Photographers to lose copyright and right to take photographs in public [u]

If they are not registered with this quango agency, your images can be plundered and used anywhere, by anyone – on the understanding that the thief makes a very minimal effort to find you – the author of the image.

via photoactive.co.uk

This is frightening proposed legislation. You can always tell when proponents know how much a bill stinks by the way they try to slide it in without definitive wording or real debate.

[UPDATE:] Account was suspended at original link; here’s a link to the cached page: http://bit.ly/cs89bW

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

Don’t Tell Me Steve Jobs Doesn’t Love Music

(via money.cnn.com)

CNN Money has a collection of a dozen photographs of Steve Jobs that show their “CEO of the Decade” in a more unusual light.

The above photo is #4 in the series, and my favorite by far. Anyone who doubts Jobs’ proclaimed love of music — a love that helped Apple build the iPod/iTunes ecosystem — need only look to this photo as proof they’re wrong.

Visit the link above to see all 12 photos.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

TAB – The Palm Pre is an iPod? Yes, But We’ll See How Long That Lasts

A big story recently is how the Palm Pre syncs seamlessly with iTunes. It does so by making itself appear to be an iPod to iTunes.

Further details came out during an interview at the All Things Digital conference that indicate only non-DRM music and photos can be synced. It’s unclear whether non-DRM videos sync, or whether it syncs other iTunes data (bookmarks, contacts, podcasts, etc.).

Even with those restrictions, the ability to plug in and use iTunes to sync music is a pretty big deal. How can Palm do this? Why did they do this? What, if anything, should Apple do?…

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

TAB – Amazon, iTunes, Other? Where Do You Buy Your Digital Music?

I know some people who’ve settled on one source for digital music purchases (I also have a friend who buys CDs and rips them himself, but that’s another topic). This made me wonder what the buying habits of our readers are. I’m curious as to how many people pretty much limit themselves to one source, vs. how many of you “shop around” before you buy…

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

TAB – Spiral Frog: RIP

And so ends the life of another would-be iTunes competitor.

Spiral Frog, a Universal-backed subscription music catastrophe, has apparently called it quits. Though the service was “free” (using an ad-supported model), it still suffered from the five things that pretty much all subscription-based music models share…

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

TAB – Universal and Sony Strike Out Again. Totally.

Billboard recently reported that Total Music, a joint venture between Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, has finally ceased operations. The two music giants have “agreed to stop funding the effort, citing both business and economic factors for doing so.”

As far as I’m concerned, this thing was doomed from the start. It was born, like many of the hare-brained music companies’ schemes, out of thinking they could out-do iTunes. It was just one of several ventures that some of the labels entered into in ridiculous attempts to damage iTunes so they could somehow get back to the wonderful world of selling albums, not singles, at $15 a pop, like the good ol’ days of CDs.

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

TAB – New iTunes Pricing and DRM Removal Questions

Like many users, I’m pleased that the labels are finally allowing Apple to sell music free of DRM copy protection. Given that the labels have allowed this for many other vendors (Amazon, Wal-Mart, Zune Store, etc.) I think they’ve been flirting with collusion on the iTunes store for a while anyway. 

What I’m happiest about is the higher quality — which I don’t think Apple would have needed permission for  – since Apple’s FairPlay DRM was pretty transparent anyway. Of my nearly 8,000 songs, about 200 of them are iTunes, most belonging to my daughter. The DRM has simply never been an issue since they play on every Mac and iPod device we have. I’m not even sure I’ll upgrade them, but a lot of that has to do with price, as we’ll see.

What I’m most curious about are the details and consequences of this deal as it pertains not just to Apple, but also the competion. Here are some questions I have…

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

TAB – Norway and iTunes: The DRM War.

Norway has taken their two-year fight against iTunes and Apple’s FairPlay DRM to its next step, and will now ask the government to force Apple to open their iTunes music to other devices besides the iPod.

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

Nokia’s ‘Comes With Music’ Goes With Their Contract.

When Nokia and Universal announced their “Comes With Music” initiative last December, this is what I wrote: 

This music is heavily DRM’ed — no subscription model can function without it. I suspect the idea that you still “own” it after the year is dependent upon one’s definition of the word “own”. I don’t think I’ll like Nokia/Universal’s definition.

