« On a more serious note... | Main | Uh oh, I appeared to have hurt a feeling »
So, like a lot of folks, I read Robert Scoble's Blog. Now, before someone feels the need to remind me, yes, he's a Microsoft employee. Specifically, he's a Microsoft evangelist. "Evangelist", in the computer industry sense of the term, is a cheerleader. Not the hot kind that you had bad thoughts about in high school. It's more like a chance for the nebbishy nerds to be cheerleaders. Only without the uniforms. That's a good thing, by the way.
Yes, I read Scoble's posts. I comment on some of them. I'm pretty sure I'm a pain in the ass too, since I tend to be, well, pointed in my comments. This is not to say that I think Robert's a total tool, corporate or otherwise. He's actually a pretty smart guy, although I think he's a complete myna bird about technology, and I have yet to see any sign that the Tablet PC will ever be more than a (very good) vertical market solution. Robert, from what I can tell, is rather shocked that they aren't available in boxes of Tide yet.
But sometimes, he also seems to have an extremely selective memory about his employer. Now, if he were a PR hack, this would be a "No Kidding" kind of thing. But he has these odd rules on his site, and they are at odds with this selectiveness.
As an example, this post. Robert seems to be truly hurt that Microsoft is still viewed with a certain amount of, shall we say, venom. He doesn't get it. Why, after all, I know you all don't believe my pro-Microsoft hype, but I have seen a TON of changes internally here at Microsoft. We have hundreds of ISV buddies now (I'm helping a group of companies myself). We have Dan'l Lewin, co-founder of NeXT helping partner with companies in Silicon Valley. Among other things. And, even I have gotten a bunch of training on how to deal with our partners, competitors, and customers to avoid both legal trouble, and to make Microsoft a better entity to deal with. More than 1,000 employees are now blogging, and I haven't heard complaints that these employees are hard to deal with. If I'm wrong, please do let us know.
You're right Robert, we don't believe you. I have no doubt that the internal mantra is a Teletubby-ish chant of "Sharing is caring". But that's internal. I can tell you that from the outside, Microsoft is still a damned pain in the ass. I recently spent three days recoding my son's school's home page into something that I could use, because thanks to the "New Microsoft", Front Page helpfully generated code that was only useable in IE 6 on Windows. Luckily, Adobe and Bare Bones have a more correct definition of what proper HTML is.
Of course there's the even more amusing "Plays For Sure" marketing movement. This is fascinating, because it's the perfect example of Microsoft's agenda, which has never changed, no matter what Robert believes. This agenda boils down to, "Everything must run on Windows".
Here's the best example, from Dave Fester, General Manager for Microsoft's Windows Media Division:
Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system, where iPod owners cannot access content from other services.
Unlike the amazingly open model of Windows Media 10, which only functions on Windows. Because according to the new Microsoft, other systems are "closed" and Windows is "open". Windows is "open" because Microsoft says so. Yes Virginia, if Microsoft says it, it's so.
Dave also can't resist the temptation to blatantly hand out false information:
Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store
Really Dave? So I don't have my free Audible.com downloads in iTunes? So I don't have a bunch of MP3s I ripped from my own CDs in iTunes? I'm not listening to that when I play them on my iPod? Apple magically replaces them with files from the iTMS? That's pretty cool considering that the iTMS doesn't have any Led Zeppelin, and I have more than they ever will anyway. Wow, the iTMS isn't just closed, it's magic.
But as Ron Popeil says, "Wait! There's More!"
Uncle Dave, (no, I'm NOT going after the obvious, this is as close as I'm getting, deal) says:
When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future.
Well, that's a valid point. However, is this Apple's fault? Dave, and Microsoft would like you to believe it is. But, the truth points that finger back at Redmond. The fact is, DRM-9 and DRM-10 don't work on any platform other than Windows. Period. No Linux, no Mac OS X, they don't even work on the majorly crippled Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X. Windows Media 10 is a Windows only paradise.
See Robert, that's what Microsoft is to the outside world. A mixture of false statements, and misleading half truths. When the most recent IE vulnerability was revealed, what was Microsoft's reaction? Was it "God, we're so sorry. This is simply inexcusable."
No.
Was it "Jesus, we thought we had that one fixed, guess we were wrong, but while we're working on it, please, please install XP SP2, it fixes this."
No.
Was it "We think it's horrid that this vulnerability was released before we could patch our most excellent product, and that's just so irresponsible?"
Yes.
And Robert wonders why no one trusts Microsoft. It's actually worse than that. We, as an industry, have gotten so used to Microsoft not just spinning the truth, but squatting over it and emptying their corporate bowels upon the truth, that at this point, nothing Microsoft does surprises us, in any way. As a friend of mine said: If I saw Steve Ballmer dressed in a tutu roasting cheerleaders on a Foreman grill for lunch, I wouldn't bat an eye. I'd have to go home and claw at them until the image of Ballmer in tights was gone, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
.
