that was interesting: if their contract with the labels requires that kind of control, then they can't legally open up Fairplay and keep most of the music in iTMS available.

Can we get a new icon?

One with Jobs sporting a nice, glowing halo?

But make it in proportion to the Gates/Borg icon.

Apple comes out against DRM?

What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?

Re:Apple comes out against DRM? Probably not...

An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it.

Because everyone knows that unnamed lawyers quoted in Slashdot postings know a lot more about a company's internal strategy than the CEO quoted on his own damn website.

Re:Apple comes out against DRM?

What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?

Most iPods are still filled primarily with P2P downloads and ripped CDs. The lock-in they have is not all that valuable and probably not worth the bad press they receive as a result of it. I have long said the ITMS and Fairplay were just there to sell iPods not make money and the Fairplay was the least intrusive DRM they could get the studios to buy in on. Jobs stated long ago that DRM does not work for stopping piracy. He knows the score. DRM exists to promote incompatibility such that the media companies can get people to buy the same music for different uses (ring tone, in the car, portable, home stereo, etc.)

Apple saw this use coming an stepped in to make sure the Mac line of computers was not destroyed by it once Microsoft controlled DRM using their OS monopoly. The fact that they succeeded as well as they have is somewhat miraculous and I suspect surprised even them. They set out to stop macs from being third class media citizens and ended up the big kid in the portable player market. Don't get too excited though. Windows Media Format - PlaysForSure is still the most common DRM scheme in use since so many people accidentally rip their CDs to that format with WMP's default settings. Now Apple is being attacked through legal channels and several companies have a vested interest in making sure Fairplay is defanged, while PlaysForSure and the Zune DRM formats are not. Jobs is doing the right thing here by turning their press attacks against them and asking for no DRM, rather than a situation that will inevitably lead to MS owning the space.

Re:Apple comes out against DRM?

What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/player

Apple does not have a monopoly on digital music players. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monopolium - Greek language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

Apple is not the only provider of digital music players. There is no lack of competition in the marketplace for digital music players. Apple has the majority of the market because more people want to own iPods than any other music player. There is no conspiracy and no monopoly.

I personally don't think removing DRM would have any effect on iPod sales, as most people I know have bought little to no music from the iTMS. I think I've bought four albums from them.

win / win

With public relation statements like this coupled with the DRM 'ed iTunes how can Steve and Apple lose?

Vista Help Forum [vistahelpforum.com]

Steve has some cogent thoughts

I actually read the complete commentary by Steve Jobs.
He is dead on.
The music industry (RIAA and their cohorts in crime) have completely botched the distribution of music in an internet-enabled world.

FTA

Here's the parts I found most interesting:

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

Well, Jobs gets it

At least he understands what the rest of us understand, which is that DRM can never prevent copying. The most it can do is slow it down.

He does get one thing wrong in the article though: "No DRM system was ever developed for the CD". Not true. There are several DRM systems developed for Audio CDs. However, they all depend on the disc being placed into a computer that will pay attention to something other than CDDA tracks, which means they are ineffective on purpose-built CD copiers or computers on which the user has either disabled autorun or holds the shift key while the disc is inserted.

DRM doesn't have to be effective to be DRM...

Forced... but who's pushing now?

Apparently Apple was forced to put DRM up. If you remember correctly, a few years ago, Apple even promoted copying music as one of the things you could do with the (back then) new Apple with CDRW (G3's).

Steve Jobs and Apple have always been holding their leg stiff against the record companies as much as possible and now they're kicking back. I think the record companies and affiliates finally see that DRM is hurting them bad, worse than the so-called pirating going on.

I don't buy DRM'ed music, I refuse and I rather buy an MP3 from an indie artist or download a good song through BitTorrent. Well, I hope they finally start offering MP3's or any other codec (Ogg perhaps) without DRM.

iTMS needs to pave the way

Apple needs to give record labels the choice of whether they want their music to be sold with or without DRM on the iTunes Store. Keep the same prices, keep the same format and bitrate (128kbps AAC), and keep embedding the user's ID in the file, but give the labels the choice, and indicate it to the customer before they buy (a small icon next to the "Buy" button should be enough).

