Apple Music and the Terrible Return of DRM 260
An anonymous reader writes: Apple's rumored music streaming service looks set to materialize soon, and a lot of people are talking about how good it might be. But Nilay Patel is looking at the other side — if the service fits with Apple's typical mode of operation, it'll only work with other Apple products. "That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music." He points out Steve Jobs's 2007 essay on the state of digital music and notes that Jobs seemed to feel DRM was a waste of time — something forced on Apple by the labels. "But it's no longer the labels pushing DRM on the music services; it's the services themselves, because locking you into a single ecosystem guarantees you'll keep paying their monthly subscription fees and hopefully buy into the rest of their ecosystem. ... Apple Music might be available on Android, but it probably won't be as good, because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone.... There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"
ZOMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is actually forcing you to participate in any new service, are they?
Re:ZOMG (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but its existence denies me the right to not want it.
Re:ZOMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is actually forcing you to participate in any new service, are they?
Nobody claimed that they were, though if Apple have exclusives through their service, people still may miss out if they're not using it.
That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy [slashdot.org] that crops up here over [slashdot.org] and over [slashdot.org] again.
Re:ZOMG (Score:5, Insightful)
That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy
To be fair, the entire complaint of the author was that now he would have a fourth music service. In this case, the actual solution is, in fact, to not buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's legitimate to complain about services like this that are supposed to be attractive to the consumer. We want more good, legal services as an alternative to torrent sites and ripping CDs. Some people like streaming services because they allow you to explore music without having to buy a lot of CDs or listen to the crappy short previews on Amazon.
If you offer the public a service then you can expect criticism of that service if it happens to suck. The wider point that walled gardens are a bad thing is wor
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the plan (Score:3, Insightful)
You people could break all those services if you just staged a massive account cancellation. Then they would...oh, I forgot. You're weak.
Re:Here's the plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Or I could just buy the music I want DRM free and make my own damn playlists.
Streaming services are just that, services. If you want more control of your music, Buy it!
Re:Here's the plan (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not people being "weak". The problem is that market self-regulation (and nothing else is mass-voting with your valet) requires informed, rational and somewhat altruistic actors. Now, most people are have no clue what is going on, so the first condition is not met. Most people also have trouble making rational decisions, and will go for emotional ones instead. These are easy to manipulate and that is routinely done by advertisers and politics, so "rational" is not met either. Fortunately, the "homo oeconomicus" model is fundamentally broken, as except for the 5% psychopaths, people are altruistic, and place the good of others and the society they are living in often before their own good or what on a reasonable balance. Unfortunately, with 2 out of 3 necessary conditions not met, market self-regulation does not have a chance.
"Is this what we wanted?" (Score:5, Informative)
I never wanted monthly music rental to begin with, so ... no.
It's not about you. (Score:2)
I never wanted monthly music rental to begin with, so ... no.
I never wanted a saddle horse, but I haven't seen the need to post that inconsequential fact to every equine forum on the net.
That said, I bought a year's subscription to XBox Music on Pi Day for $31.40.
30 million tracks available for streaming or downloads to up to four devices.
Broadly representative of all musical genres, all eras of recorded music, hit and miss when it comes to the spoken word, no audiobooks. Metadata is sparse. No album notes, no lyrics, but still a resource that is miles wide and de
Re: "Is this what we wanted?" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basically the same as paying to see a show live or a movie in the theatres.
Most of us, with some exceptions, only see a given show or movie once. That's not how most of us consume music.
There's no real need for you to own copies of music.
There's no real need to assign, restrict, or control property rights on a copy of song either. The entire idea that I would even need to consider whether I am permitted or not to have a copy or listen to it however I want is ENTIRELY artificial.
Re: "Is this what we wanted?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of us, with some exceptions, only see a given show or movie once. That's not how most of us consume music.
Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now? No way, there will be more new stuff. Always more. Some will last a season, some a year, but then it will be replaced by something else.
With a streaming service you can listen to music that becomes a great temporary soundtrack for your life. I remember a few years ago, it was all about Katy Perry and Pink and Lykke Li on Pandora. Then there was that hilarious Selfie song. Then the Ting Tings and whatnot. When I hear one of those songs it brings back general memories of a time in my life, but there's no way I'd go out and buy those albums now.