But then, he has this post, and it just made me laugh. Oh my gosh, Robert is just so saddened by the bunker mentality of people. He doesn't even like to criticize Apple or Linux because of all the vitriol and shouting it causes, and because "People have already made up their minds".
Robert, you're working for the company that raised "We rule, burn the heretics" to an art form. Oh IBM started it, and Apple may have dabbled with it a bit (corporately. The MacMacs are their own world, and if they didn't have Macs, they'd have Fords.), but Microsoft, oh god, Microsoft has made Us vs. Them into their own personal playground. Their disinformation campaign against the iTMS and the iPod is only the latest example. To be a Microsoft evangelist and wonder "Why can't we all just get along" is doublethink writ large. In fact, even recently, your Great Leader, The Ballmer said, in public, and on the record, "The most common format of music on an iPod is 'stolen'". Wow, that's some change Robert. The head of Microsoft called everyone who uses an iPod a thief. Tell me again about the "New Microsoft".
Of course, Robert does try to point out that Steve was probably joking. That may be true, that may not be true. Having seen a couple of Ballmer's better performances over the years, I'm inclined to think it was a non-joke. You know, the really stupid, offensive, untrue statement, but with a chuckle added, so it's all "just a joke.". Kinda like the troll who uses a smiley to make it all better. Sorry Steve, we in the biz have dealt with you for too long. We don't trust a damned thing you say. We all remember your furious spinning on Licensing 6.0, and we aren't buying it anymore.
I don't think Robert is clueless, at least not that clueless. I think he's more like a child with a bad sibling. He knows his sibling does wrong, but to admit the level of wrong is disturbing to him. It bothers him, so he mitigates the sibling's errors, and points out that everyone else does it. Which is true, but not to the degree Microsoft does. However, that's not a pass on Microsoft's behavior.
When Microsoft goes out and spins its PR web of falsehoods and, well, bullshit, it's perpetuating the behavior that disturbs Robert so. Maybe if he got the beam out of his eye, people would point and laugh less when he complained about the mote in someone else's eye.
I like Robert's blog a lot, but damn, that grain of salt I need when I read it is really big, and inconvenient to carry with me. Clean up your house first Robert, then complain about ours.
Posted by John C. Welch at 13:46 | Permalink
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bynkii.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8
Comments
I have to take exception at the complaints on Windows Media. Having spent 3 years with Windows Media, Real and Quicktime, Windows Media was the most "open" to me.
Windows was the only DRM platform I could use for free (1 license agreement and that was that, I got a nice SDK and the ability to set my own rules, or allow the clients (certain record labels) to set specific rules on a per track basis)). You're sort of right in saying it's a Windows only platform. The most recent versions of MS DRM don't work on the Mac. If you want Mac support you need to use DRM v1, which isn't as flexible with rules.
Real wanted an obscene amount of money, and for that you got "hooks" into the codec. You had to break out your C compiler, write your own DRM engine and hope it worked.
Apple? Apple did nothing. Apple wouldn't even talk about allowing 3rd parties access to FairPlay. If you want to sell music to iPods, you must let apple package the music and sell it.
Posted by: Barry Dorrans | November 14, 2004 03:38 AM
Nice try. But your post are full of half trues also. Try opening your mind. No company is all good or all bad(except Ben and Jerrys before the sale). If you start with that mind set your analysis will always be wrong.
Posted by: Sam Jones | November 14, 2004 04:18 AM
This makes up a fine example of writings overemphasizing everything to make a point. If Scoble is on one end, you are on another. Both of you distorts everything you can grab on your hands for the way you want to paint the picture. The way you try to make feel readers that Ballmer is trieng to insult general population and trieng to get readers on your side is pathetic. Well, Ballmer is right, music on most iPods or any portable players is indeed stolen and everyone knows that. Haven't you got more Led Zeppelin then anyone can ever have? How so? I'm asuming you have lots of rares downloaded from P2P. I'm not a pro-Microsoft or fan of their Windows-only strategies but it made me laugh when you were trying to make a point that Apple is more open then Microsoft. LOL! Give me a brake! Apple is the worst-case-scenario that exist in mainstream software for being closed from the deep within - starting right from the hardware level. I don't know any straight forward way for any other online music shops to sell their music on iPod unless they bow down to Apple and pay hefty fees or are willing to their share profit. As far as Scoble is concerned, he is good guy getting confused in a place that doesn't absolutely coincide with his values. That happens with every other employee working in this industry but they have to sing along to make their break and butter. Haven't you ever supported your employer anyway even when you thought they were on the wrong path? But Scoble has lots of hope and I think, from the way MS internals have opened up and making an example for every corporation to come out and encourage blogging internals, I think he is doing pretty good job. Still, I don't think MS policies makes them lovable huggable company but they are still the best in the current crop. I tried to install Mandrek linux - which is considered easiest to use flavor of linux - other day and even before installation I needed to solve host of different problems. Probably thats why your son and 90% of other people haven't completely switched to Linux or Mac - because they either suck or cost much much more. If any other company has guts to do it better, come out and show rather than crieng about MS monopoly. I'm prepared to give them my desktop. If not, they are probably better off shutting their mouths off and working harder.