When the full details come out, I bet we’ll discover that unless you continue a Nokia “Comes With Music” contract on a phone (in which case you’re still paying for the subscription), or never change the PC you’re using when the phone terms expire, you will lose the music.

Today we now have details on the thing. The relevant points: 

The user is only able to change registered mobile device or PC every three months for a further two years post termination.

After two years post termination (after three years from beginning of the subscription) users will be able to keep the content on their current device/PC but will no longer be able to re-download it from the service.

In short, as I suspected, I don’t like Nokia’s definition of the word “own”.

You “own” it as long as you stay with one of their devices and keep extending your contract. Once the contract is over, however, the music is stuck on the mobile device/PC you have at the time, and cannot be moved. Own it, my ass.

Dear Napster: Screw You.

Amazon, eMusic, iTunes, and Other Digital Download Thoughts.

Much has been made of the “news” that Amazon’s MP3 store is now the #2 online retailer in digital music. You can absorb some various thoughts on this in these articles:

• USA today’s original article, citing no other data than the “Big 4″ labels’ word for it.
• MacDailyNews’ take on the above article, particularly its lack of any hard data.
• The CEO of eMusic calling BS on the USA today article, and claiming that eMusic is #2

And then of course there are the myriad re-hashes of the USA Today article syndicated in papers everywhere, as well as other articles parroting the story as if iTunes is somehow being threatened.

First, there has always been a #2 in online music sales. Always. I mean, unless there’s only one store doing the selling, then someone is #2. Did we ever care about who it was before? Did it ever matter? No.

In fact, iTunes is so far in the lead that even referring to the next one as a ‘distant second’ is still an understatement. Like being the tallest midget, it’s a dubious distinction.

Second, I tend to agree with eMusic on their being #2. The big labels sure as hell don’t want to discuss Indie labels. They never have. So naturally they don’t bother considering eMusic, but who said the labels get to set the agenda (well, except for USA Today, who wrote the article for the labels’ benefit)?

Bottom line for me is that until some hard numbers on the Amazon store are published, eMusic’s claim, backed up with legitimate sales figures, will hold sway. Though, again, who is truly #2 ultimately doesn’t matter.

Third, I’ve written about this before, but the “collusion” the labels are showing against iTunes is pretty clear. I used to be concerned about it, but now I think it’s self-defeating, and will backfire on them.

Consider this:

• They don’t want Apple to sell DRM-free music.
• They don’t like Apple’s low prices.
• They want bundling, which Apple is against.

And yet, in their deals with Amazon:

• They’re allowing DRM-free music (at high quality, too).
• The prices are less.
• There’s no bundling to speak of.

As I stated at the time, I believed the labels’ plan was for Amazon to get a foothold, and then the labels would slowly start to make changes in pricing, etc.

However, given that six months later the labels have resorted to planting stories to make it appear Amazon is becoming a force in the market, it would seem it hasn’t taken off as fast as they’d hoped (it also shows their lack of patience).

So, in another six months, or a year, or whatever, if Amazon is deemed “big enough”, and the labels try to pull the trigger on pricing and bundling changes, I believe they’ll be unable to do it. The minute the (small) price advantage Amazon has over iTunes goes away, so will their customers.

In short, having offered something “better”, the labels will not be able to pull it away as they had hoped.

Finally, I think Amazon’s inability to truly kick ass is because of a fundamental issue I have with most of the online stores: Price.

How many people paid the $18 list price for a CD? Most used Wal-Mart, Target, used CD stores, etc. and paid $13 or less. Since digital music has no packaging, liner notes, physical media, duplication costs, and are lower quality, the idea that an album should cost $10 is ridiculous. In the digital world, $6 ought to be about right. Heck, if Sony/BMG can sell their physical CDs for $5.99, then there’s no excuse for digital versions to not be the same or less.

Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” offering should have made one thing clear. While many took the album for free, the average price was $6. Seems to me this was the consumers’ way of saying what the true price of a popular digital album should be. Too bad the labels paid no attention.

eMusic Can’t Sell Their Product: Whines About Apple’s Potential iTunes Plans.