Sure, sometimes I discover an artist on a streaming service, then I go buy their albums on iTunes, and I still have my vinyls and CDs. But for the most part, music is now like a landscape that goes by during a train ride. It's there for a while, then it's something else, and overall I find the experience more enjoyable than a 12-CD changer or a Winamp playlist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no idea what you are talking about. are those JINGLES or actual music with lasting value?
I assume its junk throw-away music.
what makes you think that your lack of interest in REAL music is typical of all audiences?
I have albums I bought 40 years ago that I still listen to.
moral of the story; stop wasting your time on stupid jingles. there is good lasting music out there.
Re: (Score:3)
Mozart was writing "real" music 200 years before those 40 years old albums you bought. Why did you buy those jingles with no lasting value?
The music that was popular when you were younger was not better than older or more recent music. But it was the music you grew up with, and it was playing in the background when you had your first kiss or your first car. That's why it matters to you. The fact that you don't relate to today's music doesn't mean it's garbage.
I was shocked a while ago when I heard a young p
Re: (Score:3)
You're a marketing consumer. For example I still hear and like Richard Clayderman
I agree, Richard Clayderman is Da Shit. I own all his albums; they are just there on the top shelf of my cd collection, between the Liberace discography and Kenny G's greatest hits. There's nothing I like better than put "Ballade pour Adeline" on repeat on my Juliette stereo while I enjoy my weekly scrapbooking session. I sure got a nice return on that $3 bargain bin purchase at K-Mart.
Steve Jobs was a salesman (Score:4, Insightful)
If all his inventory was purple and all the competitor's were white, he'd be out saying how purple demonstrates the individuality of the user while white is bland.
If his were white and the competition's were purple, then of course white is what someone with a serious design background would come out with.
Bill Gates was similar. Back in the '90s, during the browser wars, MS released an "Open letter to Netscape" with Microsoft's pledge to abide by "open standards" for HTML. Of course, they promptly forgot that once Netscape was acquired by AOL and had lost all its market share.
It's B-school 101 shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. These people have no conscience and no honor. They will do whatever gets them the most profit, and that makes them a problem for society.
Re: (Score:2)
he was a shyster that built an empire off of slave labour, his karma came to get him for it too.
Is this how karma works? I thought you had to die first then you got rewarded or punished in your next life... Dang it, this could derail my plans of having a lifetime of selfish behavior paid for by a future me that I will never know.
Re: (Score:2)
You thought wrong.
Karma (Sanskrit: ; IPA: [krm] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).[2] Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deed contribute to bad karma and future suffering.[3][4]
Jobs was an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the model is right, then you will _be_ that future person.
Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai (Score:5, Funny)
We do that and the article won't be posted on Slashdot until six months after the thing starts up. This gives us some time to get the dupe ready on a timely basis.
An inarticulate defense of Apple won't help them. (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Apple bashing"? How inarticulate and ultimately blindly supportive of a known repeat bad actor to keep their customers from controlling the iThings they buy. It's hardly far-fetched to see how the company receives bad press. They've made an ugly history for themselves rife with mistreating workers, users, and harming the environment. They found they could get away with non-freedom in software also exploits app developers [guardian.co.uk] "mercilessly [stallman.org]" as Richard Stallman put it on his reasons why one shouldn't do business [stallman.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That would involve waiting at least another week, and in a world moving a thousand miles a minute, we simply can't wait that...
*whispers from off-screen*
...nevermind, I forgot we were talking about Slashdot. Posting news is a timely fashion? As if!
Oh, boo-hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music.
Talk about first-world problems...
Re: (Score:2)
If my biggest problem is choosing which pair of beats headphones to use, what difference is it how we label the problem?
If that's your problem, and you're complaining about it, then we label it "the problem of a whiner."
Re: (Score:2)
If my biggest problem is choosing which pair of beats headphones to use, what difference is it how we label the problem?
Talk about one-percenter problems...
"What we wanted" ... (Score:2)
... is irrelevant.
"We" are not the CEO and shareholder of Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. It's not hard to become a shareholder.
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't get to have any toys. I'm not defeatist. I'm a realist. The "corps" will shoot themselves in the foot and I don't have to do a damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So do the "corps."
