MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Doofus is too kind.

If these idiots ever feel their face burn when they get their ignorant asses handed to them or do they just dig in and insist on their BS being true?

The 5 min fix would be that idiot goggling for factual information.

It makes you wonder if you can believe anything you read, anywhere, anymore. I mean, it's sort of scary that we get so much information from articles that you would think have been researched. Now you have to wonder when you read magazines and web articles how much is just made up? I like being able to toss facts around, but now I'm running the risk of sounding like a doofus when I quote a doofus.

Aug 14, 08 - 12:47 pm Comment from: MrScrith

And I think calling him a Doofus is insulting to the Doofus community.

Aug 14, 08 - 12:50 pm Comment from: Randian

How can we contact this asshat?

Well he is right to an extent. It's Apple's fault in that Steve Jobs refuses to let the labels jack songs up to $1.99 a track and $15.99 per album. If he'd fold on that already, they'd let him drop FairPlay from their music.

That stubborn son of a bitch.

The only thing that bothers me about iTunes DRM is the they count ever Account on 1 Mac as a separate computer:-(

Aug 14, 08 - 01:02 pm Comment from: Cubert

I've always thought that Apple should sue the record companies for collusion given the fact that iTunes is the only online store that they won't license DRM-free music to.

Aug 14, 08 - 01:05 pm Comment from: Predrag

Because every user on that Mac is (usually) a separate person, with their own separate music library, playlists, iPod(s) or iPhone, etc.

Since I have four users on all my home Macs, and they all want to share the same iTunes (and iPhoto) library, I just moved these libraries over to the 'Shared' user folder and created aliases in each user's Music and Photos folders. As long as only one of the users has iTunes open at any one time, it works fine (and realistically, only one user can effectively use the computer at any one time anyway). Apple doesn't officially recomment this but it has been working from me since before Tiger was released.

This is all terrible! But there is even worse... I have heard some channels "sell" music that will be audible only for a certain time and, afterthat, be deleted from your MP3 player!?!? True?!?

Totally agree what MDN says!
1. It was Apple CEO Steve Jobs who called for the elimination of music DRM back in February 2007.
2. It was Apple that signed the first major music label, EMI, to sell DRM-free songs two months later in April 2007.
3. It is precisely the music labels (greedy collusive slime buckets) that are withholding DRM-free from Apple in a effort to weaken iTunes Store's power.
4. He writes for PC World which actually publishes such obtuse, ignorant, and completely backwards drivel.

R2, you are an IDIOT!! Do you really want to let the labels jack up there prices? You know where that would go? You would be paying CD prices for each FRICKING SONG MORON!!!
They were hoping Steve would do that, but he's actually to smart for that, knowing everyone in there right mind wouldn't go there and go back to downloading again instead of paying outrageous prices.
There trying other services with straight MP3's and still can't beat iTunes and are losing money because of it. Steve and Apple will prevail in the end because the iTunes store works that good.

Time to go re-eductate the generally ignorant who inhabit the land of Windows PC's...

Aug 14, 08 - 01:23 pm Comment from: Macromancer

The guy must have really long arms.

Aug 14, 08 - 01:24 pm Comment from: Cubert

John,
R2 was being sarcastic. Read it again. He is giving an assumed reason as to why the record companies are holding Apple hostage.

If Rick Broida truly had no idea that Apple has been championing DRM-free tracks and that major labels give them only to iTunes competitors (in an attempt to weaken iTunes), then he was not qualified to write about the iTunes store in the first place. Unbelievable.

Aug 14, 08 - 01:35 pm Comment from: Roberto

I am a doofus for not remembering that sh-opt-k = .

Aug 14, 08 - 01:36 pm Comment from: Roberto

 ad infinitum. And beyond!

Whoa Whoa Whoa...

Yes, it's the record companies who have insisted in DRM tracks for iTunes.

And Yes, it's Apple who has resisted some type of variable pricing that the record companies have been asking for.

So yes, it's the companies fault we do have DRM, and it's also Apple's fault that we continue to have DRM. It's fine to point fingers at the record labels, but rest assured, there are others pointing fingers back at Apple, and both are right.

