iPod Revolution

"In particular, if you went out and bought an iPod, and then you wanted to legally acquire some music for it, the only place you could turn was the iTunes Music Store. And, once you'd built up a library of songs purchased through the iTunes Music Store, the only place you can play the songs is . . . on an iPod."

Anyone old enough to remember the early PC era (and I was a small child then) may remember that Apple's advantage seemed hegemonic, but of course it didn't last (largely because Apple wasn't overly-generous in allowing the production of inexpensive clones). Every corporation has a culture, and Apple's is such that it is very good at being first out of the box and rather bad at remaining dominant. Apple should be allowing cheap knockoffs of I-PODS to flood the market. Despite all the bootlegging, the real profits are to be made in downloads not hardware sales. Apple f***ed up once before in this way. Don't be surprised if they do it again.

if you went out and bought an iPod, and then you wanted to legally acquire some music for it, the only place you could turn was the iTunes Music Store.

Not true at all. You could also turn to your own CDs which you already owned. Indeed, the iPod was on the market for a full year and a half before the iTunes Music Store debuted. This is why iTunes makes it so easy to rip CDs -- you put the disc in, iTunes downloads info from Gracenote, and you click import, QED.

I would add too that Apple's strength in branding is part of its problem. If you bought a IIE knockoff you felt you like you were buying something lesser; the same can't be said of generic and non-IBM (brand name) PCs. This speaks to the strength of the Apple brand, but its inherent weakness in gaining market dominance. I can imagine the same thing happening with the I-POD.

"Even weirder, using Digital Rights Management to produce this sort of circular lock-in wasn't Apple's initial plan for the music store."

You are way out of your depth here.

The lock-in factor was widely commented upon from day 1 of the store. Given how FairPlay is designed, lock-in was pretty obviously Apple's goal.

"Instead, they wound up incorporating the DRM features that are key to their business model at the insistence of the record companies, who haven't actually accomplished anything for themselves (it's still very easy to illegally download MP3 files) while accidentally creating a new music industry juggernaut."

You're not out of your depth here, but you are pretty clearly wrong on a couple of points:

- MP3's are easy to illegally download, as they probably always will be, but various ways of measuring illegal downloads show that the RIAA's legislate & sue strategy has reduced illegal downloads.

- The record labels weren't in the business of retailing music before iTunes. And they aren't today. The only way iTunes is bad for them in any way whatsoever is in terms of Apple's near monopoly giving Apple a bit of additional bargaining power. But Microsoft's entry into the space should severely curb any desire on Apple's part to act like Microsoft.

-----

At the end of the day, you simply don't like DRM. And you're working backwards from that point to come to all kinds of unsound positions.

Come back to the reality based world!

I haven't thought about this in a long time, but I was hired to design and code educational software specs when I was ten (that was when my generation was still regarded as whiz kids, and before our elders went insane), and I already had an Apple, but I demanded another computer from the guy. The dick brought me an Apple clone, whose look, functionality, and cache was in every way inferior.

You are way out of your depth here. The lock-in factor was widely commented upon from day 1 of the store. Given how FairPlay is designed, lock-in was pretty obviously Apple's goal.

Matt's exactly right. Steve Jobs gave a Rolling Stone interview in 2003 talking about why DRM will never work, and describing how he spent 18 months trying to talk the labels out of requiring DRM. It's hard to see why he would have given that interview if he was intending on using DRM as a lock-in device from the start.

Linus wrote:
"Anyone old enough to remember the early PC era (and I was a small child then) may remember that Apple's advantage seemed hegemonic, but of course it didn't last (largely because Apple wasn't overly-generous in allowing the production of inexpensive clones). [...] Apple should be allowing cheap knockoffs of I-PODS to flood the market. Despite all the bootlegging, the real profits are to be made in downloads not hardware sales. Apple f***ed up once before in this way. Don't be surprised if they do it again."

Wrong in so many ways-- this is the conventional wisdom that will not die, despite the best efforts of folks with far more insight. But don't take my word for it; take John Gruber's instead:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

"It's hard to see why he would have given that interview if he was intending on using DRM as a lock-in device from the start."

Is it really hard to see that? Seems pretty simple to me.

-----

I have no idea if Apple really wanted a DRM-free store when it first began negotiations with the labels. I can see it having played out both ways.

What I am saying is that lock-in was integral to Apple's initial DRM design. In other words, it's not an accident that lock-in has occurred.

In particular, if you went out and bought an iPod, and then you wanted to legally acquire some music for it, the only place you could turn was the iTunes Music Store.

Matt, what on earth are you talking about? The iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by years. It is now and has always been perfectly legal to fill your iPod (or any other mp3 player) by ripping CDs you have already bought -- and as far as anyone knows, that's how the vast majority of iPods are filled. Other perfectly legal options include any service which legally sells non-DRM-encumbered mp3 files (emusic.com, notably), and the million or so web pages on which various artists offer their music for free download.

Please stop spreading nonsense.

Daringfireball writes:

"Selling hardware is their business. That’s where their revenue comes from, that’s where their profits come from, and revenue and profit is what defines a business."