Posted by: Shital Shah | November 14, 2004 04:14 PM
This makes up a fine example of writings overemphasizing everything to make a point. If Scoble is on one end, you are on another. Both of you distorts everything you can grab on your hands for the way you want to paint the picture. The way you try to make feel readers that Ballmer is trieng to insult general population and trieng to get readers on your side is pathetic. Well, Ballmer is right, music on most iPods or any portable players is indeed stolen and everyone knows that. Haven't you got more Led Zeppelin then anyone can ever have? How so? I'm asuming you have lots of rares downloaded from P2P. I'm not a pro-Microsoft or fan of their Windows-only strategies but it made me laugh when you were trying to make a point that Apple is more open then Microsoft. LOL! Give me a brake! Apple is the worst-case-scenario that exist in mainstream software for being closed from the deep within - starting right from the hardware level. I don't know any straight forward way for any other online music shops to sell their music on iPod unless they bow down to Apple and pay hefty fees or are willing to their share profit. As far as Scoble is concerned, he is good guy getting confused in a place that doesn't absolutely coincide with his values. That happens with every other employee working in this industry but they have to sing along to make their break and butter. Haven't you ever supported your employer anyway even when you thought they were on the wrong path? But Scoble has lots of hope and I think, from the way MS internals have opened up and making an example for every corporation to come out and encourage blogging internals, I think he is doing pretty good job. Still, I don't think MS policies makes them lovable huggable company but they are still the best in the current crop. I tried to install Mandrek linux - which is considered easiest to use flavor of linux - other day and even before installation I needed to solve host of different problems. Probably thats why your son and 90% of other people haven't completely switched to Linux or Mac - because they either suck or cost much much more. If any other company has guts to do it better, come out and show rather than crieng about MS monopoly. I'm prepared to give them my desktop. If not, they are probably better off shutting their mouths off and working harder.
Posted by: Shital Shah | November 14, 2004 04:15 PM
I have to take exception at the complaints on Windows Media. Having spent 3 years with Windows Media, Real and Quicktime, Windows Media was the most "open" to me.
As long as you only want your product on Windows, then you get a lot of functionality out of Windows. If you want any thing other than windows, and you want more than just Mac OS X, you don't get to use DRM at all.
Windows was the only DRM platform I could use for free (1 license agreement and that was that, I got a nice SDK and the ability to set my own rules, or allow the clients (certain record labels) to set specific rules on a per track basis)). You're sort of right in saying it's a Windows only platform. The most recent versions of MS DRM don't work on the Mac. If you want Mac support you need to use DRM v1, which isn't as flexible with rules.
So obviously cross platform support was unimportant to you
Real wanted an obscene amount of money, and for that you got "hooks" into the codec. You had to break out your C compiler, write your own DRM engine and hope it worked.
So it's not free. What's free have to do with open?
Apple? Apple did nothing. Apple wouldn't even talk about allowing 3rd parties access to FairPlay. If you want to sell music to iPods, you must let apple package the music and sell it.
Only if you want onto iTMS. You could and can get onto Quicktime without fairplay, you can get onto the iPod without fairplay. The only thing you need Fairplay for is iTMS.
I still fail to see how a single platform DRM scheme is more open than one that works across platforms.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 15, 2004 12:09 AM
Nice try. But your post are full of half trues also. Try opening your mind. No company is all good or all bad(except Ben and Jerrys before the sale). If you start with that mind set your analysis will always be wrong.
I never said anyone was satan or god. But MS is hardly a shining example of purity of thought and deed. Apple is not even CLOSE to innocent here either, but Scoble's not cheerleading them.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 15, 2004 12:20 AM
this makes up a fine example of writings overemphasizing everything to make a point.
Well, that is kind of what you do to make a point. You overemphasize things to make that point. It wouldn't make much sense if I didn't.
If Scoble is on one end, you are on another. Both of you distorts everything you can grab on your hands for the way you want to paint the picture.
How did I distort anything. Nothing I said is untrue.
The way you try to make feel readers that Ballmer is trieng to insult general population and trieng to get readers on your side is pathetic. Well, Ballmer is right, music on most iPods or any portable players is indeed stolen and everyone knows that.
Ah, yet another thing that "everyone knows". Right along with how Charles Drew died. You of course have actual proof then?
Haven't you got more Led Zeppelin then anyone can ever have? How so? I'm asuming you have lots of rares downloaded from P2P.