Obviously most labels will continue to choose DRM. That's OK. Let them. And let the market sort it out.

How's that working out for you, being clever?

It's probably ridiculous for me to say this, but dammit, this is Slashdot, so I'm gonna say it anyway:

Is it not possible, nay, probable, that this was Steve Jobs's plan all along with reference to interoperability? The iTunes/iPod Family of Devices gets locked up behind music industry DRM which we all know Apple would rather not have bothered with in the first place. They were slow to fix exploits of various versions of FairPlay, and fixed those exploits probably at content cabal insistence. On the side was a lack of interoperability with other devices/services that went along with FairPlay.

Now that people are up in arms about the iPod not playing fair with others, more and more Joe Sixpacks are starting to see that DRM is a bad thing. Here comes Steve Jobs, suggesting that if you want to point fingers at FairPlay's effect on interoperability, you should also be pointing fingers at the content cabal.

Could this have been his diabolical plan all along?!

Well.... Probably not. But it would sure make for a good conspiracy theory for all the Mac fansites out there.

I've got a better idea

So, one interesting thing about DRM is that it enables a particular business model that is completely unfeasible without DRM. Here's a hint: it's not the iTMS model.

The Zune store, and any other subscription business model requires DRM. You can buy DRM-free tracks. It's impossible to rent them.

Perhaps this is why iTMS hasn't offered a subscription option.

Re:iTunes and DRM

The computer I originally downloaded them on no longer exists, so I have no way to deauthorize it.

False. There is a way to deauthorize it. From Apple's website: [apple.com]

How do I deauthorize all of my computers?
If you have authorized five computers, a button labeled "Deauthorize All" will appear in your Account Information screen. This button will deauthorize all computers associated with your account. You can then reauthorize up to 5 computers. Note: You can only use this feature once a year.

Apple isn't as stupid/evil as you think.

That explains why they...

That explains why they apply DRM even to music that is sold in DRM-less versions elsewhere...

Courage of his convictions

Say what you will of Steve Jobs, he whole-heartedly believes in Apple's products, and in their ability to compete on a level playing-field. How many other companies, owning the sort of market-share that Apple has in digital music, would even countenance changing it ?

And, he's not insane - Apple make their money on hardware, not so much on the iTMS itself - the risk is relatively low for Apple, conversely so for the labels. It is in fact likely to give SJ *more* power in his dealings with the record labels - Apple are the entrenched brand, the shining beacon over the dark landscape of pirated music . Once DRM is gone, the labels will need Apple to be even more on-side than they do currently, because they'll have lost the small measure of control they currently have.

As far as Apple is concerned, it's a win-win. Steve probably expects to lose sales on the iTMS, but that non-DRM'd files would become more-commonly shared, raising the number of people who want a DAP, and given the public's current opinion on which DAP is the best, he feels confident Apple will benefit overall. Still takes some cojones to suggest it, though... A bit like when they cancelled their best-selling iPod model (the original mini) because they had a better version. A traditional business would have milked the mini for all they could, first.

I think the whole RDF is simply that Steve *really* *really* believes in his companies products, that belief shines through in his body language, his tone of voice, his whole attitude. People pick up on that and empathise with it. It's a great sales technique, but it needs products that really change the world to do it. Apple strives to make that sort of product.

Simon.

Sign of a trust

The fact that a whole industry can press for something out a vendor is a sure sign of price fixing and various other crimes done by trusts. It's time to dust off the Sherman Anti-trust act, and use it on this horrendous industry.

Future Essays Leaked

I have obtained a copy of "Thoughts on Movies," a followup to to "Thoughts on Music," from sources inside Apple. I present it in its entirety:

"With the stunning global success of YouTube, podcasting, Rocketboom and Zefrank, some have called for my other company, Pixar, to "open" the digital rights management (DRM) system that Pixar uses to protect its DVDs and online movies against theft, so that movies purchased from Pixar can be played anywhere in the world.