I never disagreed with this proposition, only that there is a ceiling to Apple's market share because of the company's dependence on hardware sales (and even if Apple were to adopt a more IBM-esque strategy with the I-POD its strength of branding is a detriment to the growth in sales of cheaper generic and brand-name I-PODs). In other words, Apple's strengths are also its limitations. It will I believe continue to be a profitable niche company but it will not remain dominant in the new electronic music market anymore than it remained dominant in the PC market.

One of the impediments to the growth in online music sales is that America is not yet a cashless society, and young people (who might buy music rather than stealing it) don't always have credit or ATM cards. There are gift cards available through the credit card companies, but these (or some other form of E-cash) should be available - at gas stations, Wal-Mart, everywhere (and at low interest rates).

Audio Hijack Pro for the Mac, and numerous programs for the PC, will take the output from iTunes, or any other software, and turn into MP3 files on the fly.

It happens in real-time, so converting a six-hour audio book is a drag, but it works fine on music libraries.

So iTunes' DRM can be worked round. (One should probably be ripping purchased files out to CD's for archival purposes anyways.)

At the end of the day, you simply don't like DRM. And you're working backwards from that point to come to all kinds of unsound positions.

I dunno why you insist on personalizing all of our disagreements about this. As it happens, I'm very happy with my iPod and don't mind the iTunes lock-in phenomenon as a personal matter. Indeed, in general I'm a professional creator of intellectual property and benefit in many ways from strong IP laws of which I disapprove.

Nevertheless, apart from my needs, there's a public policy question here. DRM, it seems to me, does extremely little to promote the creation of new works, while doing a fair amount to inconvenience consumers of music and a reasonable amount to stifle competition in the market for hardware devices.

Linus: I have no idea what an "I-POD" is, but whatever it is, it's not a product that Apple sells. Apple does sell a product called the iPod, occasionally called the "ipod" by people not fond of intercaps: perhapss that is what you were thinking of?

Also to Linus: Apple sells prepaid gift cards for the itunes music store. You can buy them, for cash, at Best Buy, Walmart, Safeway and 7-11. I've also seen them at gas stations.

It is now and has always been perfectly legal to fill your iPod (or any other mp3 player) by ripping CDs you have already bought

record companies would like people to believe this is not true. and if they have their way, it will someday impossible to do this.

So iTunes' DRM can be worked round.

not legally. see DCMA

Petey, check out this article about the development of the first iPod:

Knauss noted that there were no demands to add FairPlay, Apple's copy-protection technology, which was appended to the second-generation iPod to coincide with the introduction of the iTunes music store.

"There was no discussion of (digital rights management)," Knauss said. "Their belief was DRM would hurt sales when they rolled out the music store. They specifically wanted no DRM in the original iPod."

DRM was an afterthought, added after Jobs failed to convince the labels to do without it.

Also, lock-in is central to the design of all DRM. It works by preventing unauthorized devices from accessing content, so by definition, it locks out unauthorized devices, and locks consumers into authorized devices. Apple could scarcely have designed a DRM format that didn't lock consumers into its products (or those it licensed).

"Apple should be allowing cheap knockoffs of I-PODS to flood the market."

The Daring Fireball link is a good refutation of this general line of thought, but to address your post more directly: Why would they do this? For what reason? The iPod is currently, by far, the dominant music player. On top of that, there are no signs of that not being true anymore any time in the near future (long term future is nigh-impossible to predict). The rate of growth for iPod sales is leveling off somewhat. iPod sales are not leveling off. They continue to grow, and grow, and grow.

On top of that, they posted a record quarter for Mac sales as well. Their current strategy seems to be working quite well for them. Of course, it can't work well for forever because the landscape, so to speak, will change eventually, but that's a problem for them.

The market is already flooded (and getting increasingly flooded all the time!) with actual iPods. Why would they start letting people make knock-offs? Why do they need to care right now about that last 15-20% of the market which doesn't use an iPod?

At the end of the day, you simply don't like Matt. And you're working backwards from that point to come to all kinds of unsound positions.

Hmm, interesting theory about iTunes/iPod lock-in; but is it actually true?

The Jupiter Research report says that, on average, only 20 of the tracks on an iPod will be from the iTunes shop. Far more important to iPod owners, said the study, was free music ripped from CDs someone already owned or acquired from file-sharing sites. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5350258.stm

"I dunno why you insist on personalizing all of our disagreements about this."

Am I doing that here? I know I've done that in the past on this issue, and I was patting myself on the back for not doing that here.

"DRM, it seems to me, does extremely little to promote the creation of new works"

This just strikes me as a plainly unreasonable position.

Unchecked piracy can utterly destroy content industries. The evidence on that seems pretty clear. You may not value what the content industries produce because you prefer more artisinal products, but that doesn't change the larger point.

I'm not a fan of current US intellectual property laws. They seem overly restrictive to me in some pretty serious ways. But bashing DRM in the abstract doesn't seem a reasonable approach to the issue.

"Petey, check out this article about the development of the first iPod"

Thanks for the link. Point taken that Apple didn't want DRM before the labels demanded it. (Though I still think I'm on incredibly firm ground in saying that Apple was quite conscious of lock-in by the time the store opened its virtual doors...)