Back when Apple announced the Safari web browser for Windows, Mozilla missed a great opportunity to plug their Firefox browser, choosing instead to whine like sniveling babies. I called them on that tack, and suggested what they should have done.

Now it appears that eMusic is following the same path. Showing zero confidence in their own offering, they’ve shriveled up at mere rumors of a possible iTunes subscription model and, avoiding the rush, got in line immediately with cries of Antitrust. Pathetic.

EMusic, I’ve been a subscriber for over two years. I love your service and think it’s great. You’re whining here is ridiculous. David Pakman, CEO of eMusic had this to say:

“They’re basically saying, ‘Let’s give a piece of every iPod sale to the record labels in exchange for bundling in all the music you can eat with every iPod’” said Pakman. “That’s classic Sherman Antitrust Act behavior. It’s called tying, and it’s where a company with a monopoly position in one market uses that monopoly position unfairly to compete in another.”

Nonsense. First, all DRM music (by definition) is tied. That’s been the legal digital download landscape for years. In fact, your site is one of the bright, shining exceptions to this rule. Amazon has come on board as well (because the labels let them), and parts of iTunes (again, as the labels let them).

The company’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows “killed the browser market, it killed Netscape.

I’m no fan of Microsoft, but Netscape had as much to do with killing Netscape as Microsoft ever did. IE gradually overtook and exceeded the Netscape browser in terms of features, speed, and functionality. Microsoft corrupted that advantage with ActiveX, etc., but that came later, after Netscape delivered bloated releases of crap and lost their market, deservedly so.

My beef with Pakman’s comments is the same as I had with Mozilla and Safari. Why don’t you turn this occasion into a chance to sell your product? It’s a golden opportunity to get your service in front of people — since you’ll be asked — and ride the free publicity to make it clear what you offer that Apple doesn’t. How about something like this:

EMusic has been offering titles for an average of only 30 cents a song for years. And these are DRM-free, high-quality MP3s that can play anywhere.

Apple’s possible subscription service is clearly a move to better compete on price — after all, they’ve charged over three times what we do from the beginning. However, I feel when the details are revealed it will still be an unpalatable choice to many consumers.

A subscription model, by necessity, must carry very restrictive DRM. Even Apple’s already restricted FairPlay would be too “generous” to support such a model. Reports are that the new model would require streaming only, and certainly CD burning and transportability will be limited, if not banned outright.

Our music has always been, and will continue to be, DRM-free. You buy it, you own it, you do what you want with it. We have over three million titles, and growing. And since we do not charge Apple’s high prices for ownership, hundreds of thousands of consumers have seen the benefits to our approach.

When eMusic can’t say something like the above, and instead runs to hide behind some scare-mongering FUD about “antitrust”, it makes me think that they’ve already given up. I’m surprised they have this little faith in their service.

Fearing your opponent is never a good strategy. Respect them. Don’t ignore them. But running scared is not a smart move.

Apple iPod, iTunes, and Music Subscriptions.

According to the Financial Times this is in the works.

Personally, I’ve never been a fan of this model, though assuming it’s optional it finally has a shot to succeed now that the largest and most popular online music store (and second-largest music store) would be offering it for those who want it.

My problems with this model are the same as I’ve always had; the fact that Apple may offer it isn’t likely to change any of it:

• Renting music makes little sense to me. People listen to their favorite songs over and over (heck, AM and FM radio were built on that principle), not so with most movies or TV shows.
• DRM, DRM, and more DRM. Heavy DRM is the only way this can be legitimately pulled off (certainly the only way the labels would agree to it, unless they’ve had a change of heart). Don’t expect the same “FairPlay” you have now. Move your tunes anywhere? Just burn a CD and re-rip tunes to remove DRM? I don’t think so.
• Exploding media. Part of the above DRM requires a way to shut it off when the terms are not followed or expire. We don’t have details on this yet, but without the threat of such explosion the subscription model can’t really work.

