MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all its just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teachers, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

Sent to the InfoWeek editors:

In regards to "Guess What, Steve -- I Don't Love It", by By David DeJean, Info Week failed to live up to the standard I have come to expect from you.

Simply put, AAC is also know as MP4, the improved successor to the well known MP3. MP4 is better compression, and is free of some of the licensing issues that are involved with MP3.

AAC is not DRM. From Apple, their DRM is FairPlay.

Many other brands of "MP3" players support AAC, including Microsoft's Zune.

In short, Mr. DeJean should apologize to the readers for spreading such blather, and to you, his employers, for bringing such embarassment on what I had always considered to be a reputable publication.

" from vinyl to cassette to CD to MP3 to whatever comes next."

Am I mistaken? Isn't AAC actually mp4? 4, which comes "next" after 3?!

AAC is mpeg4, which is the next step and superior to mp3. Am i right?

Flame 'em!!!

Nice letter!

And thanks for answering my question before I was able to ask it, too!

Hopefully, they'll publish a retraction or something.
Typhoon

What kind of a teabagger uses some off brand crappy mp3 player? And notice how he talks about "fair price", as if his definition of the word is a definite mathematically perfect number. As if 99 cents is the magically true and correct price for a single song.

But really, I've never had any sympathy for the complaints of these idiots that use el cheapo mp3 players. Basically, they're cheap bastards that don't understand that you get what you pay for.

A penalty of 30% for DRM free music? What a jerk. Apple saw the writing on the wall. 1. A growing movement against DRM; and 2. A growing movement by the record industry to gain more profits from digital music sales.

Someone such as myself, that views Jobs as a very good strategist - might be so cynical as to believe that Jobs leveraged the additional 30% to allow EMI to earn more, in exchange for DRM free music. Each gave something they didn't really want to give. But will either lose anything? Most likely not. They will likely both gain more market for their respective products.

@ typhoon

Yes, you are indeed mistaken my friend. MPEG-4 is a standard used primarily to compress both visual AND audio digital data. It was issued after ACC.

MP4 isn't "next" after MP3, as MP3 actually stands for "MPEG 1 Audio Layer 3". MPEG2 is video. They skipped MPEG3 to avoid confusion with MP3.

Sorry, I meant MPEG2 is DVD.

Oh, and van, AAC is just another name for MP4 audio, which is why iTunes uses the "m4a" filename extension.

MDN HE ADMITTED TO HIS MISTAKE IN THE COMMENTS

I try to be fair and not flame people, but this guy is just asking to be smacked.

First and most obvious is that it's unacceptable for someone writing on the removal of DRM to be so ignorant as to not understand the AAC format. I'm not saying everyone needs to understand this stuff, but you can't justify writing on the subject of you're so ignorant of your subject matter.

I've got a few other bones to pick with this guy too.

Dejean writes: "I want to exercise my legal rights to fair use and move it from format to format -- from vinyl to cassette to CD to MP3 to whatever comes next,".

There's two things going on here. Is he purposly misusing the term "fair use" or does he just not understand it? I'll cut him a break and assume that he's not trying to use the term as it's normally construed by law or by the industry. Cause otherwise he's a dope.

But I do have to call him on the whole "legal rights" thing. Does he think that there's a law or some kind of constitutional right to be able to transfer music to other formats? There's no "legal right" that I know of. And if there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we?

Dejean goes on to write: "If you really want to make me a loyal Apple customer, then sell me DRM-free music in an open format at a fair price. Exactly why do you think the 30% premium for DRM-free files is fair, by the way?"

Feeling a little God-like today are we Mr. Dejean? We'll now live by the Dejean "fair price" policy where fair price is, of course, decided by Mr. Dejean.

Fortunately, in this country and most of the world it works the other way around. The seller sets the price and the buyer votes on whether it's fair or not by voting with his or her dollars. The seller can change the price as they see fit without resort to the impossible to define "fair" standard.