Steve Jobs is luckier than he is smart on this one. Lock-in is Apple's trump card in the upcoming iPod/Zune war, and the only reason I think Apple will end up winning.

"Also, lock-in is central to the design of all DRM. ... Apple could scarcely have designed a DRM format that didn't lock consumers into its products (or those it licensed)."

The lack of licensing is the key here, of course.

If you buy a DVD, you're not not locked in to any one player since the DVD spec was licensed to anyone who wanted it.

Unchecked piracy can utterly destroy content industries. The evidence on that seems pretty clear. You may not value what the content industries produce because you prefer more artisinal products, but that doesn't change the larger point.

The point is that DRM does almost nothing to check online piracy. Once one person finds a way to crack a DRM scheme and upload it to the Internet, it spreads to everyone with a P2P client in a matter of days.

If you buy a DVD, you're not not locked in to any one player since the DVD spec was licensed to anyone who wanted it.

Not so. If you want to build a DVD player that will allow you to fast-forward through commercials or play DVDs from multiple "zones," the DVD cartel will refuse to give you a license. They've also declined to provide licenses to open source projects wanting to build software DVD players for operating systems like Linux. Oh, and it costs about $15,000. Obviously, the DVD cartel is less tight-fisted than Apple is, but it's far from open to anyone.

The point is that DRM gives the DRM creator the legal power to decide who gets to build compatible devices and on what terms. Apple could choose to license its technology to others, as the DVD cartel does, but if it chooses not to do so then competitors have no legal way to build compatible devices.

Unchecked piracy can utterly destroy content industries. The evidence on that seems pretty clear.

Unchecked piracy has apparently done nothing, however, to slow the production of new content, regardless of whatever impact it's had on the corporations which make their profit through licensing and distributing that content (and whether piracy has actually substantially contributed to the decline of these industries is certainly debatable, and not, as you claim, "pretty clear"). You'd certainly be familiar with this argument if you'd actually read Matt Yglesias's previous posts on this subject, and wouldn't have to resort to childish accusations that he "simply doesn't like DRM."

Also, if you buy a DVD, it's illegal to transfer it to your iPod or PSP to view it on the road. And the DVD cartel has refused to allow video jukebox products like Kaleidescape. It's not lock-in to a particular vendor, but it does create a lot of similar compatibility headaches.

"The Daring Fireball link is a good refutation of this general line of thought."

The Fireball post contests the idea that Apple should have pursued the same strategy as IBM (earning profits through licensing). What I said was different, which is that I don't believe such a strategy would work for Apple, or that its current strategy for the I-POD will mean long-term dominance of the digital music hardware market. There was a time (and I remember it) when the IBM PC was seem as an expensive and clunky machine. At that time (the early 80s) the Apple II was the king of the hill. (Apple was the first computer maker to hit a billion dollars in sales, and by 1983 had manufactured more than a million of the machines. It wasn't the best selling computer of the time [that distinction goes to the Commodore 64] but it was the best selling "serious" pc of the time.) By the later 1980s all that had changed...

"Also to Linus: Apple sells prepaid gift cards for the itunes music store. You can buy them, for cash, at Best Buy, Walmart, Safeway and 7-11. I've also seen them at gas stations."

It doesn't surprise me, though clearly a more universal form of internet currency would be more lucrative.

"Linus: I have no idea what an "I-POD" is, but whatever it is, it's not a product that Apple sells. Apple does sell a product called the iPod, occasionally called the "ipod" by people not fond of intercaps: perhapss that is what you were thinking of?"

It's an overpriced, underpeforming status symbol I don't own (none of the digital formats sound as good to me as LPs or CDs, let alone the still-rare [and maybe unlikely to ever become popular DVD audio]). I gather any number of people who buy these things are also stupid enough to drop 55k on a glorified truck (with no bed), leather seats and 50+ year old technology under the hood that will be utterly worthless in another decade.

"Unchecked piracy has apparently done nothing, however, to slow the production of new content"

Tell it to the Hong Kong film industry. Truly unchecked piracy (on a level we haven't seen in modern America) basically eliminated all new content.

"The point is that DRM does almost nothing to check online piracy."

Well, given the ease of bypassing DRM on DVD's, this is mostly true. But online piracy is not the only piracy that matters.

At the end of the day, if the goal is to keep piracy at 5% of the market instead of 50% of the market, a variety of methods have to be used.

I wonder to what extent people turn to illegal downloading (and to what extent the music industry loses money) not because they want something for nothing but because, like me, they don't have any use for platform-dependent music files.

Money is truly not the issue here. I listen to lots of music, like most people of my generation, but I doubt my personal needs amount to more than a few tracks a week. Definitely no more than a half dozen on average. I'm perfectly willing to shell out five or six bucks a week for music, as long as I'm free to use that purchased music for whatever legal purpose I want.

Anyway, what I'm saying is: I'm pretty sure the music industry's woes (if you can even call them "woes" because they're still making lots of money) result not only because of a bunch of kids who don't respect property rights, but also substantially because they're failing to supply the market (what else is new?) with what it wants: wholly unencumbered music files. The only place you can get those on a track by track basis (outside of obscure artists or back catalogs) is the black market. Fuck the greedy bastards.