So what can Apple do with this model that others can’t? How can they make it successful where others have failed? I can think of some reasons:

• The Ecosystem. One reason for potential success is the same reason for which they’ve had success with the current model. The iPod/iTunes system just works. Phenomenally well. Hundreds of million of people are already familiar with it and trust it.
• The Process. Likely Apple would implement it so that getting your tunes under this model is about as easy as downloading their free track of the week now. Just select and download. No new process to learn. No new software or hardware to use, etc. People might make the move from owning to renting just because it’s so easy to try it.
• The Price. Nokia’s similar model costs them $80 per headset. If Nokia and the labels figure the headset will be swapped after two years (the average) that’s $3.33 a month for all you can rent. Apple’s allegedly offering only $20, so even if you swap iPods every two years that’s only 83 cents a month for all you can rent. Less than the price of one one single right now!

Would I sign up for the subscription model? I’d need a lot more details first. How long does it last, what are the limitations, what’s the cost, etc. If my guess that Apple could pull it off nearly seamlessly for any iPod/iTunes users is correct, then I’d certainly consider trying it.

I like owning my music, and have never even considered renting ever since I got burned by Music Match back in ‘00 or whenever when a track I paid 99 cents for wouldn’t even play when not connected to the Internet.

My guess is that if I the rental model was cheap enough, then I’d use it as a “preview”, and still buy the albums I really like. I almost use eMusic in that capacity right now. At only around $2.50 an album (with no DRM) I’m less worried about “wasting” money on a bad album. For something even less than that I would broaden my range, continuing to buy the music I really love.

Finally, one thing occurs to me. In these negotiations, I wonder if Apple is telling the labels something like this: “Look, you’ve claimed iPods are full of pirated music anyway, and you’ve claimed you want a piece of that action. We’re offering you $20 per iPod (we sell over 10 MILLION of these things each QUARTER) and simply legitimizing what you say all our owners are doing anyway. Don’t quibble with us about it; put up or shut up!” If Apple is not telling the labels this, they should be.

What do you think? Is Apple considering this? Would you join a subscription service?

[UPDATE:] There are still no real details available yet (heck, the whole thing is unconfirmed rumor at this point), but some rumored details are floating in. Ah, yes, streaming only. Maybe you can keep 50 tracks a year. That would hardly be the transparent model I alluded to above. And, no, I personally wouldn’t be interested in such a model.

Universal’s Total Disaster to be Reviewed by DoJ.

Universal’s had so many bad ideas on ways to hawk music it’s hard to keep up with them all. Still, I’ve tried.

Now one of their brilliant schemes — Total Disaster (a.k.a. Total Music) — is facing scrutiny from the Department of Justice.

Personally, I think Total Music is, well, a disaster. Still, I’m glad Universal’s moves are attracting some attention.

Apple Picks Wal-Mart Exec for Head of Movies and TV. Um, What?

So Apple’s gone and hired an international head of movies and television. Great. With iTunes rentals just starting in the U.S., and Jobs stating he wants to take it international very soon, this is a positive sign. Still, their hire is a bit, well, surprising to me.

The man they chose is Kevin Swint, head of the digital media market at Wal-Mart. That’s right, Wal-Mart:

• Our-video-store-didn’t-work-with-Macs Wal-Mart.
• We-love-Microsoft-and-their-DRM Wal-Mart.
• For-music-we-prefer-three-ways Wal-Mart.

It’s hard not to read this news with anything but a puzzled expression. I mean, Wal-Mart’s digital media is a bust. Their online music, despite including some Universal DRM-free titles, has gone nowhere. And as for video — you know, the thing Apple hired Swint for — after months of failure Wal-Mart had to shutdown their online store!

Regarding that online video store, Swint presided over all of it! From an interview a year ago:

“We’ve been working on this in a pretty intensive way for almost a year now,” says Swint. “I think all the studios understood quickly what we were trying to do.”

Wal-Mart is using PlaysForSure DRM so is limited to IE and PlaysForSure devices/PC for now. Swint: “We’re focusing on the device-space we can serve in the current market.

Clearly, with the store’s shutdown a year later the whole thing was a disaster. Why is Apple picking this guy up?