These are all streaming services, not DRM related (Score:5, Insightful)
Really the music situation is much better than that, there are more choices and none of the awful contracts. You can switch easily if you wish and some of them offer free trials, or even entirely free versions. This is no worse than any other subscription service and better than many. Of course it's different from actually owning the music, but no one has claimed equivalency there. You can always just buy the songs if you want, from many sources.
Re:These are all streaming services, not DRM relat (Score:5, Interesting)
He is slowly coming to an awareness that interoperability is hard. The author is a "bro" who describes himself as "married to a babe." That's cool but all he wants to do is listen to music and all this technology is inconvenient to understand. It won't let him listen to music the way he wants (the subtitle of his article is "give me convenience or give me death"). It's hard to feel sympathy for him.
Re: These are all streaming services, not DRM rela (Score:3)
Interoperability isn't difficult. Overcoming the commercial resistance to interoperability is; and that's not a technical issue.
Re: (Score:2)
no DRM? So i can record it?
Save the Righteous Indignation (Score:4, Insightful)
"There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"
That has been Apple's m.o. since forever, so nothing new to see here, move along.
Re:Save the Righteous Indignation (Score:4, Informative)
platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse them (Score:5, Informative)
DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee). Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM. Rather, it is a means of boosting the sale of the platform by offering additional platform-only services. We can discuss the harm and inconvenience that platform lock-in may cause. However, we should not confuse the issue with DRM. That will just inflame old passions, preventing someone from approaching this new distinct issue from a fresh perspective.
No doubt many people against DRM will also be against platform lock-in. Perhaps others may not. For instance, I am generally against DRM. I purchased a digital file; I would like to be free to make copies of it for my own use. However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you think about it locking it to Apple devices that is limiting the distribution by Apple so in a Sense it IS DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Play Music works fine on iPhones. And it works best in (nearly any) desktop browser.
Platform lock-in is the end. DRM is the Means. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM
You're confusing the ends & the means. The end goal is platform lock in, the means to do that is DRM.
If there was no DRM, you would just be able to save the streamed file, this is unlikely to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?
The problem is with the content side. Exclusive deals really tend to be anti-consumer, like most forms of bundling. You want to watch your favorite show, well to do that you have to purchase some service at an exhorbitant price that gives you that one show plus 500 others you don't care about. Want that channel on your cable? No problem, just pay an extra $30/mo for that channel and 14 more you don't care about. Want a Pepsi to go with your Big Mac? No problem - just forego the combo price, stop at tw
Endless Lock-In - Is This What We Wanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life...
Apparently that is what you want, or you wouldn't plunk down money for this service. Apple isn't holding a gun to your head forcing you to comply with their business model.
If you want it, pay for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. Paying for something you don't want and then bitching about it is useless and stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed completely. Nobody is forcing anyone to use their service. Ifr you don't like the terms of the service, then don't use it. It's not rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
it's still the labels (Score:2)
If you pay streaming royalties it behooves you to do some protection of the content so that it really is just streaming, not downloading. If you think it doesn't behoove you, then the content providers will ring up up and change your mind for you.
As to the vendor lock-in, that's separate. And it's Apple's policy it seems. So I just get all my music from Google and Amazon instead. And Spotify I guess. Problem solved. I have to give up AppleTV compatibility but I gain compatibility with my Android devices and
Poor Baby (Score:2)
"That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music)"
Well, this is easy to rectify. Just stop using all the others you don't want to use and you'll be down to one, or none. See, life is so easy.
Strange digital transition stage we're in, no? (Score:3)
We've come a long way since wax cylinders. But right now we're having growing pains. Everyone wants a piece of the digital streaming pie. The thing is that everyone also wants to lock you in.
Streaming needs to be more open. The music itself needs to be separated from the service. I don't want to feel like I'm making a lifelong commitment by investing in streaming purchases, building playlists, etc.
Through Pandora, Spotify, iTunes, Google Music, Amazon, and whatever else is out there..I've stuck to my own offline music collection - it's much more portable (like others have stated already). If a company wants to start a streaming service they need to provide something of value other than the music itself. The "industry" is tired and old and proprietary and the rest of the world is sick of it, including artists. I have a strong feeling Creative Commons is going to be the rebel yell of the very close future. Artists don't want to sign contracts because they're keen to the fact that they're never going to be as rich and famous as they think - they're just going to tour for years to pay off the debt they've accrued for the "privilege" of being promoted by a big label.