I'm sure they've done studies that would dispute what I'm about to postulate, but I strongly believe it would be in the music industry's financial interest to start selling unprotected Mp3 files. I mean, it's not like their current strategy is stopping file sharing as is. It appears it's not even cutting it down very much. Why not use the market to make money instead of fighting it?

Well, given the ease of bypassing DRM on DVD's, this is mostly true. But online piracy is not the only piracy that matters.

Yeah, but it's the kind of piracy that is almost always cited as the justification for DRM. If the need to stop people from burning their DVDs justifies the DMCA, then why not ban CD burners? What about VCRs, which allow people to record movies from their televisions? And what about dual-tape decks, which allowed people to pirate old cassette tapes?

Until the DMCA, we weren't in the habit of banning useful technologies simply because they might be used for piracy. It seems to me that made more sense than the policy we've got now.

It's an overpriced, underpeforming status symbol
...
I gather any number of people who buy these things are also stupid enough to drop 55k on a glorified truck

and here i thought iPod owners were supposed to be the elitists...

"What about VCRs"

Digital reproduction has changed the game for obvious reasons.

Linus: bully on you for not buying an SUV, but what the heck does that have to do with iPods? (Please note: this is not actually a request that you attempt to justify the metaphor. In fact, I'm begging you not to. Please.)

Since apparently I was being too oblique: there is no hyphen and only one capital letter in "iPod", making your constant use of the term "I-POD"... well, frankly weird. Do your hyphen and shift keys need extra exercise today?

By the way, not that I'm trying to sell you on a digital media player, but you do know that you can play uncompressed (exactly bit-for-bit CD quality) audio files on most of them, ipods included? (ipods support AIFF and Apple Lossless Coded; a bunch of other players support either FLAC or the Windows Media loseless codec. Likewise, your complaint about the ipods being overpriced is just weird: these days, most of the rest of the industry has moved on to complaining that ipods are priced too low due to apple's ability to bulk-buy most of Samsung's flash memory production.

Digital reproduction has changed the game for obvious reasons.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Care to enlighten me on the "obvious reasons?"

"Care to enlighten me on the "obvious reasons?"

First, second, third, and nth generation copies are as good as the original.

That changes much more than one would expect.

There's a pretty easy answer to all this. Don't buy an iPod. Instead buy another manufacturer's mp3 player, and sign up for Rhapsody. (I don't work for Rhapsody, or anyone in this industry, btw.) For subscription of about $15/month, you can either buy or "rent" copious amounts of music -- a library comparable to iTunes. Renting means you don't own the track, but you can put it on your mp3 device and play it to your heart's content, so long as you plug your device into your computer and sign on to Rhapsody periodically. You can also buy most tracks at .79 per. They are downloaded into your computer, and at that point, they are yours. You can put them on your device. You can burn them onto a disk. You can burn them onto 10 disks, 100, 1000. If your mp3 player should happen to meet a sad fate, you still own the tracks, and can put them on the replacement. You can even put them on an iPod if you insist on being part of the herd.

If your use your portable device to play music or other audio files ... i.e. if you're not using it to watch itty-bitty versions of "Lost," there is no reason whatsoever to play in Apple's highly restrictive playground. None.

"In particular, if you went out and bought an iPod, and then you wanted to legally acquire some music for it, the only place you could turn was the iTunes Music Store."

I know this was pointed out earlier, but I'll point it out again because Matthew hasn't addressed it (and, to me, it makes most of his post irrelevant): the sentence above is false, mistaken, counterfactual, and not true. Plenty of people fill up their iPods with CDs they already had. I have maybe two downloaded songs on the thing, because I like having CDs.

". . . leave out the roll a really dumb law and some business blunders . . .

Not to mention the really dumb blunder of confusing "roll" with "role." Harvard, huh?

"Since apparently I was being too oblique: there is no hyphen and only one capital letter in "iPod", making your constant use of the term "I-POD"... well, frankly weird. Do your hyphen and shift keys need extra exercise today?"

No, actually, it is your obsession with brand terminology that is strange and kind of idiotic.

"By the way, not that I'm trying to sell you on a digital media player, but you do know that you can play uncompressed (exactly bit-for-bit CD quality) audio files on most of them, ipods included?"

A good portable CD player has superior sound quality to the iPOD (happy now?), and as I gather you know CDs can also be played on the stereos in my cars as well as on my home stereo (which like most people has superior sound quality to my computer).

The iPOD obsession is nothing more than brand fetishism. It is the worst kind of superficiality.

Also, you know, there is the matter of packaging.

What's the pleasure in owning Rush 2112 if I don't get to see the Space Invaders cover and that picture of Geddy and the band in white satin capes? I feel as though I'm missing something if I don't get to see that strung out picture of Greg Allman at the Meadowlands, or that strung out picture of Mike Ness at the Ralphs in Orange County, or that strung out picture of Waylon somewhere in badlands of Florida. I feel as though I'm missing something if I can't lie on the floor and read the lyrics of "Melissa".