It’s certainly not for me to argue with how Apple’s management team chooses to bring in another member. They’re a great team, and I’m sure know how to pick ‘em. I can only assume they see someone who’s brilliant mind and ideas were simply ignored by Wal-Mart’s top brass, hence the abject failure of Wal-Mart’s digital video initiative.

I certainly hope that’s the case. Going by what a regular guy like myself can see, anyone associated with Wal-Mart’s digital moves would be avoided at all costs.

More Music Nonsense.

A good article on The Lefsetz Letter about the Stones deal with EMI. One portion of the article makes it clear that Mr. Lefsetz is as fond of Universal’s Doug Morris as I am:

Doug Morris is waiting for Congress to approve blowing up traders’ computers, possibly lynching them in the town square, he thinks he can beat this thing, he believes the good old days are just around the corner.

Too true.

DRM-Free Music: NYT Gives Steve Jobs Credit, Win SuperSite Does Not.

Paul Thurrott attempts to set the record strait on DRM-free music. And in Paul’s world, the move to DRM-free tunes had nothing to do with Apple or Steve Jobs. You see, Paul’s been re-writing Microsoft history for so long he’s not above trying to re-write Apple’s as well.

So, on his completely unbiased (*cough, cough*) Super Site for Windows, Paul comments on a New York Times article that gives some credit to Apple and Jobs for the recent moves by the big labels to DRM-free music distribution. Paul, of course, cannot allow this, so he accuses the NYT of “pro-Apple history re-writing” and provides his corrections.

Before I even go any further, doesn’t this already make your ears perk up? I mean, why would the NYT be “pro-Apple”? And even if they were, there are so many good stories to publish about them why would they need to “re-write” their history? Further, why in the Hell would I think the NYT has it wrong, but a shill running a Windows Super Site would somehow get it right? OK, as all that sinks in let’s go on…

After mentioning that Jobs is the one who called on the industry to stop its DRM practices back in February, Paul steps in and gives us this:

“No it wasn’t. Anyone who believes that Jobs somehow led the charge in DRM-free music is living in a fantasy world.”

Mmm, yes. For the CEO of the company running the largest (by far) online music store to call for this halt was pretty trivial. Mind you, most people were accusing Apple of not wanting to ever get rid of DRM because of the alleged (and false) “lock-in” it provided Apple. So for Jobs to take this stance showed at once that those accusations were ridiculous, and those making them (and some still do) pretty much automatically disqualify themselves from intelligently discussing this topic.

“The outcry against DRM had been going on for years.”

Of course. And all those peons were critically listened to by the labels, making this sea change out of the goodness of their hearts. Hmmm, but isn’t there a huge outcry about all the lawsuits being filed by the labels as well? I wonder why we don’t see the labels stop that. Or what about the various pricing in Europe? The labels don’t seem to care there, either (though Apple is now calling them on it).

Why would the labels listen to the DRM outcry, as Paul is suggesting, but not other customer complaints? Could it be because the CEO of the largest online music store joined in the battle? Yes, I do believe so, even if Paul isn’t bright enough to see it.

Oh, and where was Microsoft’s CEO (or any other prominent media CEO) in all this, Paul? I can answer that. They were all in bed together with DRM schemes to strangle as much fair use rights out of the consumer as possible. Gates or Ballmer would never have called for the removal of DRM because they’ve been trying to sucker users into theirs (which was written solely to placate the content providers) for years.

“Jobs only jumped in when it became obvious which direction things were moving. This is a great example of Apple marketing winning out over reality.”

I wouldn’t believe this if I hadn’t read it, but Paul really is towing a new Redmond line that says the labels would have done this anyway. That’s a crock. Just as they haven’t stopped their other offensive practices against their own customers, they would never have even considered removing DRM had a major figure as important as Jobs called them on their BS.

Further, there’s plenty of proof that Jobs was against DRM long before his Thoughts on Music. The idea that he went where the wind was blowing is the real fantasy, Paul. I have no doubt you’re aware of this, but you increasing need to live in a fantasy world to avoid providing any credit to Apple, don’t you?