Personally, I don't find DRM a huge problem, but I can easily understand why others do.

Aug 14, 08 - 02:18 pm Comment from: Predrag

Jjltnol:

I think you don't have all the facts. The finger should be pointed squarely (and exclusively) at labels for continued DRM on iTunes.

Jobs has, as we know, written the famous open letter over a year and a half ago, asking for DRM-free music. More than a year ago, EMI came on board as (still heretofore) the only label to sell DRM-free "iTunes Plus" tracks.

Labels profess the finger is to be pointed at Apple for not allowing flexible pricing; the argument goes, if only Jobs allowed flexible pricing, labels would allow DRM-free stuff. It does not hold water, however, since on Amazon, where these labels have offered DRM-free music at the same prices as on iTunes.

In other words, labels are lying. It is completely up to them. If they allowed Apple to offer exactly the same stuff at exactly the same prices as they allow Amazon, DRM would cease to exist, as far as online music is concerned (Video, on the other hand, is an entirely different, sad story...).

Aug 14, 08 - 02:18 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Doofus is such an underused word.

Let's think for a moment: Don't the music labels responsible for keeping iTunes loaded with DRMful tracks want the people to think Apple is to blame so they boicott iTunes say, for Amazon's MP3 Store?

Aug 14, 08 - 02:31 pm Comment from: Predrag

Saldin,

I believe that is exactly what MDN refers to when they use the word 'collusion'. As in, collude with each other in order to undermine someone who is perceived as a thread to their business, or a competitor.

Aug 14, 08 - 02:39 pm Comment from: Famous Grouse

What is it with PeeCee writers taking cheap shots at Apple today? Could it be sour grapes as a result of Vista's turdliness, or just general mental deficiency?

Aug 14, 08 - 02:54 pm Comment from: shen

"Saldin
Let's think for a moment: Don't the music labels responsible for keeping iTunes loaded with DRMful tracks want the people to think Apple is to blame so they boicott iTunes say, for Amazon's MP3 Store?"

but that requires thinking....

lets think further. what does Apple get from DRM. a strike against the iTMS. what would Apple gain from dropping DRM. massively increased sales.

....yeah, it must be Apple keeping the DRM!

You hit it on the head.

Mental Deficient Turds are responsible for the cheap shots.

Aug 14, 08 - 03:04 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

Could it be sour grapes as a result of Vista's turdliness, or just general mental deficiency?

It's a lot of both.

Just curious, but what is the bit-rate for Amazon's mp3s or any other music service?

What his article states clearly is the market and general population's PERCEPTION of how things are. Those folks that do not follow every piece of news out there, but only read the headlines... Easy to confuse then and distort things, and easy to publish an article and get paid for it without looking at any facts.

If the music companies refuse to let Apple have the same DRM free music that they willingly sell to others, then Apple needs to do something about it. I suggest they do what they did to NBC and stop selling any more until the dinosaurs get the hint.

I don't even understand how the music co's get away with such discriminatory behavior in the first place.

"Rick Broida"

Well, that explains everything.

He puts the "doof" in doofus.

This guy is nothing but a cluess, hit whore little fsck.

"How can we contact this asshat?"

http://blogs.bnet.com/emailform.php?email=broida
http://www.broida.com/

Aug 14, 08 - 03:39 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

At those prices, buy the CD and rip it yourself. AND at a decent sampling rate. 128 is a joke.

OOOPS, I forgot, with most pop-in-the-broadest-sense disks you're lucky to get 2 decent songs. 256 is adequate for that.

FYI: Deutsche Grammophon sells mp3s sampled at 320. They do have a sliding scale depending on the length ofd a track. So, a movement from a Mahler Symphony could be $4.99 and a single movement from a concerto, $1.29. Album prices are comparable to CDs. At that price, I'd STILL buy the CD and sample with Apple Lossless.

Aug 14, 08 - 03:41 pm Comment from: Macfabulous

I really hope that someone shows "the Doofus" this take from MDN. Some times I think the PC-guys live in their own little "Twilight Zone"-boble where all reallity and common sense is ignored.

The other issue, also, is that Apple signs multiyear deals with the music companies. Therefore, Apple doesn't really have any negotiation strength with these companies until the contracts are set to expire.