Actually, I said I have more than the iTMS ever will, and no, i didn't download them from a P2P. I bought them at a used record store. I did so after Jimmy Page said that he really didn't have a problem with concert recordings. And one of mine isn't a concert recording anyway, it's a compilation of album songs put out in the Soviet Union about 1976 or so. If you're going to quote someone to make your own point, get it straight.
I'm not a pro-Microsoft or fan of their Windows-only strategies but it made me laugh when you were trying to make a point that Apple is more open then Microsoft. LOL! Give me a brake! Apple is the worst-case-scenario that exist in mainstream software for being closed from the deep within - starting right from the hardware level.
Really? So you can get the source code for every bit of windows below the UI just by downloading it? No NDAs, etc? Where's the URL? and anyway, i didn't say that APPLE was more open than MICROSOFT. I said that the the iPod and iTMS was more open than Windows Media's DRM9/10. Again, get your quotes straight.
I don't know any straight forward way for any other online music shops to sell their music on iPod unless they bow down to Apple and pay hefty fees or are willing to their share profit.
that's completely untrue. The only thing an online music store can't get is Fairplay. If they release their music as AAC/MP3/AIF, etc, they can most certainly get on the iPod. You may want to restate that differently.
As far as Scoble is concerned, he is good guy getting confused in a place that doesn't absolutely coincide with his values. That happens with every other employee working in this industry but they have to sing along to make their break and butter.
WHen did I say Scoble was a bad guy? I just think that sometimes he's a bit ridiculous is all, and doesn't understand that a lot of MS's problems are self - inflicted.
Haven't you ever supported your employer anyway even when you thought they were on the wrong path? But Scoble has lots of hope and I think, from the way MS internals have opened up and making an example for every corporation to come out and encourage blogging internals, I think he is doing pretty good job.
Corporate Blogging is PR hackery, and if MS decides that they don't want him talking about something, watch him not talk about it. At the end of the day, MS pays his rent, and he knows it. So let's not pretend they are suddenly opening up. What they ARE doing is making good use of the PR value of blogs. But I don't see them working better with Linux or any other non Windows OS than they ever have.
Still, I don't think MS policies makes them lovable huggable company but they are still the best in the current crop. I tried to install Mandrek linux - which is considered easiest to use flavor of linux - other day and even before installation I needed to solve host of different problems. Probably thats why your son and 90% of other people haven't completely switched to Linux or Mac - because they either suck or cost much much more.
I don't get what my son has to do with this, but for the record, my eleven year old rates working with windows just slightly better than eating liver flavored ice cream with broccoli topping. Your insistance that Mac OS X costs more than windows is inane. Window XP Pro retails at a comparable price as Mac OS X, and on the server end, Apple's pricing craps all over Windows. hardware wise, if you compare major market vendors, and equalize the features, the prices are again, comparable. You may want to recheck your facts a bit.
If any other company has guts to do it better, come out and show rather than crieng about MS monopoly. I'm prepared to give them my desktop. If not, they are probably better off shutting their mouths off and working harder.
Do what better? Everything? one thing? some specifics?
Oh, and Eric was right..spelling and paragraphs are your friends.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 15, 2004 12:43 AM
If you want any thing other than windows, and you want more than just Mac OS X, you don't get to use DRM at all.
As I said not true, you just had to step back to v1 of the MS DRM SDK. Not using DRM was not an option. Do you seriously expect the labels to turn around and go "Sure, put the pre-release music on-line with no protection whatsoever, because everyone is decent and honest and will buy it if they like it?". Please. If you think like that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
So obviously cross platform support was unimportant to you
Bad assumption. Cross platform support which gave my customers (that's the labels, not you) what they wanted was very important, but what with Apple sitting on their hands and deciding not to share, what I wanted was impossible.
So it's not free. What's free have to do with open?
Nothing. I never said it did.
Only if you want onto iTMS. You could and can get onto Quicktime without fairplay, you can get onto the iPod without fairplay. The only thing you need Fairplay for is iTMS.
Here we go again. I needed DRM. My customers wanted DRM. Giving music away with no restrictions is unrealistic, and until the geek community understand that this arguement will go around in circles.
I still fail to see how a single platform DRM scheme is more open than one that works across platforms
I assume you're referring to Fairplay? It's not, my objection is to Apple being cast as a hero in digital music by the same people who complain about DRM and complain about Microsoft being "closed", when Apple are being a lot more controlling and facist about their format than Microsoft have ever been with WMA/V. But as you say, you're not cheerleading that :)
(As for Linux support, actually a certain company has the license to produce WM for embedded Linux but haven't come up with anything yet, and another distro has licensed the codecs, just not the DRM)
As for the whole music on-line thing, well I'm out of it now. You can't compete with two gorillas bashing the labels.
Posted by: Barry Dorrans | November 15, 2004 07:03 AM
If you want any thing other than windows, and you want more than just Mac OS X, you don't get to use DRM at all.