All artists want (and have ever wanted since the beginning of music) is to know that they have made a positive impact on other peoples' lives with their craft. Making a living from it has always been secondary to true musicians. This is more possible and accessible with the Internet.
SO! Streaming services are currently acting as big labels. People have already bypassed labels. So all of this is pretty moot to me. So instead, I am investing my time into a project that will provide value to people aside from rehashing the whole 'buy the White album again' scenario which has already infested streaming services' business models. It's new and exciting and something nobody has done before with music online.
$120 buys a lot of music (Score:3)
Let's assume that Apple isn't going $14.99/mo and it's going to be the usual $9.99 /mo. $120 a year is a decent amount of money to spend on music, if you want to take the time to buy it.
Imagine a family of where 2 adults both spend $10/mo, heck, $240 a year? That can buy you over 200 tracks a year, that you will get to keep. If you want to save more, buy used CD's and rip them.
You already have tons of music ripped, everyone does, do you really think you're going to spend $120 a year on new singles?
Re: (Score:2)
Back before I switched to Spotify I'd easily spend $40 a month on music (i.e. 3 or 4 albums), so yes, in my case. YMMV of course.
Re: (Score:2)
There are always outliers.
The average iTunes user spends under $15/year on music. That number is misleading, since it includes all iTunes accounts, but there's no way that number is over $120/year for people who just buy music. Streaming music services, for most, are not cost effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. At $10 a month, you could buy 1 CD a month. Probably less, but let's just make the numbers round. For teenagers or anybody else who hasn't amassed a huge collection of music, it would take them a while before they had a decent amount of music. They'd be listening to the same albums over and over again for the first couple years. $10 a month is pretty enticing, because you get access to a huge library of music right away. instead of trying to decide which new album, or other 10 tracks you want this
DRM on rentals isn't the same... (Score:4, Insightful)
I dislike DRM like pretty much everyone else who isn't a content industry lawyer, but I really can't find much to complain about when it's used in the context of a rental or subscription service. How else are they supposed to ensure you can't continue using the content when you're not supposed to be able to anymore?
DRM on stuff I'm supposedly purchasing is another matter entirely, if I own it I want to truly control it, but if I'm renting it or paying for temporary access where it's clear from the beginning that I only have it as long as I'm paying I don't see a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with DRM on "rental" content isn't so much that it goes away (that part is the same for a book I borrow). The problem is that the only way to actually *implement* DRM is to have your machine is now obeying the content owner rather than you. To me this is like renting a DVD and leaving the key to your house at the store so that the clerk can enter your home when it's time to get the DVD back. The problem isn't that the DVD's going away, it's letting someone sneak into your house.
Re: (Score:3)
That logic seems rather bizarre to me.
They send you a download. They DRM the file so that it's CRIMINAL for anyone else to make a player for that file type. And their music player deletes the file after playing it once.
So your argument is that DRM is ok because it's DRM'ed?
-
Re: (Score:3)
That logic seems rather bizarre to me.
They send you a download. They DRM the file so that it's CRIMINAL for anyone else to make a player for that file type. And their music player deletes the file after playing it once.
So your argument is that DRM is ok because it's DRM'ed?
-
The criminalization of breaking DRM has nothing inherently to do with its implementation, nor did I say anything about a hypothetical one-play deletion.
I'm saying that something functionally equivalent to DRM is required for a rental or subscription on-demand service, otherwise it's purely operating on the honor system and I can't blame anyone for having no interest in that. I find these services to be a good value, so I have no problem with the tradeoff. I'm not paying the price I'd have to pay to buy th
Irony of this story... (Score:2)
Never pay for music at all (Score:2)
Paying for the commercialized schlock the record companies are trying to shove down your throats is crazy!
If everyone stopped paying for it, it would go away, and maybe, just maybe something worth listening to might emerge.
But in truth, that ship sailed long, long ago.
<sigh>
What a whine, over a piece of mucic (Score:2)
I have a top notch stereo/Dolby/whatever sound field u need system (All Sony for compatibility), beats anything I could hope to put together again. It's sitting in storage as the introduction of HDMI made it obsolete.