Aug 14, 08 - 04:12 pm Comment from: Lilochris

I think PC World is right for now. I mean, I find myself purchasing more music from Amazon's music store than iTunes because I can't find the DRM Free version on iTunes.

On top of that, many songs on Amazon are priced @ 89 cents.

There's little variety in the iTunes Plus section & if amazon can do it all without using DRM, what's the trouble for iTunes.

Aug 14, 08 - 04:27 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

"Blaming the record labels no longer holds water"

OMG what a bozo.

Who was the one, and only one, CEO who published a public letter asking that the recording industry drop their requirement of DRM? DUH.

And what software development company embraced DRM so tightly that they made it an unavoidable fundamental part of their current operating system? DUH.

Take off the noze bozo and get out of the technology journalism bizness already. Shame on IDG for hiring this zero.

Aug 14, 08 - 04:47 pm Comment from: ken1w

The DRM on iTunes is more or less irrelevant. I never run into the DRM restrictions. That's why iTunes is so popular... because most people do not care (or even know) there is DRM. Most people use iPods, and iTunes works equally seamlessly with iPod (with or without the DRM).

So although what MDN says is true, I don't think Apple is in any hurry to change the current status quo. If you have 90% market share and the number one music retailer spot, you can force the hand of at least a few more record labels to offer DRM-free, if that was the true desire. But why should Apple do that? All the momentum is already going Apple's way.

If Apple keeps selling DRM'ed songs that only work on iPods at a higher and higher rate, that is a very strong incentive for customers to keep buying iPods in the future, even if the competition gets less lame. In other words, Apple has no strategic incentive to go DRM-free, and will actually be giving up a competitive advantage for no true benefit.

In the mean time, Apple takes the high road and shifts blame to the evil music industry for not making DRM-free songs available on iTunes. I'm sure it's true, but I don't think Apple is complaining too loudly to affect a change. It's the perfect plan played to perfection by Apple.

The music industry is the collective "doofus" for NOT insisting that Apple offer their music DRM-free. Doing so will not impact iTunes Store dominance at this point, but it will make non-iPod media players more attractive. And that may eventually reduce Apple's position as a music retailer.

I stand by my argument. The record labels have given Amazon DMR free tracks at 99¢ as a torture device for Apple.

Amazon is still way behind Apple in selling tracks online, so for the moment, because of their lack of volume, their price point doesn't matter.

IF Apple would agree to variable pricing, the labels would agree to DRM free tracks on iTunes, and you can bet within a tiny microsecond, the prices at Amazon would go up just as much as on iTunes.

I'm not taking up for the labels... they suck. I'm just making the point that there IS a way for Apple to sell DRM free tracks now, if they want to. I love MDN, but unbiased, they are not, and that's part of the problem with the world, and news in general.. we only get one side of any story these days, and there is always two.

Again, I'm quite happy with the status quo... and I have NO sympathy for labels, BUT, I maintain my argument that Apple COULD sell DRM tracks NOW, if they so desired, unlike what the MDN headline proclaims.

Aug 14, 08 - 05:51 pm Comment from: alansky

MDN: I still say that when a moron farts, even looking in his direction encourages him to do it again.

Aug 14, 08 - 05:53 pm Comment from: DRM sucks

The variable pricing argument is misleading. Sure, this is about the majors wanting to charge more, but they would not relent on DRM if Apple suddenly decided to allow variable pricing. The pricing, however, is just part of a struggle for control of digital music downloads.

The majors that provide DRM free tracks on other services, but not on iTunes, are trying to break the dominance of iTunes so that Apple loses bargaining power. So there is no reason to think that the majors will relent if Apple were to give in to their "variable pricing", which is a euphemism for "a lot higher for tracks that are attractive to more than 5 people".

I don't believe that Apple gives a shit about DRM. The majority of music on most iPods is ripped from CDs. No DRM. The percentage of people that only buy from iTunes is probably quite low. Although "analysts" think that the iPod is successful because of DRM on iTunes do not have much of a clue about users or that the iPod/iTunes is popular because of ease of use. These same fools thought not having an FM tuner was really a big problem for the iPod. Seriously.