As I said not true, you just had to step back to v1 of the MS DRM SDK. Not using DRM was not an option. Do you seriously expect the labels to turn around and go "Sure, put the pre-release music on-line with no protection whatsoever, because everyone is decent and honest and will buy it if they like it?". Please. If you think like that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
No, I expect for MS to make it possible to play all windows media files regardless of DRM level in Microsoft Windows Media Player on all platforms that WMP runs on. Obviously, Microsoft has chosen to cripple the Mac player, which is really, really dumb. But then if they cop to that, then all their kvetching about the iPod is seen for the utter sham it really is. If I could run WM 10 on a Mac, and use DRM-10/9/etc files on my Mac, then they'd have some room to whine. But I can't, so all their talk about "Open" is SOS Microsoft code speak for "Open == Windows only".
So obviously cross platform support was unimportant to you
Bad assumption. Cross platform support which gave my customers (that's the labels, not you) what they wanted was very important, but what with Apple sitting on their hands and deciding not to share, what I wanted was impossible.
Because it's Apple's fault that all of Microsoft's modern DRM implementations are Windows only? Oh that's rich. How is Apple keeping MS from a Full on version of Windows Media 10 on Mac OS X? This should be good. Of course, since the major labels are on iTMS, obviously THEY don't have any problems getting onto the iPod.
Only if you want onto iTMS. You could and can get onto Quicktime without fairplay, you can get onto the iPod without fairplay. The only thing you need Fairplay for is iTMS.
Here we go again. I needed DRM. My customers wanted DRM. Giving music away with no restrictions is unrealistic, and until the geek community understand that this arguement will go around in circles.
Um, Quicktime allows you to easily add your own DRM methods into the framework. If you can play it in QuickTime, you can play it in iTunes. The ONLY thing that's tricky is the iPod, and it wouldn't matter there, because you can teach a monkey how to undrm Fairplay files. Hell, APPLE tells you how. So what's to keep you from using Quicktime's DRM features? If you need unstrippable DRM, you're not getting that from Fairplay anyway, and the iPod was never your target market.
I still fail to see how a single platform DRM scheme is more open than one that works across platforms
I assume you're referring to Fairplay? It's not, my objection is to Apple being cast as a hero in digital music by the same people who complain about DRM and complain about Microsoft being "closed", when Apple are being a lot more controlling and facist about their format than Microsoft have ever been with WMA/V. But as you say, you're not cheerleading that :)
Apple is definitely being very closed about licensing Fairplay. Of course, considering their history with MS, I can understand why. I may not agree, but I understand. Trusting MS to not steal from you, based on the history of that company, is utterly foolish.
However, what Apple HAS done is ensured that a m4p file I download in iTunes for Mac OS X will work in iTunes for windows. All i have to do is authorize that computer. That's it. once I authorize, it just works on windows or on Mac OS X. So while they may not be as open in licensing the DRM, they are FAR more open to the end user of iTunes. There's no way in hell to get a WMA file with DRM-10 support downloaded in Windows to work on WiMP for Mac OS X, or anything else that isn't Windows. You can talk about projects all you want, but I don't see a acquireable product yet. So right now, all WM files using DRM-9/10 are windows only files. That's a fact. Unless you can show me a product that I can run today, right now, Windows Media 10 DRM'd files are single platform and they are only single platform, and that's closed, not open.
I also wonder in what universe did anyone think Steve Jobs would support music that only played in iTunes windows and not iTunes Mac? That's sheer idiocy to think that's happening.
(As for Linux support, actually a certain company has the license to produce WM for embedded Linux but haven't come up with anything yet, and another distro has licensed the codecs, just not the DRM)
So without the DRM, what good is it? as you said, no music distributor is going to go with non-DRM'd stuff. That's like a car with the doors welded shut and metal plates over the windows. I mean, it's a car, and it's driveable, but you can't actually USE it.
So when you can show me a product I can lay hands on that has Windows Media 10 - level DRM support and runs on an OS that Isn't windows. you let me know. Until then, Windows Media 10 is the same old Windows-only bullshit Microsft's been doing for decades.
As for the whole music on-line thing, well I'm out of it now. You can't compete with two gorillas bashing the labels.
The labels got greedy and stupid. there's nothing in a standard audio CD that makes it worth fifteen bucks outside of greed. Gosh, it's a damned shame that the labels are useless, but maybe if they hadn't gleefully screwed their customers and their artists for so long, they wouldn't be hated so much.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 15, 2004 04:14 PM
Obviously, Microsoft has chosen to cripple the Mac player, which is really, really dumb
Yup, you're right, it's incredibly stupid. When I queried this the answer was it's hard to provide DRM on an open source platform, where people can change the underlying OS. Shades of Paladium there I think.