"These people also point out that doing so would be in keeping with the principles I called upon the music industry to support in my previous essay.

"To which I respond: Suck it, frigtards. Do you honestly think I got here by being a 'nicer guy' than Bill Gates? This is the real world, not 'fantasy la la land' where 1st gen Apple laptops don't burn your crotch and mysteriously shut down, or where you don't have to pay a bribe to go to the front of the line in the Apple Store.

"Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go backdate some stop options, inspect the dormitories at our Foxconn company town in China and sue the pants off a teenaged blogger."

It might be a total lie...

Or just plain old Steve Jobs RDF, but it's by far the most candid piece of "straight talk" I've ever heard from the CEO of a huge company like Apple. Well done, Steve-O, if that little piece doesn't sell an extra 10 million ipods, then I don't know what will.

Is it just a coincidence?

Yesterday we find out that Apple Inc and Apple Corps have settled their legal differences.
Today we get a letter from Steve telling us why the big 5 record labels are bad.

Could it be that Apple could be looking to become record label #6 and offering its music DRM-free?
Inquiring minds want to know.

The Inevitable New Business Model

Could it be that Apple could be looking to become record label #6 and offering its music DRM-free?

I think you're very close to the truth - they don't want to become another record label - they want to destroy the concept of record labels.

Right now Apple shares their revenues with the RIAA 44/65. Apple's costs are on the order of 10 cents, leaving them 34 cents for a song. That's plenty.

The RIAA's 65 gets split something like 5/60 with the artists. They probably have a mechanism to book that 60 as all expenses...

The artist splits his share with his manager, probably like 3/2. So, to tally it all up:

• Apple: 34 cents
  
• Artist: 3 cents
  
• Manager: 2 cents
  

Now, Apple has just done this deal with Apple. They're probably still splitting it 34/65. The Apple Records shell probably keeps 4 of that for management costs, spreading the remainder 8/8/8/6 (6 for Ringo) among the Beetles. Hey, not bad!

So, now Apple can setup a meeting with the newly reformed The Police and say, "hey, fellas...". Ditto every other major band that's coming time for contract renegotiations. They can point out:

• we sell more music than anybody but walmart
• look at the trend lines
• your fans will buy online
• you can still press your own media and sell CD's through Amazon, et. al., and probably even Walmart
• or screw Walmart

They can then show them a different split:

• Apple: 34 cents
• Arist:43 cents
• Manager: 22 cents

and say, "even without Walmart you'll be making more with us". It's not insignificant that the manager is making 11x his current take in the new business model - he's going to be advising the band on what to do next.

So, you're right, the timing of this letter serves as the official "flipping the bird" by Apple to the RIAA. They apparently think their new business model is now proven and inevitable.

Good luck boys, have fun storming the castle!

Why not sell both DRM and non-DRM protected music?

1. The "big 4" want their music protected by DRM. Shame on them.

2. Many indie bands and small record labels don't care about (or even want) DRM.

3. Many bands, many records would just like to be listed by Apple and show up in the search results. Some of those artists would even want to give away their songs for no money at all.

So I ask:

Why not sell both DRM and non-DRM music?

Why not embrace the revolution and turn iTunes into a universal music search tool?

Why not have iTunes interpret CC licenses and automatically aggregate music found online without applying DRM to music licensed without such requirement?

And a nice touch: Why not create an ugly icon (a monster?) to indicate those songs protected by the hateful DRM?

And what about movies?

Steve Jobs is Disney's biggest shareholder. I wonder if he would also favour DRM-free movies...

In contrast to Bill Gates statements:

I see a lot of people here stating that Bill Gates said the same, but they provided no reference. So I went looking.It all leads back to blog entry below. From reading this it sounds like Bill Gates is not against DRM, just the current DRM. His short term suggestion for music. Is to buy a CD and rip it, to avoid all that nasty DRM. That most of that nasty music DRM that you would be avoiding in the short term is Apples, is only a bonus I am sure.