Trust me Mr. Dejean, you're in a world of trouble when others get to determine the "fair" price of the goods or services you provide.

Finally, Mr. Dejean asks the rhetorical question: "Why should I, a solid citizen who wants to do the right thing, have to pay a penalty for my honesty?"

I don't think Mr. Dejean is really talking about honesty. He's really back on that "fair price" thing again. I think you'll agree that what he's really saying is: "Why should I have to pay $1.29 for DRM free music? Why can't I pay .99 for DRM free music? (Or fifty cents. Or a quarter. Or a "fair price".)"

The simple answer is that you can't buy DRM free music at from Apple at less than $1.29 becasue Apple is not offering it for less than than price. Mr. Dejean, your "honesty" has nothing to do with your desire to determine the quality of Apple's offerings for the price you find desirable.

Stupidity has no limits.

Even if you encode a video (without DRM, let's say using handbrake) and the format is m4v (also MPEG-4), move it to a Linux machine, rename it to .mpg and there you go, you can watch it.

NO DRM HERE!!!

For some reason reminds me of the tale of the blind man and the elephant....

MW: "litttle" as "How little some brains can be..."

Why do sooo many people -- who are PAID to know -- still get simple stuff wrong?

Beats me...

Comment I posted on the article page:

"Guess what, another semi-informed tech writer who's just rambling about his dissatisfaction about so many minor issues (minimally valid at best) as if the digital music industry and technology companies revolve around his little world and owe him a great deal to satisfy all his wishlist. I'm sure you've realised your factual errors in this report as pointed out by previous posters.
If you're not happy with Apple's/EMI's offerings then by all means, act like an adult and find a company that will suit your specific needs. As you stated, choice is good and there are more than enough companies and products to choose from if you only do your research ( I hope).
For most of us, we're just excited about forward thinking companies who are willing to take some risks to give consumers what they have been asking for all this time. As for pricing, the consumers/market will eventually decide if this is a sustainable model at this pricepoint or not."

Wow!, he's torn apart in the thread under the article, even though he makes a weak apology about AAC

The poor guy has crawled into a hole.

Come on! Let's all club together and buy him a Zune (it's AAC compatible) and some antidepressants.

Just a stupid point.

If David doesn't use iTunes and doesn't use an iPod, then:

A) Why is he even commenting on this article?

B) He's not the customer that Steve is hoping "are going to love this"

My concern is that the record labels will begin licensing the higher quality 256K songs to iTunes and removing the 128K versions, thus 'forcing' a price rise and limiting choice.

Personally I find the 128K, DRM-laden versions fine and it reminds me not to pirate when it asks to be authorised.

What kind of a teabagger uses some off brand crappy mp3 player? And notice how he talks about "fair price", as if his definition of the word is a definite mathematically perfect number. As if 99 cents is the magically true and correct price for a single song.

Hey it was onsale at Wa-Mart, and I had a coupon.

Infomationweek blows.

For more information on modern technology:

David DeJean
40 Schofield Drive
Newton, MA 02460
617.969.7054 (voice)
617.916.2217 (fax)
ddejeandejean.com (email)

Posted on comments section of the article by jane plaine:

"This guy writes for personal/consumer techonology issues? Not only is he a clueless writer about the current technology but also a misinformed, uneducated consumer. It's very clear that Apple's products (hardware and software) are not for you at this time, so move on and get the product you want from other companies. Barking at Apple for not supporting your digital device, about product pricing and other issues not at all related to Apple shows how ignorant this blogger really is. So stop pretending that you want to be a "loyal customer". Instead, act like a man and state from the start that you hate Apple and/or Steve Jobs. You'll probably earn more respect and credibility doing that."

I second that.

This guy is right. Enough with Apple's Audio Codec (AAC)!

The world has spoken: WMA is the open standard best suited for audio file delivery!

You can leave out the vitriol now folks. He's admitted his mistake

his picture scares me....

It is worth giving this moron a click just to read the comments made about his blog.