Because it's Apple's fault that all of Microsoft's modern DRM implementations are Windows only? Oh that's rich. How is Apple keeping MS from a Full on version of Windows Media 10 on Mac OS X? This should be good. Of course, since the major labels are on iTMS, obviously THEY don't have any problems getting onto the iPod.
Where did I say it was Apple's fault. You're being too defensive. When I was doing this iTunes was not in Europe. The European labels wanted to release music. Apple wouldn't help. Nor did the labels really want to restrict themselves to Apple's rules. Of course now they're stuck with it. How is Apple setting rules good for either the labels, or frankly the consumer. We're already seen what happens when some poor sod moved to the great white north in Canada and could not get some of his iTunes music reactived.
I would say it is Apple's fault that they are running a closed system and will not let anyone play unless they hand over complete control to Apple. That's one thing MS have not done. In that sense MS is more "open" than Apple. Open seems to have many different, marketing meanings these days, which makes conversations like this difficult.
Um, Quicktime allows you to easily add your own DRM methods into the framework
And yet no-one has done it. I wonder why.
as you said, no music distributor is going to go with non-DRM'd stuff. That's like a car with the doors welded shut and metal plates over the windows. I mean, it's a car, and it's driveable, but you can't actually USE it.
Then again you don't seem BMW leaving the keys in their cars outside showrooms each night do you?
The labels got greedy and stupid
Yes, but so has Apple with their control freak attitude to iTunes and FairPlay.
Posted by: Barry Dorrans | November 15, 2004 11:25 PM
Because it's Apple's fault that all of Microsoft's modern DRM implementations are Windows only? Oh that's rich. How is Apple keeping MS from a Full on version of Windows Media 10 on Mac OS X? This should be good. Of course, since the major labels are on iTMS, obviously THEY don't have any problems getting onto the iPod.
Where did I say it was Apple's fault. You're being too defensive. When I was doing this iTunes was not in Europe. The European labels wanted to release music. Apple wouldn't help. Nor did the labels really want to restrict themselves to Apple's rules. Of course now they're stuck with it. How is Apple setting rules good for either the labels, or frankly the consumer.
Oh lord. No, the problem wasn't that Apple wouldn't help. The problem was, Apple said, "Here's how the iTMS works. Here's the payment structure, here's the DRM". The European labels wanted some complex - arsed setup that Apple wasn't going to go for. The consumer benefits because there's precisely one kind of DRM setup. Not the three or more you see on other services. They benefit from a VERY simple pricing structure. That's good for the consumer. Who it isn't as good for is the labels. But we've already established that I have no pity for them, since they hoisted themselves upon their on petard.
We're already seen what happens when some poor sod moved to the great white north in Canada and could not get some of his iTunes music reactived.
Oh that myth again? Please, at least try to find something of value here. The DRM is NOT location dependant. Only the purchase is.
I would say it is Apple's fault that they are running a closed system and will not let anyone play unless they hand over complete control to Apple. That's one thing MS have not done. In that sense MS is more "open" than Apple. Open seems to have many different, marketing meanings these days, which makes conversations like this difficult
They have a closed licensing model, because right now, it's working better. Napster and the rest have what 3-4 different DRM models? That's not including any time limited ones. MS is only more open in implementation licensing on WIndows. They sure as hell aren't going to do anything to help you use that implementation on Linux, or Mac OS X, or what have you. They also charge up the friggin' wazoo for Windows Media licensing, whereas I have yet to see any form of Quicktime licensing that charges you almost a mil a year. Also, they are only not licensing FairPlay. There are ways to get on the iPod without it, and if you really take a look at it, Fairplay is some lame DRM anyway. The only thing that pisses people off is that it's the only DRM that plays on the iPod. Wah. You could still work within Quicktime and iTunes to get you music on the iPod. You'd just have to accept that once it was on the iPod, it wouldn't be DRM'd.
The odd thing is, from what I've seen, because the iTMS is cheap and simple, it's just to damned easy to be legal about it. If it only costs me a buck to get a song I like, why not just buy the damned thing. No subscriptions, no nagging. Just "Hey, I want that, gimme that. Well, gimme 99 cents. Okay, here you go. Okay, and here you go."
it's simple. it's cheap. And unlike sub services, you don't get nagged. Unlike CDs, you aren't getting ass-raped by the record companies.
But if you want complex DRM models from start to finish, then the iPod was NEVER your target market.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 16, 2004 05:47 AM
No. Apple wouldn't help. There was no iTunes Europe, it was 12 months away. We wanted to release the music onto the iPod. Apple simply wouldn't help.
This wasn't even pay for music. It was pre-release, programmed to expire on the day the single was released. There were no complicated rules, no money involved. It was *simple* We wanted it everywhere we could think of, iPods were a target market, but Apple won't let anyone else play.
As for simplicity in purchasing, well the MSN music store delivers that too.