Now it is hard to judge by these quotes that may have transcription problems, but this is in no way denigrating DRM on Bills part. Just current implementations, of which no doubt Vista is getting closer to DRM nirvana. Every time I see Bill Gates speak, he is exactly like a politician, trying to sound out on both sides of issues while ultimately saying nothing.

Steve Jobs OTOH, is posting clearly without reservation what his stance is on DRM. So this is refreshingly different that Gates comments.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on -the-future-of-drm/ [techcrunch.com]
"
Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.

His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."

He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."
"

Not true

Gates comments was about the current DRM and the need for better DRM, Jobs is about getting rid of DRM.

But I can see how someone like you wouldn't be able to figure that out...

iPod sales will do fine without DRM...

Throughout the discussion here I've noticed one observation conspicuously and repeatedly being ignored for its subtle, but ultimate, relevance to the matter at hand.

Jobs noted the proportion of iTunes Music Store purchases on the average iPod... 2.2%. Note how surreptitiously his real point is being made...

People buying iPods are barely loading them with DRM iTunes.

I'll repeat that... People buying iPods are barely loading them with DRM iTunes.

This should be ringing off alarm bells in your head. Jobs is not a moron. He is very careful to position his RDF in direct relation to how much leverage he inherently possesses over the entity he's selling to... whether the music industry or consumers.

In this case, the data begs, no, screams the obvious... DRM iTunes are an insignificant factor in the usage of iPods. They are a loss leader that may attract some consumers to the concept, but practically anyone buying an iPod discovers, sooner or later, how absurdly easy it is to pop in a CD, rip it, and drop it to your iPod.

Apple stands to lose very little if the record companies fail, once again, to pay attention to the tea leaves that indicate the public isn't buying their artificial attempts at keeping a dying distribution monopoly on life support. Someone suggested Apple has more to lose because if they have no songs on the store, they won't sell iPods. I think the data suggests otherwise. Clearly they sell far more iPod capacity than is used to hold purchased iTunes... which is a good indication that they could continue to sell iPods like crazy without any iTunes Music Store because iTunes without the music store still facilitates a very aesthetically appealing, functional, integrated solution, quality controlled top to bottom by Apple without reliance on third parties for operability assurance.

There's an argument about interoperability but let me remind everyone that a device that doesn't like to talk to other devices still functions in and of itself. A device that doesn't even talk to itself or its own peripherals very well is, however, entirely useless. Interoperability isn't as critical an issue as operability assurance. If you buy a device, you expect that it works. Third party conglomerations of software and hardware very often fail this most basic consumer expectation in too many ways to count. Hence my absolute amusement whenever naysayers play down "it just works" as a superfluous requirement demanded only by design aesthetes. I presume there isn't a consumer of sound mind on the planet who wants their product to "just fail."

In that regard, iPod + iTunes still has strategic competitive advantages of tremendous importance against competing hardware and software.

Jobs isn't being philosophically altruistic in his statement. This isn't to say his action isn't admirable, but to fully understand just what kind of balls he has to come out and deliver such a bold ultimatum to the recording industry, one has to understand the confluence of factors that give support to his assertions.

It was evident as early as the birth of the world wide web that internet distribution of music was an inevitability. Record companies hurried up and did nothing. This is not for lack of foresight. They knew it was coming. But the implications go far beyond piracy. The real fear of opening up the distro monopoly has to do with the realization by recording artists that record companies are now superfluous. Once upon a time, record companies offered promotion, marketing and distribution resources that were largely unmatched. The internet has entirely changed this. The RIAA barrage of lawyers being hurled at every twelve year old and grandmother is not because piracy threatens their bottom line. Artist independence threatens their bottom line. The entire internet threatens their bottom line. But if we put the internet and RIAA on a scale, and factor in growth momentum, the scale tells us that the internet is unstoppable. RIAA also knows this. But t

Re:Or... read the essay.

He actually gives a reason why not:

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Are you going to read his essay or not?

Re:Somehow I doubt this is honest - it's just PR

It's called the goverment. It makes laws and can fight companies for you. People control it in most places.

Re:Somehow I doubt this is honest - it's just PR

It's government that has the power, not him.