I dont check Information Weak often - and now I remember why...


Australian store is up.

AGAIN:

MP3 = MPEG 1, Audio Layer 3
M4A = MPEG 4, Advanced Audio Codec (AAC)

Maybe if people called them M4A's instead of AACs? I agree MP4 would be less confusing.

I said this way back when iTMS came out that Apple needed to relabel AAC as MP4, so that people would make the obvious connection. It's amazing to me that people are STILL confused.

Here is my email to Tom Smith and Author:

Mr. Smith,

I am greatly concerned that your publication would allow such an obviously incorrect and poorly researched article to be posted on information week's website.

I have to question whether the author even has the skills to continue to offer commentary on personal technology questions. Not only is he not aware of the fact that AAC is not a proprietary technology, he is apparently not aware that it is a successor to MP3 and offers a higher quality sound at the time bit rate. The author does not seem to understand that AAC files can easily be transcoded to MP3 format if he needs to use the older format for his device.

In addition, why is this author offering "expert" opinions on music technology, when he apparently is not an enthusiast. I would think that if the author actually had an interest in the technology, he would own a more recent music player capable of playing AAC files.

I can only assume that the author has a vested interest in writing a "FUD" article such as this. I would hope that the editorial staff at InformationWeek is not in the same position and still maintains its journalistic independence. I expect to see corrective action taken.

I'm too tired. Can somebody just tell this guy he's an idiot?

My latest Crutchfield catalog contains an automobile radio/CD player with the capability to play discs with AAC files. It's not made by Apple. So.. products are even out there and InformationWeek blows it!

Editor,

David DeJean needs to do more research, as do you, before he is allowed to be published.

"If you really want to make me a loyal Apple customer, then sell me DRM-free music in an open format at a fair price."

AAC is an open format. He is conflating DRM (in this case, Apple's "FairPlay") with AAC - the standard audio format aka "MP4".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

"AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies including Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T;, Sony and Nokia, and was officially declared an international standard by the Moving Pictures Experts Group in April 199"

He goes on to moan "definitely do not want the music I buy encoded in your AAC format, either, or locked up inside of your iTunes software. My favorite audio player software does not play AAC. My portable music player does not play AAC. I do not use iTunes to manage my music."

...without stating specifically which "audio player software" or "portable music player he claims is not compatible with AAC, hiding behind vague accusations.

Again, he is conflating FairPlay DRM'd AAC with non-DRM'd AAC MP4 files (which I doubt he has or has tested yet).

Chances are his stuff will work with AAC and he just doesn't know it yet because he hasn't tried it without the DRM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Products_that_support_AAC

The EMI deal is selling music encoded at twice the standard, already very high quality 128kbps AAC, at 256kbps for 30 cents extra BUT if you buy the album you get the songs at the traditional $9.99 price.

The recording industry wants to save the concept of the "album", so it "punishes" (aka "monitizes upon") people buying singles but theoretically incentivizes people to buy full album instead.

And this is not Apple's "fault". Don't read Apple's giving in to that as something THEY want. If you think that you're fools. Apple always concededs temporarily on one or two items that can be blamed on the other party, only to later use that item's failure against them in the later rounds of negotiation. $0.30 extra? This too shall pass.

The short of it is that I'm tired of sites like yours shooting off at the mouth, being coy about acting like Apple/Jobs are the big bad bullies.

I'm one more biased article away from not reading informationweek anymore.

i know i said MP4 in my letter, I meant of course M4A but my bad, close enough. I don't blog nor an I getting paid fro writing!

Funny thing is I will get more "editing" from you guys than DeJean did!

I think he's saying he could get DRM for free off the internet illegally and he's trying to do the right thing but Apple is charging him too much money so he'll continue to download songs illegally.

There is no pleasing these idiots. It upsets me that no one bothers to check these fools before their dribble is published.

This DeJean is a cut above the other anal-ysts: he corrected his error!

