NYT: Want an iPhone? Beware the iHandcuffs

[clevin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/business/yourmoney/14digi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[MacBoobsPro]

"The suit contends that Apple unfairly restricts consumer choice because it does not load onto the iPod the software needed to play music that uses Microsoft’s copy-protection standard, in addition to Apple’s own."

While I dont like the idea of DRM I just dont get these court cases that keep popping up.

The above quote is similar to me sueing Ford because a Nissan hood wont fit on my Escort.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
Exactly. For the sake of argument, who says M$ would allow Apple and give them the proper resources even if they chose to support WMDRM? Dirty lawyers.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you’re willing to go to that trouble, you can play the music where and how you choose — the equivalent to rights that would have been granted automatically at the cash register if you had bought the same music on a CD in the first place.

Assuming the CD wasn't DRM-ed. I refuse to buy copy-protected CDs so I suppose consumers who object to DRM in downloads can refuse to buy them too.

Bashing DRM is easy. Too easy. Everybody hates it. So what else is new?

I also have to wonder about the iPhone connection. Not only is music playing only one of the functions, just like the iPod, it's not limited to playing iTunes music.

 

[whooleytoo]

Not sure about some of the logic, but I hope Ms. Tucker's wins her suit. I think it's better in the long term for consumers, and probably better for the digital music industry.

 

[Max Payne]

So why exactly yhe iPhone? Why not the iPod or iZune?

 

[Mord]

this is stupid, no one should have to force apple to give microsoft the royalty required for wma compatibility and i doubt microsoft would even allow it.

 

[whooleytoo]

So why exactly yhe iPhone? Why not the iPod or iZune?

Because the iPod is dominating the digital music market. If Microsoft was dominating the music market without licensing it's technologies, it would be being sued too - it's already facing massive fines and being forced to remove features from Windows in the EU for similar reasons.

Sorry, I misread your answer. I don't think the iPhone is any different, I think the writer seized upon it as a perpetuation of DRM, which he obviously has a disklike for

 

[Tork]

The labels will never allow DRM-free music to be sold; it'd cause the re-birth of illegal file sharing.

 

[apfhex]

The labels will never allow DRM-free music to be sold; it'd cause the re-birth of illegal file sharing.

Which is still going on in full force, probably driven even more by people who want DRM-free digital tracks to play on non-Apple devices.

Wasn't there a Page 2 rumor about Apple possibly opening its FairPlay to others?

Anyway the lawsuit is stupid. I hate DRM as much as anyone else, but it's just... ugh.

The record companies suck.

 

[killr_b]

Randall Stross and Melanie Tucker should get ****** with a hot poker and die in a fire.

The only thing I read in these words are FUD. FUD, FUD and more FUD.
Mostly I say FUD because the average person after reading the article will think that only songs purchased from iTunes work with Apple products the iPhone and iPod. Which is just not true.

If you purchase an album from the URGE store in Win MP 11 you can burn it to CD and import the CD into iTunes. Just like any CD. Haven't tried the Zune store, or whatever it's called, but I imagine it will work.

If the act of importing a CD to iTunes added DRM I could see a problem.

These people *I think (*disclaimer) are paid by MS or San Disk (San Disk already paid for the lawsuit against Apple over "rechargeable batteries don't last forever"- I'm sure you remember) to write these speculative articles that are coupled with careful topic selection and wording to make it seem as if Apple is restricting your freedom, as opposed to implementing quality control measures, which is how Apple sees their closed platform and always has.

Why don't T-Moblie ring tones play on Cingular phones? OH ****!!!!! Looks like we need a lawsuit and a NY Times article…

 

[Felldownthewell]

"When you buy songs at the iTunes Music Store, you can play them on one — and only one — line of portable player, the iPod. And when you buy an iPod, you can play copy-protected songs bought from one — and only one — online music store, the iTunes Music Store."

O RLY?!

I usually respect the NYT, but this article is just asking for it. Do I really need to teach the author a lesson in capitalism? Apple wants your money- specifically from the DAP market. There are two parts to that market- player and content. Instead of letting a different company make money from the content or from the DAP, apple decided to do both, thereby simplifying the process for the end consumer and making itself double the profit it would have otherwise. Obviously, if people had a problem with this, Apple would not have a 70% share of the DAP market. If opinion changes, so will Apple's approach, but bitchy lawsuits and whiny NYT articles are not going to make a major company trade a more profitible business model for a less profitable one...