First, second, third, and nth generation copies are as good as the original. That changes much more than one would expect.

I don't see how. The kinds of casual infringement DRM stops would be mostly first-generation copies. The people who care about nth-generation copies are the professional pirates, and DRM doesn't slow them down at all.

"The kinds of casual infringement DRM stops would be mostly first-generation copies."

The problem is that in the digital age, the copy chain off of one original never ends. In the analog age, the chain had a pretty short limit.

"are the professional pirates, and DRM doesn't slow them down at all."

I agree with you on this part.

Dude. Linus. Say what you want about the sound quality of iPods, but it sounds pretty good to me. I carry it with me everywhere, and it has changed the way I listen to music. I use different headphones, I carry it under my coat--no one else knows I have an iPod. Please accept that there are people out there who like iPods because they find them to be awesome, not because they want to buy an SUV and listen to a lot of Coldplay. To say that is across the board "the worst kind of superficiality" is...well, probably you being forced into an ever-more-extreme argument as this conversation goes by. But, man, the more you say, the farther you're getting from objective facts and the closer you're getting to, well, crazytalk.

And yes, it is "iPod". I know you're trying to make a point when you call it "IPOD", but the point you're making is not the one you think you're making. If the capital P bothers you so much, "ipod" can be acceptible, too.

Petey and Tim Lee--the issue is that copies of VHS tapes got worse the more copies were made, and wore out the more you used them. Which made it very hard to make a copy of an album for 100 people and have them actually enjoy it. With digital files, one file can be copied 100,000 times and the 100,000th copy will sound just as good (or bad, if you're Linus) as the 1st. That is how the digital age changed these things. Pirate copies could be enjoyable and mass-exchanged, rather than like bad manga videos passed from friend to friend.

" I carry it with me everywhere, and it has changed the way I listen to music."

But so? I used to carry my discman (when I lived in New York) with me a great many places, and before that it was a walkman. The tapes like worked in your car and stuff too. But it was the music itself that changed my world, not the format it came in, or the branding of the format it came in. To me, the only thing that matters about the format is how good it sounds, and to me the iPOD doesn't sound so great.

Linus, you just don't get it.

an ipod or any multiple gigabyte mp3 player lets you carry your whole music library with you, lets you listen to anything with ease.

mix tapes for the new millenium.

I still buy cd's, rip them to a high quality and have the best of both worlds.
You are missing out on a sweet thing- and i dont mean just ipod, but the whole library on your pc and mp3 player paradigm.

Condensing two replies into one!

At that time (the early 80s) the Apple II was the king of the hill. (Apple was the first computer maker to hit a billion dollars in sales, and by 1983 had manufactured more than a million of the machines. It wasn't the best selling computer of the time [that distinction goes to the Commodore 64] but it was the best selling "serious" pc of the time.) By the later 1980s all that had changed...

I'm well aware of that history.

However, while Jobs is certainly not an unbiased person with regards to late 80s Apple executive decisions, he certainly seems to have learned from their mistake (see recent Newsweek/Steven Levy interview with him).

Apple went for profit in the late 80s when they should've gone for market share, by their current leadership's own admission. Furthermore, Jobs has stated that if another music store gains significant market share, they'll consider supporting it. We'll see how that goes, should it become an issue (eventually it surely will).

Why would they share now? Just to be nice?

In the short term, there is nothing that is going to stop Apple.

Long term, the game's going to change, and Apple will either adapt, or start to lose ground. Assuming they're incapable of adapting and are doomed just because they failed to do so 20 years ago just seems silly.

It seems even sillier when you consider that the iPod is in a far stronger position now relative to its competition than the Mac was to its competition back then.

On to another post:

It's an overpriced,

By what standard? When compared to other mp3s, the iPod wins practically every time. Notice that Microsoft is not trying to compete with the iPod on price.

Find me an mp3 player of similar storage size to the current line of iPods that is cheaper.

underpeforming

Again, by what standard? The interface? Because you don't like the file-size/quality trade off made by mp3s? Or the files you get from iTMS?

Actually, from what I've read, relative to other audio components, the actual hardware that reproduces sound is, in newer iPods, quite good.

If you can't stand loss of quality: It plays a lossless format. And even if you don't want to use Apple's lossless format, on my extra nice headphones, the difference between 320 kbps mp3s and a lossless copy is, to my ears, negligible in the extreme.

status symbol

Maybe back when they weren't, you know, quite so ubiquitous?

I don't own (none of the digital formats sound as good to me as LPs or CDs, let alone the still-rare [and maybe unlikely to ever become popular DVD audio]).

Even the lossless ones? You hear a difference between Apple's lossless format, WMA lossless, FLAC and CD audio? If so, it's, all other things being equal, in your head.

Losslessly compressed audio is not different than what's on the CD in terms of audio quality, sorry!

PS: I am a person who still buys CDs. I do not buy from the iTMS for many reasons. However, assaulting the iPod for sound quality issues when it's perfectly capable of sounding at least as good as your average Walkmen CD player, assuming you give it high-quality files to play just seems silly.