Re:Yeah right... I don't believe it for a second.

Please read the friendly article. Jobs says that Apple have considered it before, but they're in an interesting position: if FairPlay is cracked, and remains unpatched for a number of weeks, then the record companies can simply pull their content from the iTS. Now, at present, Apple can simply patch FairPlay and push out a new version of iTunes and the iPod firmware. However, with multiple players and stores all using FairPlay, the problem magnifies: if any one of those links in the increasingly-complex chain remains weak, and FairPlay is still exposed, it leaves Apple vulnerable.

Re:Somehow I doubt this is honest - it's just PR

You are both right and wrong...but mostly wrong.

You are right in that Jobs could refuse to sell DRM'd music. However, he tried to do this from the beginning. Unfortunately, Jobs does not control the rights to sell the music, the record companies do. The record companies allow Jobs to sell through iTunes as long as he adheres to some conditions. The record companies did not allow Jobs to sell DRM free music. Jobs resisted as much as he could, and iTunes users ended up with one of the least restrictive of the DRM policies, but nevertheless, it's still DRM'd. If Jobs really wants to stop selling DRM'd music, it is not up to him. It is up to the record companies. This is why he is issuing this statement. He is hoping that the record companies will see it his way and allow him to stop with the DRM.

Re:Okay, what about OS X DRM?

Is it also the record companies that force Steve to sell OS X with DRM? Do not forget that OS X is tied to Mac hardware by a "Trusted Computing Module".

Have you considered checking your facts? The most recent Macs don't even have a TPM module and no version of OS X ever used it, although some third party utilities did, in order to do more secure encryption. Macintosh computers do check the motherboard to insure it is an Apple one, but no "DRM" is in use and if you look at the code that does that it contains a "please don't violate our license by installing on other hardware" message.

re: Apple as "lock in" company

There's no doubt that Apple prefers to tie their products and software together, whenever possible. But I fail to see why some people (assuming you included, from the tone of your message post) see this as inherently "bad/evil"?

*All* computer manufacturers did things this way from day 1, until IBM's personal computer design got ripped off/cloned left and right by everybody under the sun, bringing it to the forefront as a new "standard".

Apple has wandered in that same general direction whenever it becomes obvious it provides a concrete business advantage. (Today's Macs let you use industry-standard SATA hard drives, and pretty much anyone's peripherals that support standard USB ports, for example. They also migrated to Intel's CPUs across their entire product line, and even allow/sanction the use of Windows on them!)

But in general, I think Apple's products work so well precisely BECAUSE they believe in providing the "whole package" to the customer. This model is used by all the console game systems out there, and it works just fine for them too.

I'm lost on your comment that Apple is a company that "tries to make you buy hardware you do not want, to get software or tunes you do"? If this were really true, they wouldn't have developed the Windows version of iTunes at all. (EG. "Too bad, buddy. If you want to participate in one of the most friendly and more complete online music stores, you need to buy a Mac first!")

No... More and more, I think Apple is proving to be a media company. If anything, they see themselves in a market-space more like Sony. Sony makes computers (usually stylish ones at that), but they're also a media company, in the music and movie business, as well as offering consumer electronics goods that tie in with those areas. Apple in the past has sold digital cameras (the Apple Quicktake series), has a set-top "Apple TV" box going on the market, and a growing interest in selling movies AND music content via iTunes. Soon, they're going to offer cellphones too.

They certainly want you to LIKE and WANT their hardware -- and people who do buy their hardware rarely seem to regret it. Most of the negative comments I hear about Apple hardware come from people who haven't ever purchased any yet!

You're 100% wrong

Mac OS X does not use TPM or trusted computing in any way [osxbook.com] to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. In fact, Apple doesn't use TPM for any purpose, at all.

Re:Okay, what about OS X DRM?

Do not forget that OS X is tied to Mac hardware by a "Trusted Computing Module".

It isn't now, nor has it ever been. Most if not all current Macs don't even have a TPM. Earlier models that did didn't use the TPM in any way. Where the hell do you get your information?