MDN magic word is "morning," as in, "It is a new morning for analysts, as one of them actually admitted to an error and corrected it."

Dis-InformationWeek..

I received this from him

"Eric --

Every once in a while I do something that I wish I could do over.
Sigh. Yes, I know AAC isn't proprietary. Yes, I know I could transform
AAC files to MP3s. The point I was trying to make (and apparently
didn't do a very good job of) is that while I was very pleased a major
music company has decided to sell DRM-free music, I did not feel that
Apple had matched that new openness by opening up its own closed
system in any way: for me, AAC and iTunes still amounts to a DRM
system. Apparently I'm not alone. As I said in the piece, the European
Union still has concerns that Apple is operating in some restraint of
trade. I share those concerns.

-- David"

I still don't think he understands.

@Eric

You're right. Dude just doesn't get it. He obviously can't drag and drop an MP4 file from his hard drive into another media management application of his choice.

Research?! I don't need no stinkin' research!

My mind's made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!"

Sent author a semi-sarcastic note. received email back from editor. this article and another one have been corrected.

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/04/guess_what_stev.html
received a note from the author as well
comments on his blog ripped him a new one as well

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/04/steve_jobs_and.html
reader comments ripped him a new one

InformationWeak

Eric,

if what you are saying is genuine ( and I don't have the slightest reason to doubt it ), his reply to you is even more worrying than his original mistake.

He's not the only person to believe that AAC is solely an Apple format, such ignorance is widespread. He now understands that he was wrong and should have checked. But he then in that e-mail he goes on to say that as far as he is concerned DRM and AAC are effectively the same thing. Furthermore, unless he has an EU source different to the ones I've read, the EU does not consider that distributing music in AAC format is a restraint of trade.

To make one error because you didn't check, is something that occasionally happens to some people. To then make two further errors while explaining the first error is simply to demonstrate that you're a bigger idiot than people previously thought you were.

He needs to understand that Apple looks to the future, MP3 has had it's day, AAC is it's successor. Apple chose AAC for quality, but allowed iPods to play legacy files, such as MP3 and others. If DeJean had his way, no format would ever be allowed to be superseded by a superior one.

OK - Here's my 2 cents. High kbps songs require higher transmission times and hence higher bandwidth to transfer. Who pays for that bandwidth? Apple does. OK. So part of the increase in price will be for bandwidth price, and not just for quality price. My 2 cents.

One problem: Microsoft is going to be offering DRM-Free music following Apples footsteps. Apparently, not just Microsoft, but other music companies want competition. The only thing is that there are a lot more players that can play many formats such as my Creative Zen than formats played by the iPod. If this does kick off successfully, then there is a possibility that Microsoft subscription music without DRM might offer more freedom than Apples music without DRM. Proposal also by EMI.

@Greg

I don't mean to be insulting, but your post doesn't make any sense - at least not to me. Perhaps I've missed something.

First, you state that "Microsoft is going to be offering DRM-Free music following Apples footsteps."

I suppose Microsoft may in fact offer EMI music DRM free. But I don't see how this helps them. They have been staunch advocates of DRM. And non-DRM music allows for interoperability. While Microsoft may hope that Apples non-DRM music will allow people to buy from itunes and play on players other than Ipods, how does DRM music help Microsoft?

You then go on to say: "there are a lot more players that can play many formats such as my Creative Zen than formats played by the iPod." Is that true? The Ipod can play a variety of music. AAC is pretty ubiquitous. I feel quite sure that neither Microsoft nor any other drive provider has a standard that is more popular than MP3 or AAC though I'd be happy to be educated on this point.

Finally, you say: "there is a possibility that Microsoft subscription music without DRM might offer more freedom than Apples music without DRM." I don't believe that statement makes any sense. Subscription music withou DRM is an impossibility. If I can subscribe to all the music I want and then just keep it forever, it destroys the subscription model entirely.

I don't know. It's late. Maybe you can enlighten me.