"...You are missing out on a sweet thing- and i dont mean just ipod, but the whole library on your pc and mp3 player paradigm."

I was routinely berated in the early years of the CD revolution for suggesting that analog recording and transfer technology (as well as records themselves) had a richer texture than the digital recording and transfer technology that existed at the time. I'm not audiophile - just a guy who likes music - but any number of artists agreed with me, and to no small extent it's still the case. The only real exception to the superiority of analog recordings is the highest grade of digital recording and DVD audio, and none of the digital formats come close. And why should I invest in a whole new format when I already own so many beloved LPs, and my home and car stereos sound so great? Should I get a new liver too?

Your point about having an entire catalog of music on a single piece of silicon and plastic is the most compelling one anyone has made on this thread, but I don't need to listen to every song I own at the same time, and I'll wait until the sound quality of mp3s improves radically before buying any kind of portable digital music player, or new home stereo component, or car stereo. Despite what Alex says, I doubt any format as proprietary as Apple's will dominate the marketplace for long.

" and I'll wait until the sound quality of mp3s improves radically before buying any kind of portable digital music player"

wow. ogg, aac, vbr mp3 are just as good as cd redbook( which is a compressed format in itself).

You just dont get it, from you saying 'apple proprietary format', (when you rip your cd library, you have a choice of many/any open formats) to get a new liver- a mp3 /ipod goes from 80 to 350$.When i plug my ipod into my car stereo, i got the whole thing, all my music.great for trips, audiobooks, podcasts,music.

In the home, my PC/Mac is my music library which broadcasts via wireless to my stereo.

Dude, it's all good.

Linus: I feel a bit weird arguing this with you, since your point really seems to be "my portable CD player is sufficient for my needs", and as far as that goes, well, good for you. It's your implicit assertion that everyone else should be happy with a portable CD, and are only using DAPs out of some misguided fashion sense that is, well, nonselse.

People have already noted the storage issue. Other concrete reasons that people like digital audio players: days of battery life, no skipping, and no chance of scratching your CDs in normal use. (Ever tried jogging with a portable CD player?) A DAP is also somewhere between on-eighth and one-sixteenth the size of a CD player, and can be as little as a tenth the weight: the ipod shuffle and the mobiblu cube2 are generally regarded as the smallest DAPs available, and they both clock in at about half an ounce, with no moving parts.

Also, if you're "waiting for the sound quality of mp3s to improve radically", I have good news for you: it already has. The default encoding system on every ipod but the first is AAC (Apple Advanced Codec, also known as MPEG-4 audio), which at 192kbps tests very well in double-blind listener tests against uncompressed CD audio. Non-ipod players usually offer WMA9 or Ogg Vorbis compression, which are similarly well-regarded. (The folks at hydrogenaudio.org do regular tests that get into much more detail about this if you're curious.) Also, as I previously said: if any lossy compression scheme is too much for you, you can use FLAC or Apple/Windows lossless encoding and get actual bit-for-bit CD Audio: and fit the equivilant of 120 CDs onto a 30gb player.

By the way, you were "berated" for your loyalty to analog recording because of something called the Nyquist Limit: short form is, early CDs had sound problems due to sound engineers being unfamiliar with the new tools, but 44.1khz digital sampling is completely sufficient to represent the entire range of sounds perceiveable by the human ear ("warm" or otherwies), and that is a simple, cold mathematical fact.

Lastly: the only part of apple's "format" that is proprietary is the DRM wrapper around songs sold from the iTunes music store. The format of the songs themselves is an open standard (MPEG-4), the hardware plays other formats (mp3, AIFF, ALC), and the store is, as already beaten to death, not only not the only legal place to get music for an ipod, but actually one of the less popular ones.

("nonselse"? Wow, that was a good one even by my standards.)

"Linus, you just don't get it."

I believe that is fully intentional. Wikipedia has a page about Linus's behavior here. Note the admonitions about not feeding.

I'm still interested in seeing if Matt will go back and retract his completely wrong statement about where one could get music for one's iPod.

And there IS a legal way to get around the iTMS DRM: burn your music to a CD. Delete it, if you want, or don't. Re-rip the CD as though it is a normal CD. There you go. You have mp3s that can be played on any mp3 player.

Or was that made illegal, too? iTunes specifically provides ways to do it.

With digital files, one file can be copied 100,000 times and the 100,000th copy will sound just as good (or bad, if you're Linus) as the 1st. That is how the digital age changed these things. Pirate copies could be enjoyable and mass-exchanged, rather than like bad manga videos passed from friend to friend.

Right, but the point is that this is precisely the kind of mass-copying that DRM won't stop. If there are 100,000 people with the means and desire to engage in copyright infringement, the odds are extremely high that one of them will have access to DRM-cracking software. And once on person cracks DRM and shares it with a friend, there's nothing DRM can do to prevent the spread of further copies.

DRM only prevents casual infringement by legitimate users. And those aren't the people who are making 100,000 copies.

Steve Jobs is luckier than he is smart on this one. Lock-in is Apple's trump card in the upcoming iPod/Zune war, and the only reason I think Apple will end up winning.