What I’m seeing here is nothing more than an Apple-bashing MS apologist and shill refusing to give any credit to Jobs/Apple even when it’s clearly due. In the process, he pretty much invalidates most of what he may have to say on this topic.

After refusing to give credit where it’s due, Paul (as is so often the case) simply plows forward. When the NYT article mentions that Apple insists on “selling all single tracks for 99 cents”, Paul is there to spew this garbage:

“Another bit of commonly-repeated fantasy. Contrary to Apple’s claims, tracks on iTunes are not consistently a single price (i.e. 99 cents). The company regularly offers sales and prices movies, especially, at a range of prices.”

Aside form when iTunes Plus was announced — tracks of which were initially $1.29 — I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a music track on iTunes for other than $0.99. And now, all tracks, including iTunes Plus, are at that price. Further, I’m not sure a “sale” necessarily qualifies calling the NYT quote “fantasy” anyway. Isn’t the definition of sale somehow selling for less than usual?

Besides, in Paul’s ridiculous quote he mentions movies — “especially” — at a range of prices. Thanks Paul, but the NYT was talking about music tracks. I hope you didn’t hurt your back moving those goalposts.

Ironically, Paul then goes on to quote what may be the only real myth in his entire post:

“But seriously, folks. Apple makes no money from iTunes anyway.”

It seems Apple pulls in around 30 cents a tune. From that, they need to support the infrastructure of the online store. I don’t think that’s 30 cents a song. The rest is profit. For a store that’s sold over 3 billion songs I think there’s some money in it for them, and I wouldn’t exactly call it insignificant. Yes, hardware sales are much, much more important, but it’s hard to believe there’s little or no net to Apple’s bottom line from music sales.

Finally, Paul closes the post as silly as it began:

“In fact, Apple would probably love to back off from the content distribution angle anyway: It’s a lot of work for no direct return at all.”

No, Apple wants to back off from DRM because it’s a resource-sucking hog for no gain to Apple, consumers, or anyone except content providers and companies like Microsoft who want to build their next monopoly upon it. If DRM were out of the way, there’d be nothing but basic ongoing maintenance and Apple could make even more money from the store.

Seriously, Paul, do you think Amazon is in this business to not make money? How is it they can make money from this (you do believe Amazon is making money, right?) and Apple cannot?

I hope your head doesn’t explode when you realize you can’t answer that question without a whole lot of history re-writing and/or fact juggling. Still, I’m sure you’ll try. And when you do, I’ll be here writing about it. See you then.

Sony Is Stupid, but Also Predictable and Still Shining Bright.

What a busy week for Sony!

First, I assumed that they were going to offer their wares DRM-free from Amazon but not iTunes, and I speculated on what the labels were up to.

Then, they threw me a curve by being incredibly stupid, which diverted my attention briefly.

Finally, today they’ve fallen right in line with my original prediction, and are offering their tunes on Amazon, but not iTunes. The article does not specify if Sony’s whole catalog is available or just a part of it.

Anyway, leave it to Sony to take time out from possibly colluding with three of the other big labels against iTunes to be really stupid for a couple of days.

In the Labels’ Darkest Hour, Sony Stupidity Shines Through.

Just a few days ago BusinessWeek ran a story that Sony was looking to sell DRM-free music, thereby joining the other “big” labels (Universal, Warner, and EMI) in offering at least a part of their catalog DRM-free. There was no mention of iTunes; speculation was that, like Universal and Warner, iTunes would be avoided and Amazon would be the online store of choice.

I wrote about Sony’s potential choice and wondered what the labels were up to. Silly me. I made the assumption that Sony would be selling through an online music store. I mean, where else would they sell digital music? Obviously it would be online, right?

But I forgot one key fact: This is Sony.

For all the dumb things Universal has done in their desire to get back to the glory days of huge music profits, I think Sony has been even dumber. Remember, these are the guys that invented the “ringle” — a ringtone/single on a physical CD — for sale in brick and mortar stores at $6 or more; the whole thing was laughable.

Well, history repeats itself. Sony is not (at least initially) using an online store for their DRM-free tunes. Rather, they will sell cards at retail locations that you use to download the album from a web site. It’s bad enough I have to go to a retail location to buy it, but I still have to use my computer to actually get the thing anyway. It’s the worst of both worlds! I guess this is what to expect from the makers of the ringle, CD rootkit and ATRAC.