The idea that iPods are only for music purchased on iTunes is something that only the tech people at majors and the completely tech-incompetent think is true. Yes, the percentage of music sold through downloads is increasing, but it is still at around 20%. That doesn't mean that 80% of the average music collection is downloaded music. If you include the years of CDs in the collections of people, the percentage of DRM-tracks is probably < 2%. That does not translate into iTunes creating the success of the iPod.

This is very simple - the majors want to shoot themselves in the foot and price digital downloads into a flatline. They want you to use crappy devices with shitty software interfaces to listen to your low quality mp3s. Apple wants to sell you tracks at $0.99 with or without DRM.

Here's a question nobody is asking...

If Steve Jobs (and Apple) are so against DRM, then as the largest overall retailer of music, why does Apple not insist that indie music be DRM free?

I could understand being afraid to stand up to the major labels, but they have way more than enough power to dictate to the indies.

Aug 15, 08 - 12:23 am Comment from: ken1w

> If Steve Jobs (and Apple) are so against DRM, then as the largest overall retailer of music, why does Apple not insist that indie music be DRM free?

Because they are actually not against DRM, from a business perspective. Because Apple is in a better position with the current DRM scheme. Because Apple can obviously succeed with or without DRM. And they are steadily making more of their files DRM-free; I check my previous purchases for "iTunes Plus" (higher bit-rate DRM-free files) every few months, and there are more songs eligible for the "upgrade."

But with 90+% market share for digital downloads and the #1 retailer position, what could Apple gain by going 100% DRM free. Nothing much. What do they lose? The file sizes for iTunes Plus files are basically double, so there will be greater expense for bandwidth. Apple is INCREASING sales with the DRM files, so that will encourage repeat sales for iPod into the future. And that is the purpose of iTunes and the iTunes Store, to sell ever more iPods. If Apple sold DRM-free songs, Apple's hardware competition can suddenly proclaim, "Now compatible with the iTunes Store!"

Amazon.com is NOT Apple's competition; Amazon is Apple's partner. It sells a ton of iPods and Macs for Apple. Apple does not mind if Amazon succeeds in selling DRM-free digital downloads... as long as customers are playing those songs on iPods.

Eventually, Apple will be selling 100% DRM-free songs, but they are not in any hurry to get there.

I was in a Target store last evening. The music CD area is really small now. They must realize the future of physical CD's.
"The times they are a changing"

"Doofus" here... My feeling is that if AmazonMP3 can offer DRM-free music, why can't Apple? Surely they have the leverage to negotiate the same deal from the record labels. Bottom line: I won't buy music from iTunes until DRM is gone.

P.S. I kinda like "doofus." I've been called way worse.

"Who was the one, and only one, CEO who published a public letter asking that the recording industry drop their requirement of DRM?"

Yet while others take action Steve continues to sell songs with DRM. The record companies will sell him DRM free songs for iTunes tomorrow if he chooses to cut a deal for them.

Whining that Apple is being victimized because they want things all their own way, and that a record company won't sell to Apple on purely Apple's terms where others are prepared to negotiate for and begin selling DRM free music is stupid. It's clear from what the competition is doing that when both sides actually have a will to do a deal, deals can be done.

As ken1w says, what does Apple really have to gain from ditching DRM? They lose lock in, they lose control. it's all negative for them. That's why Steve in his typical doublespeak way has called for the end of DRM, so he can appear not to be the problem, yet he's done little in reality to make it happen. You can bet if it actually starts affecting Apple commercially they will ditch DRM quickly.

Aug 15, 08 - 09:40 am Comment from: derekcurrie

OFT (our faulty troll) sez:

"Yet while others take action Steve continues to sell songs with DRM. The record companies will sell him DRM free songs for iTunes tomorrow if he chooses to cut a deal for them."

All I have read says that ONLY the record companies dictate whether music at iTunes has DRM or not. EMI said 'NO!' and were the very first of the big corps to drop DRM. So what's holding up the rest of the companies? It's not Apple!

I've also read, but of course can't verify, that Apple are locked into contracts with record companies. Once a contract expires then they can renegotiate the terms, which Apple say they would like to include dropping the requirement for DRM. There may be other stuff going on behind the scenes, but what that would be we can only speculate.