It's a little pointless to debate this right now. I'll just say that I think you're going to be amazingly wrong about this. Zune's already facing serious problems and an overall negative perception. I'd love to see a challenger to the iPod's premium pricing, but Zune has all the hallmarks of a complete fiasco. Microsoft is trying to serve too many masters with this product.

There is a lot of confusing iTunes and iPod in this thread.

The iTunes music store sells files in a digital format that is only playable on an iPod or burned to a standard CD via iTunes.

An iPod can play music from most any online store, you aren't limited to iTunes, and iTunes will rip any CD you already own onto your iPod. If you don't like Apple's format you can use numerous free SW packages such as MusicMatch to rip your cds into MP3s and load them onto your iPod.

If you buy a music player compare the iPod to the others and decide which design you prefer or which gives the best value, but don't let your feelings about DRM and the iTunes music store sway you, they are completely seperate issues.

"Ever tried jogging with a portable CD player?"

I don't jog, I run.

It's also my belief that the Cold War was preferable to the so-called war on terror, and that the original Omen was vastly superior to the remake. Surely there is no technological fix for that.

"...44.1khz digital sampling is completely sufficient to represent the entire range of sounds perceiveable by the human ear ("warm" or otherwies), and that is a simple, cold mathematical fact..."

I'm descended from wolves.

And even if they've resolved the compression issue they still haven't resolved the packaging issue. If they're not going to send me that picture of Geddy Lee in a white sateen cape I'd at least better get a free Geddy Lee telephone answering message, maybe a wake up call.

I may be a fuddy duddy, suspicious of this kind of technophilia (the PC was a major historical invention, and I began bothering my father to buy me one when I was seven; this is just another new format for listening to music, and I said above it is the music itself that matters to me), but I make a delicious and light-tasting curry. It's perfect for almost any season.

"I believe that is fully intentional. Wikipedia has a page about Linus's behavior here. Note the admonitions about not feeding."

!Apple Uber Alles!

(Happy now?)

PS I wonder how many times Petey has been evicted from the dailykos.

"...the only part of apple's "format" that is proprietary is the DRM wrapper around songs sold from the iTunes music store."

That is the truth my friend. My understanding was that Apple hadn't embraced all the formats, but there are now software translators for more or less every format under the sun so that issue is moot.

Still, it's difficult to see how Apple will continue to dominate the field. There is just too much money to be made in this market, and inexpensive digital music players that embrace the full range of formats and have high sound quality must be just around the corner.

And it seems to me that apart from the possibility of immediately owning music that used to require a trip to the store or an online order, as well as not having to cart around a book of CDs, are the only real innovations of the digital music era. That's something, but the level of enthusiasm for the iPOD in particular seems out of proportion. But whatever. It's just a thing, not especially worth arguing about.

I want to make one final point about this though.

As I have said, I think Apple has a solid future (provided they don't make any catastrophic mistakes) because it is such a strong brand (with a tremendously loyal customer base). And as I said I think the strength of the Apple brand would be undermined significantly by a much lower pricepoint (or PC-like model); Apple's customers *want* to pay more (that's part of the Apple cache).

On other hand, I'm not just skeptical of brand fetishism, but a little bit disheartened that a successful campaign of corporate imageering can convince even bright, liberal people that the bottom line is not the bottom line for some of these tech giants. There have been and continue to be wage, benefit and working condition issues at Apple, and what I have heard from former employees I have known personally (as well as my own experience inside multiple major tech and internet companies) makes me rather cynical about the very idea of brand enchantment.

No company is perfect, but there are tech companies with business models more shrewd than Apple's, operations leaner than Apple's, and pay and compensation packages as well as working conditions much, much better for employees as a whole than Apple's. Any number of them may be barely household names, but these are some other considerations important to me as a consumer and investor.

Also, I apologize if I've insulted anyone on this thread.

It's rarely a good idea to pick a fight about something one cares little about, and to be frank I didn't realize I was picking a fight (clearly people have some strong feelings in facor of the iPOD). I think the Apple business and branding model is an interesting subject, but I haven't yet found a passion for the digital music thing. That could change. (I'm a stubborn man. I saw Nirvana for the first time in 1990 or 91 [it was on that west coast tour when they opened for Sonic Youth] but refused to like them until at least the middle part of the decade.)

Good blog

thank you

very cool

I hope everybody like this blog

thanks

Cool blog

I like this

Thank you for infos.

Good news

I hope everybody read this article

Thank you for infos.

Good news

thank you

very good commnent

very nice post

It's rarely a good idea to pick a fight about something one cares little about, and to be frank I didn't realize I was picking a fight (clearly people have some strong feelings in facor of the iPOD). I think the Apple business and branding model is an interesting subject, but I haven't yet found a passion for the digital music thing. That could change. (I'm a stubborn man. I saw Nirvana for the first time in 1990 or 91 [it was on that west coast tour when they opened for Sonic Youth] but refused to like them until at least the middle part of the decade.) fg

very Good Site Thanks You

It's rarely a good idea to pick a fight about something one cares little about, and to be frank I didn't realize I was picking a fight (clearly people have some strong feelings in facor of the iPOD). I think the Apple business and branding model is an interesting subject, but I haven't yet found a passion for the digital music thing. That could change. (I'm a stubborn man. I saw Nirvana for the first time in 1990 or 91 [it was on that west coast tour when they opened for Sonic Youth] but refused to like them until at least the middle part of the decade

"...the only part of apple's "format" that is proprietary is the DRM wrapper around songs sold from the iTunes music store."