And as bad as this looks, it’s even worse. As the Macworld article points out:

The move is far from the all-digital service offered by its rivals, though. To obtain the Sony-BMG tracks, would-be listeners will first have to go to a retail store to buy a Platinum MusicPass, a card containing a secret code, for a suggested retail price of $12.99. Once they have scratched off the card’s covering to expose the code, they will be able to download one of just 37 albums available through the service, including Britney Spears’ “Blackout” and Barry Manilow’s “The Greatest Songs of the Seventies.”

Twelve. Ninety. Nine. Is Sony insane? Have they not noticed that the going price for a full digital album is $9.99 (and even that’s too high)? They want me to pay $3 more and go to Target for the privilege! Seriously, Sony, how dumb can you be?

Oh, and only 37 albums? With ringles they planned up to 50 titles, but now can’t do more than 37 lousy albums? These guys are dumber than Universal and, believe me, that’s really saying something.

Of all the ridiculous ideas that have come out of the labels the last couple of years, this is the ridiculoust! (Yes, I just invented “ridiculoust”. I think it applies.)

DRM-Free Music: What Are The Labels Really Up To?

Much has been made lately of the recent news that Warner began selling DRM-free music via Amazon. There was even talk about how three of the big four labels are now offering DRM-free music, so all that was needed was for Sony to get into line.Well, now there’s a story from BusinessWeek that Sony is negotiating DRM-free music sales as well.There’s a certain amount of rejoicing over this, but I’m still unimpressed.

Why am I not thrilled? Well, can you reasonably expect to buy DRM-free music from these labels at most places digital downloads are sold? No. Can you even expect DRM-free music from these labels at the major stores where digital downloads are sold? No.Consider this:

• The BW story says Sony will make “at least a part” of its catalog available. In other words, we’re throwing you some bones, but don’t think we’re against DRM to the point where we abandon it altogether.
• Sony’s music will be available online only from (surprise!) Amazon.com. No iTunes. Is it a coincidence that Universal, Warner, and perhaps Sony won’t sell on iTunes (you know, the word’s most popular download music store)? How could anyone believe that? I wouldn’t believe it for a minute. It’d be borderline collusion from the three largest labels.
• Universal, as far as I know, is also only allowing part of it catalog to be DRM-free. That was the case initially, and I’ve seen no announcement that they’ve opened up everything.
• Of the big four labels, only the smallest (EMI) made their DRM-free music available through iTunes. The other labels music on iTunes is still with DRM, while they peddle their DRM-free wares elsewhere.

So why only part of the Universal and Sony catalogs? And why not iTunes? It’s clear DRM-free is little more right now than the carrot on the stick the labels are offering consumers. It’s the shiny object they distract you with. But they have something else up their sleeve they’re not divulging.I certainly don’t mind people snapping up the DRM-free music wherever its available if they want to, but I do mind that not enough people are questioning the true motives of the labels here. This is not “seeing the light” or “embracing” the new order of DRM-free tunes. This is a carefully crafted attack by the labels on iTunes, pricing and, yes, keeping DRM alive in some cases.When the Warner deal was announced I wrote the following, and now I can add Sony:

If the music is truly without restriction, why do Universal and Warner care where you get it? It’d by like taking their CDs (also DRM-free) and selling them at Best Buy and Target but not Wal-Mart! It would be insanity to not sell your DRM-free CDs through the largest retailer, and yet when it comes to digital music this is just what Universal and Warner are doing.

When the labels open up their entire catalogs DRM-free, and when they sell on iTunes (and other sites, for that matter), then I’ll believe they’ve finally gotten the hint and given up on all the stupid schemes and plans they’ve held for the last eight years. We’re not there yet, and until then I think they still need to be watched.[UPDATE:] Updated article based on confirmation that Amazon will be the only online store used for Sony DRM-free music.

Warner Hates DRM Just A Little Less Than iTunes.

So the net is abuzz with the story that Warner Music will sell DRM-free music through Amazon.