BTW: I like the fact that there is competition with the iTunes Store. I've had enough of Microsoft style anti-competitive ruination of markets. You can see where the lack of competition got Microsoft. "Innovation"? To MS it's just a fad marketing term.

"As ken1w says, what does Apple really have to gain from ditching DRM? They lose lock in, they lose control."

Agreed! Selling FairPlay DRM infected music does lock people into the iPod. Apple have, for the most part, refused to provide anyone access to their DRM APIs.

And yet, there is Steve Jobs pioneering the trend of selling DRM-free music over at the iTunes store. What other Internet music store would have done that? No one else did! As per usual, once Apple got the ball rolling, everyone raced to imitate them.

"... it's all negative for them."

That I disagree with. They gain tune sales. That's a positive for them.

"That's why Steve in his typical doublespeak way has called for the end of DRM, so he can appear not to be the problem, yet he's done little in reality to make it happen."

Only OFT would say that. Blatant stupidity on your part little troll. As I noted above, Steve Jobs got EMI to drop DRM almost immediately after he published his letter. Why the other big corps didn't drop DRM at the iTunes store is up to them, not Apple.

"You can bet if it actually starts affecting Apple commercially they will ditch DRM quickly."

Again with the stupid. Apple ALREADY ditched DRM. I personally OWN DRM-free music I purchased at the iTunes store many months ago. Stop trying to be a mentally handicapped please!

Any why oh why are you always ANONYMOUS? Who are you?

You can say AnYtHiNg ANONYMOUSLY and get away with it. Me: My name is real.

You hide behind a lie so you can lie.

"I've also read, but of course can't verify, that Apple are locked into contracts with record companies. "

Any contract can be re-negotiated, when both parties want to.

"And yet, there is Steve Jobs pioneering the trend of selling DRM-free music over at the iTunes store"

Others pioneered. Steve followed. So far from Steve we have a lot of blathering about what he'd like to do and little concrete action to make it happen.

"Apple ALREADY ditched DRM."

On all songs? Good. Must have been recent. I'm looking forward to the press release.

"Steve Jobs got EMI to drop DRM almost immediately "

They were dropping it anyway for other partners. Steve just got information that others were launching DRM free stores (Yes hard to believe companies don't put these kind of deals and initiatives together overnight) and cynically and calculatedly made his substance free announcement to try to make it seem like Apple somehow hadn't lost the initiative.

"He writes for PC World which actually publishes such obtuse, ignorant, and completely backwards drivel."
Hello pot...meet kettle......

Aug 15, 08 - 01:00 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

OFT (our falsifying troll) lied a whole bunch this time, all so he can have his way. Having a little pouting attack, are we?

"Any contract can be re-negotiated, when both parties want to."

And did they? No. Apple did! They said so! DUH.

"Others pioneered. Steve followed. So far from Steve we have a lot of blathering about what he'd like to do and little concrete action to make it happen."

Lie. I'm not even going to ask you, like always, to provide documentation. You haven't got any.

Apple have had DRM-free songs for nearly a year now. So you made the usual ass of yourself and said:

"On all songs? Good. Must have been recent. I'm looking forward to the press release."

Nice try. Not.

derekcurrie sez:

"Steve Jobs got EMI to drop DRM almost immediately "

Anonymous OFT lies:

"They were dropping it anyway for other partners."

No, and EMI put out a press release stating they were responding specifically to Steve Jobs' plea for no DRM. EMI then offered the same to others.

"Steve just got information that others were launching DRM free stores..."

Lie. There weren't any. I'd ask you to name these stores, but there aren't any to name.

OFT: When you make sense I happily acknowledge it, as has been proven... twice. You made sense twice.

But this rant of yours over DRM tunes is so incredibly pathetic and desperate.

Dare you drop the mask and tell us you your lame ass really is?

I thought not. Mayhap you work for M$?

So I work for MS$? That explain why I hate DRM and point out Steve's two facedness on the matter. That would be because Microsoft's secret agenda is to eliminate all DRM from the world.

Amusing premise.