Got a Denon DHT-1312BA receiver as it came with matching speakers ( hell of a time saver), but it's got nothing on my old system, can't even use any of the peripheral components of the old system - unless of course I'm happy with stereo only.
--- While people scoff at the mention of the Usenet o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a HDMI to optical switch, works quite well.
I'll be damn! http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com] I didn't know these existed, I guess I fell for the line that you can't bypass HDMI, so no options for me. By going through the optical port is doesn't.
Thank you,
The Cloud will always be about the services (Score:2)
The solution is.... (Score:3)
Radio (Score:3)
Dude, that's what radio is for!
If you just want to "listen to music", get a one of the free or premium radio player apps, pick any genre' and you can listen to practically any real radio station in the world (including, for example, every singe one in Jamaica) as well as a huge number of "Internet-only" choices.
Many of these have great, high-quality curated content. I'm not a "golden ears" so I'm OK with the audio quality of most.
If you're really into a specific artist, there's always certainly a free channel devoted to them, unless they are obscure. If they are obscure, buy their tracks in and support them ferchristsake! Then you can listen to them any time you want. You are doing them any favors streaming them, because they will get tiny payments if any when it comes out in the wash.
One of the days I might take the time to convert my vinyl. Naw, probably not... I just put on KCRW Eclectic 24 in the car, and it calms me between the nice lady saying "now, take the exit to the right" after I've passed the exit... And that's the sum total of my streaming experience.
Oh, yea, I guess I have a subscription service I don't use. I have Amazon Prime. I use it for the free shipping. If there's a movie they have that I really, really want to see, and I can't get it on Netflix or some free channel on Apple TV, I might go to the trouble of AirPlaying it from my Mac. But never used their music streaming.
I'd bet more people are in the opposite position of you. That is, they already have a streaming service that they don't even use.
Why use it? (Score:4, Insightful)
"That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music."
Then why use it? Just because Apple puts out a product does NOT mean that you have to buy or use it.
Re:Vinyl (Score:5, Insightful)
No one's digital store method has ever satisfied my want for being able to always access the content that I have paid for. Sometimes things are removed from the catalog, so they could later no longer be downloaded again, or the content is streamed instead of stored locally, or other things.
I want control over my stuff. If I own media then I have control.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to immerse my turntable in water, well almost, recording the record on real to real tape, then keep the record as a master. Full analog sound with no static nor scratch sounds;-)
Re:Vinyl (Score:4, Funny)
I used to immerse my turntable in water, well almost, recording the record on real to real tape
I just used to think about doing that, I never actually did it. I guess you could say I did it on imaginary to imaginary tape. ;-P
Real to imaginary tape was quite easy too (but with little benefit), but I never figured out how to do it the other way around.
Re:Vinyl (Score:4, Funny)
Real to imaginary tape was quite easy too (but with little benefit), but I never figured out how to do it the other way around.
You end up with all noise and no signal.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the WOOSH.
(Reel and not Real)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, it's actually impossible to tell the difference between the silly shit people actually do with vinyl and the jokes.
Because except for the water part, I know people who have definitely done the reel to reel thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I've done the water thing - well, if it's the water thing I'm thinking about.
A long-lost post from some group on usenet told of how the ABC radio jocks would play vinyl: mix up a litre of 50/50 water and alcohol, add ONE drop of dishwashing liquid, and apply to the surface of the vinyl - not dripping-off-the-edges wet, just enough to make the surface thinly covered. Now play the record. Make sure you dry it before putting it away, of course.
I tried it, and it works - it's not perfect, but it seems to elimin
Re:Vinyl (Score:4, Insightful)
Who indeed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:Vinyl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"How to lie with statistics" was exactly what I thought as well, since the last numbers I saw indicated that vinyl represented a low, single-digit percentage of the entire music market. It's enjoying a brief renaissance among certain crowds, but those crowds are far from the norm, and most of them are starting to wise up to the fact that the audio fidelity of vinyl is provably worse than that of virtually any typical, digital medium (quick note: I am NOT claiming that it sounds worse, since that is strictly
Re: (Score:2)
To nitpick, that would have been +140%
Re: (Score:2)
Check your math.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the US numbers for vinyl, from Billboard:
https://www.billboard.com/arti... [billboard.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oops - you seem to have recorded this link on vinyl.