What I fail to see is why Apple are held up as a paragon of virtue in all this. They're just as bad, if not worse that Microsoft. As for Windows Media Licensing, well heck, at least they're doing it. Of course we're not talking about DRM licensing here, that SDK is free. Apple on the other hand won't release anything to 3rd parties. Now tell me that Microsoft isn't more "open" in that regard.
(Oh and please, get that posting bug fixed <g>)
Posted by: Barry Dorrans | November 16, 2004 02:35 PM
This wasn't even pay for music. It was pre-release, programmed to expire on the day the single was released. There were no complicated rules, no money involved. It was *simple* We wanted it everywhere we could think of, iPods were a target market, but Apple won't let anyone else play.
Why would Apple create a totally bogus time limited DRM situation that is completely different every other file on iTMS? That kind of DRM is the kind of DRM that Steve Jobs is talking about when he talks about what he DOESN'T want on the iTMS.
You obviously never had a clue as to how iTMS works. It's simple. You buy the music. You download the music. That's the end of the transaction. You don't have the music "expire". You don't have to redownload the same song and pay again for the same thing. What you wanted to do was totally at odds with the central idea behind the iTMS, and you're surprised Apple told you to pound sand?
as for simplicity in purchasing, well the MSN music store delivers that too.
Is it streamed, is it downloaded, is it sub only? How long to I actually own it for? Well, it depends. With iTMS, the answer is easy, and always the same.
What I fail to see is why Apple are held up as a paragon of virtue in all this. They're just as bad, if not worse that Microsoft. As for Windows Media Licensing, well heck, at least they're doing it. Of course we're not talking about DRM licensing here, that SDK is free. Apple on the other hand won't release anything to 3rd parties. Now tell me that Microsoft isn't more "open" in that regard.
Show me the app that lets me play Windows Media 10 files with the same level of functionality as Windows Media Player 10 on Linux or Mac OS X or any other non windows computer, and you'll have a point. Licensing to Windows only is not open. Show me where I can have a fully functional Windows Media Streaming Server with FULL feature compatibility as the version running on Windows Server 2003 on Linux or Mac OS X, and you'll have a point.
The only thing Apple's pissing people off with is Fairplay, and that's the only aspect of Quicktime and the iPod that's not open. Everything else is open, and unless you want to distribute QuickTime player Pro, it's free. Quicktime is all based on open standards, Windows Media is not. I can get the source to Apple's Streaming Server, free for the download. The link for the source to Windows Media streaming server is?
You're pushing Fairplay as if it was the entire package and it's not, and even that is as fully functional on Windows as on a Mac, a claim you CANNOT make for Windows Media 10.
(Oh and please, get that posting bug fixed )
It's not a bug. It's moderation. The error code at the end is a spurious error generated by MT-Blacklist, but that has nothing to do with moderation. All comments, even mine are moderated. makes my life easier
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 16, 2004 09:20 PM
Ah so you're admitting that Jobs, and iTunes are not flexible?
I never wanted the music on iTunes, nor did the labels. All we wanted was the ability to leverage FairPlay as a rules provider, so that we could distribute the music to Apple users and iPod users, giving them the same choice that we could give Windows users. I am not confusing FairPlay with iTunes. I never wanted to supply iTunes. iTunes's rules didn't matter a damn, nor did it's non-appearance in my target market, Europe, matter, as I've said before. Even if I had wanted to put stuff onto iTunes, I couldn't, it simply wasn't there.
What mattered was Apples refusal to play fair [sic] with anyone. Their refusal to provide a way to hook into FairPlay.
Stop trying to build a strawman around "open", around the inability to have WM DRM on the Mac. I've never claimed that MS-DRM2.x has been there. That's not what I wanted, you've taken my comment that MS are being more open in letting people use their DRM and turned it into a claim that Windows Media is open and running on everything from Linux to CP/M.
The whole arguement over "open" is probably semantic. That damned word has mutated now to mean many things to many people. Darwin is "open" (source), QuickTime is an open (standard - excluding the thing that made it useful to me, DRM), MS are open (licensing their DRM kit). There's more to open than getting source. It's funny, your quote from Dave Fester doesn't mention "open" at all.
It's great that fairplay works the same on the PC as it does on the Mac. For a consumer. For an independant content provider it's still a closed system. Walled off. Unusable. BTW where's the link to the FairPlay source code?
(BTW the MSN US store rules are mirroring those of iTunes, there's no question about what you're getting, you know. The UK store on the other hand is a mess of competing rights, but that's probably down to it being a 3rd party service)
Posted by: Barry Dorrans | November 17, 2004 10:16 AM
Ah so you're admitting that Jobs, and iTunes are not flexible?
Jobs is very flexible, as is iTunes the application. You can play a remarkably large amount of music on it, from almost any format Quicktime can use. Your arguement has nothing to do with iTunes and everything to do with fairplay.