That is the truth my friend. My understanding was that Apple hadn't embraced all the formats, but there are now software translators for more or less every format under the sun so that issue is moot.

I'm still interested in seeing if Matt will go back and retract his completely wrong statement about where one could get music for one's iPod.

And there IS a legal way to get around the iTMS DRM: burn your music to a CD. Delete it, if you want, or don't. Re-rip the CD as though it is a normal CD. There you go. You have mp3s that can be played on any mp3 player.

Or was that made illegal, too? iTunes specifically provides ways to do it

And there IS a legal way to get around the iTMS DRM: burn your music to a CD. Delete it, if you want, or don't. Re-rip the CD as though it is a normal CD. There you go. You have mp3s that can be played on any mp3 player.

thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..thank you sir.. good site..

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

thanks a lot

Thanks for usefull informations.

Thanks...

thanks
chat
sohbet
Video
komik video
komik video
aşk şiirleri
Tr Video
avrupa sohbet
89com
komik video
sohbet
sohbet
Kurtlar Vadisi
bedava oyun
genç sohbet
islami sohbet
Bol Sohbet
chat

Matt, what on earth are you talking about? The iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by years. It is now and has always been perfectly legal to fill your iPod (or any other mp3 player) by ripping CDs you have already bought -- and as far as anyone knows, that's how the vast majority of iPods are filled. Other perfectly legal options include any service which legally sells non-DRM-

sex thanks

Matt, what on earth are you talking about? The iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by years. It is now and has always been perfectly legal to fill your iPod (or any other mp3 player) by ripping CDs you have already bought -- and as far as anyone knows, that's how the vast majority of iPods are filled. Other perfectly legal options include any service which legally sells non-DRM-
Posted by: youtube on Decem

Matt, what on earth are you talking about? The iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by years. It is now and has always been perfectly legal to fill your iPod (or any other mp3 player) by ripping CDs you have already bought -- and as far as anyone knows, that's how the vast majority of iPods are filled. Other perfectly legal options include any service which legally sells non-DRM-
Posted by: youtube on Decem

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

nice

thank for all

Sohbet
Müzik
Şiirler
PopRadyo
Güzel Sözler
Güzel Mesajlar
Güzel Şiirler
Güzel Resimler
Aşk Sözleri
Aşk Mesajları
Aşk Şiirleri
Aşk Resimleri
Sevgi Sözleri
Sevgi Mesajları
Sevgi Şiirleri
Sevgi Resimleri
Güzel Hikayeler
Güzel Fıkralar
Güzel Yazılar
Güzel Nickler
Bebek İsimleri
Bebek Resimleri
Çocuk İsimleri
Çocuk Resimleri
Gül Resimleri
Çiçek Resimleri
Manzara Resimleri
Hayvan Resimleri
Msn Resimleri
Msn Nickleri
Msn Adresleri
Msn Kullanma
Aşk Nedir
Aşk Sevgi
Sevgi Aşk
Sevgi Nedir
Dinler
Dualar
Namaz
DiniRadyo
Komik Sözler
Komik Mesajlar
Komik Şiirler
Komik Resimler
Rüya Tabirleri
Rüya Yorumları
Rüya Görmek
Dünya Haritası
Şifalı Bitkiler
Yemek Tarifleri
Dini İlahiler
Duvar Yazıları
İngilizce Sözlük
İngilizce Çeviri
Türkçe Sözlük
Almanca Sözlük
Show Tv
Kanal D
Samanyolu
Atv Tv
Nefret Sözleri
Özlü Sözler
Kısa Sözler
Anlamlı Sözler
MMC Tv
TRT-1 Tv
Tv Kanalları
Canlı Tv
sohbet
guzel mesajlar
nefret siirleri
ozlu sozler
guzel sozler
guzel siirler
bayan arkadas
chat
sohbet arkadasi tamdost
tamdostcom
tamdost.com
www.tamdost.com
w w w . tamdost . com
tam dost
tam dost.com
tam dost com
tamdost.net
soyle.net
canim.net
gulum.net
www.soyle.net
www.canim.net
www.gulum.net
www.sohbet.com
www.sohbet.net
www.chat.com
www.chat.net

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye

Matthew Yglesias _ proudly eponymous since 2002 jjjjjjjj

thanks ;)

thank you !

sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
gebze
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
sexshop
sexshop
facebook
face book
face turk
arkadaş
sex shop
sex shop
seks shop
seks shop
sex market
sex market
shop shop
erotik shop
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
sex shop
muhabbet
trkadin
hikayen
sex
porno
chat
sohbet
lokum
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım

thank you

thank you !

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

teşekkürler yararlı bir yazı olmuş bloğunu takip ediyorum.
Turkey ;)

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

thank you nice sharing