Re: (Score:2)
Complaining about how what the kids are into makes no sense? Congratulations, you are now middle-aged. You have become the thing you hated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Vinyl (Score:3)
That would be incredible if increasing the pressure caused water to boil. I think there's a perpetual motion machine in there somewhere.
(Lowering the pressure could cause water to boil, but not increasing it. Maybe you meant the heat from friction, but I doubt there's that much heat being generated.)
Re: (Score:2)
Real pros record on water...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I did that too on a 10" TEAC 4 channel. Probably needs new belts by now :)
You could pack about three hours of music on a 10 1/2 reel. It was great for partys, etc. Throw on a tape and forget it. I've been thinking about getting a reel-to-reel player to mess with. They're pretty cheap now days. But would probably go with a two- channel player that can play 10 1/2" reels and has auto-reverse. Direct drive would be nice to have for the reason you mention. The pre-recorded music catalog for this format is pretty weak. Time to think about taking my old, dusty mp-3s out of storage and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But why? Analog sound is garbage.
all sound is analog.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with a relatively fragile disc if you can carry much more with equivalent quality (for car stereo purposes) on a single flash drive?
Re: (Score:2)
Very easy, own it forever, works on every device, costs nothing, etc etc.
meh.
I've been stating here or a while that with moveis, piracy is the better product in every measurable way: it's more convenient, better range, everything in one place (TPB), variety of qualitites, excellent downoad clients and so on, not abusive (no DRM, no ads).
I disagree with music to a large extent. Last time I used Amazon (to make a mix ta... uh... SD card?) it was super easy. No DRM, everything in one place, consistent quality
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why IT jobs are moving to India.
Very easy, 1/5 the cost, no shitty attitudes, etc. etc.
Are you living in the past? IT jobs are no longer moving to India, now instead IT workers are imported.
This business model has many pros:
1) It's easier to schedule conference calls when you don't have to worry about Bangalore timezone
2) You can squeeze 5 of them into a "corporate condo" and make them pay the mortgage out of the shit salary you pay them to manage your Exchange server
3) You can get them to get your mocha at Starbucks, wait in line to get the new iPhone, or to receive your Amazon packages whil
Better safe than sorry (Score:2)
How was this stopped in the past? I won't say because it might give people ideas.
Thank you for your cautious attitude. Who knows what kind of doomsday scenarios could happen if the wisdom of some anonymous coward who knows best was leaked on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Subscription music though? Skip on that.
Re: (Score:2)
I pay for my music because it's more cost-effective than wasting time fixing ID3 tags created by bittorrent people and their "Jim Van Morrison" or "John Lennon Camp" mp3s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to say when you live in a small town. Try to live by that credo in NYC or Hong-Kong, where most people couldn't afford to buy a tiny flat even if they were to sell their organs on the black market.
Re:Hummmm?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve Jobs made anti-DRM statements very early on. At the time, the music industry was insisting on DRM for everything. They eventually learned that it gave more power to the distributors than to them and allowed Amazon to sell DRM-free music (but didn't allow Apple the same deal for a while, to allow Amazon to become a viable competitor). For some reason, the movie studios are intent on making the same mistake and insisting that Amazon and Netfilx take complete control of their supply chain, when the best thing for their business is a healthy competitive ecosystem driving each others margins.
If they had any sense, the music and movie studios would insist that distributors sell without DRM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...
The question is whether you are a clueless twat with no knowledge of history, or if you are spouting that nonsense intentionally.
DRM on music was never in Apple's interest. Apple didn't manage to get the rights to sell DRM free music from the record companies. Then EMI gave them the rights to sell EMI music without DRM; that was the first DRM free music from the big labels that you could buy online anywhere. Then, as a reaction, the other labels allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music, but withheld the rig
Re:Hummmm?? (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...
Errm http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027-998590.html [cnet.com]:
April 28, 2003 12:16 PM PDT
...
Apple unveils music store
The songs cost 99 cents each to download, with no subscription fee, and include the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date. Jobs has been an outspoken opponent of so-called digital rights management (DRM) in the past, arguing that limitations on digital music will undermine the market for legitimate content.