I never wanted the music on iTunes, nor did the labels.
Obviously the labels are changing their mind.
All we wanted was the ability to leverage FairPlay as a rules provider, so that we could distribute the music to Apple users and iPod users, giving them the same choice that we could give Windows users. I am not confusing FairPlay with iTunes. I never wanted to supply iTunes. iTunes's rules didn't matter a damn, nor did it's non-appearance in my target market, Europe, matter, as I've said before. Even if I had wanted to put stuff onto iTunes, I couldn't, it simply wasn't there.
That changed, and it's down to only a couple countries. But you don't really get that Apple doesn't want to get into the n-layers of DRM, and timed music and the rest of that bullshit, and thank god too. They have replicated the physical buying experience, without the crap that the labels load on to most CDs. I can pick and choose what I want. But you wanted to create the same complex idiocy you have on windows. "Glad you paid for our music. Now, next month , pay for it ALL OVER AGAIN, and keep doing that forever." Um..sorry, i don't just give money away. you want my ten bucks, I get something to keep. I subscribe to Car & Driver, but if I cancel that, I keep what i have. Online subscriptions make money because almost no subscriber is constantly downloading 20 GB of new stuff every month. In fact, i'd say that once people are comfortable with their new toy, there's probably two-three months out of the year where they use no bandwidth for downloading, but the sub services collect their money. And after years of a sub service, what do you have, unless you pay *extra* to keep your music? Why, not a goddamned thing. Here's how to get the sub service experience without needing the internet. Get a cheap assed FM radio. then every month, burn a ten dollar bill. Same thing.
What mattered was Apples refusal to play fair [sic] with anyone. Their refusal to provide a way to hook into FairPlay.
No, they refused to rip off their customers, which is what that time-bomb DRM shit is. A rip off.
Stop trying to build a strawman around "open", around the inability to have WM DRM on the Mac. I've never claimed that MS-DRM2.x has been there. That's not what I wanted, you've taken my comment that MS are being more open in letting people use their DRM and turned it into a claim that Windows Media is open and running on everything from Linux to CP/M.
You say it's open. i say show me a full featured implementation of WM10 outside of windows. Windows only is not open. Why is that hard to understand? Mac only is not open. Suse only is not open. Fairplay is closed wrt to licensing, but open wrt to listening and playing, at least FAR more open than either Real or WM.
The part I love is that you all want to make it seem like Apple is preventing you from using full WM on the Mac. Bullshit. You could, if MS so allowed, create Napster on the Mac right now, and show the iPod users what they're missing. People could have full access to the non-iPod universe on every platform with a USB or FireWire port.
Yet, they don't. That's not Apple's fault at all, and no amount of spin will change that.
The whole arguement over "open" is probably semantic. That damned word has mutated now to mean many things to many people. Darwin is "open" (source), QuickTime is an open (standard - excluding the thing that made it useful to me, DRM), MS are open (licensing their DRM kit). There's more to open than getting source. It's funny, your quote from Dave Fester doesn't mention "open" at all.
Again, you're wrong. You CAN have all KINDS of DRM in QuickTime. Support's build in. What you can't do is use Fairplay. So roll your own and get a RIO on the Mac. How about doing what all the Microsofties say to people accusing THEM of not playing fair: Get up off your ass and compete, instead of crying about it.
It's great that fairplay works the same on the PC as it does on the Mac. For a consumer. For an independant content provider it's still a closed system. Walled off. Unusable. BTW where's the link to the FairPlay source code?
It's called "We're number one". If that changes, I imagine you'll see Apple change it's mind. But right now, they're outselling every single other MP3 player combined. It's kind of Microsoft's answer to people who ask them to license DirectX to the Mac or Linux developers. "Screw you".
It's just that Microsoft had forgotten what it's like to be on the receiving end of that.
(BTW the MSN US store rules are mirroring those of iTunes, there's no question about what you're getting, you know. The UK store on the other hand is a mess of competing rights, but that's probably down to it being a 3rd party service)
True, but none of the other services are. However, to download music, you have to install a bunch of Active X controls and install the MSN music assistant. Sorry, but no thanks. There's enough Active X bullshit i HAVE to deal with, and doing it just to download music? NFW man, no one trusts Active X anymore. We just don't have a choice sometimes. And Passport? Get bloody bent, I'm done with that debacle.
Which describes IT and MS pretty well.
Posted by: John C. Welch | November 17, 2004 10:41 PM
Your writing is very to the point. By the way, Microsoft to me, in comparison to apple(Wal-mart is to Target). You can't control a company at that magnitude, nor try to make it look bad, because it's powers are all encompassing, both politcally, legally, and economicaly in terms of their scope of control. MS may be sued in court one year, but the next they lobbied senate / congress to pass a law which makes what they did last year legal. So now they have been right since the beginning.
Posted by: Robert K | November 22, 2004 05:07 AM