Numerous headlines call it a coup for Amazon, saying they beat Apple to the punch. And many are proclaiming it as a change of heart for Warner. It’s neither.

I don’t understand why it’s hard for some people to see that the only motive behind all this DRM-free love from Warner (and Universal before them) is motivated by the labels’ hatred for iTunes, and their attempts to break its popularity in the online music market. Amazon did nothing special to get Warner’s music, it was practically given to them by Warner.

Of the four major labels, only EMI makes their music DRM-free on iTunes as well as Amazon. And they did so long ago, without having to first make fools of themselves in a few more failed efforts. I would say that they have seen the light and shown a change of heart, but Universal and Warner? No.Consider the following:

• It’s still not clear whether Universal has opened up their entire catalog DRM-free. That was certainly not the case when they initially made music available for Wal-Mart and Amazon.
• Universal has also made their music available “free” (though not DRM-free) via other means such as Spiral Frog (which is bleeding money) and the Total Music initiative. They dole parts of their catalog out free or DRM-free to everyone but iTunes.
• Warner is now making DRM-free music available for Amazon, but if it’s really a change of heart why do they care where the consumer gets the music? Why not make the obvious choice of also using the world’s largest online music store? Same goes for Universal.
• Does anyone think Apple wouldn’t offer Universal or Warner music DRM-free if they could? Please. The labels are withholding it from them (either outright, or via unreasonable terms) in an attempt to gain some alleged advantage. This advantage is supposed to be pricing, and yet Amazon sells for the same (or maybe even less) than iTunes!

There is no change of heart, and the labels’ heads are still securely positions up their rectums. Any move they make to break iTunes, which is raking in money for the labels, proves that.

It concerns me that the labels hurt their own profits and customers’ interests in an attempt to get back at iTunes. It’s stupid, deceitful, and wrong-headed thinking. Why aren’t the stockholders enraged? I’ve come to expect this from the labels, but when I see how some of the headlines spin this latest announcement it’s clear some people aren’t paying attention.

Bottom line is this: If the music is truly without restriction, why do Universal and Warner care where you get it? It’d by like taking their CDs (also DRM-free) and selling them at Best Buy and Target but not Wal-Mart! It would be insanity to not sell your DRM-free CDs through the largest retailer, and yet when it comes to digital music this is just what Universal and Warner are doing. It’s almost impossible to construct a scenario where the reason behind this is anything other than taking misguided shots at iTunes in the face of ignoring your own potential sales, profits, and customers. Why they’re not called on this is beyond me.

ZDNet Blogger Needs A Good Riffing.

I’ve decided that from time to time I’m giving those who’ve earned it a good riffing.There are at least two ways to earn a riffing:

• Avoid comprehending any one of numerous articles or posts on a particular topic that would clear up a ridiculous position you’ve postulated.
• Link to an article and then draw a conclusion that doesn’t follow from that article.

Today’s riffing goes to one Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZDNet, who never misses a chance to take a pot shot at Steve Jobs (no, not Apple, Steve Jobs). Thursday he wrote an article about what Steve Jobs wants now. It begins simply enough:

“It seems that Steve Jobs is looking for a new way to make money from consumers…”

OK, so what is Steve proposing? Well, Adrian says it’s this:

“This time his [Jobs’] idea is that Hollywood should start selling “premium” DVDs that contain an iTunes-compatible version of the movie for an extra few bucks.”

And he links to a small NY Times bit as the foundation upon which he bases his post. Oddly, when you read the NYT blurb it says nothing of the kind. The operative line is below (the emphasis is mine; I thought perhaps a “hint” would help Adrian read it better so my point will come across):

“More interestingly perhaps, the studios are hoping to create “premium” versions of DVDs that include a copy of the movie that can easily be put on an iPod…”

In case you still don’t see it, Adrian, that would be “the studios”, not “Steve Jobs” (or even Apple). Try not to lack such comprehension next time, especially for such a small article (the NYT blurb is only four paragraphs).

There are others calling Adrian on this, but they’re giving it more weight than it deserves and even arguing with him about it. I won’t go that far; the NYT article speaks for itself and K-H simply blew it.

So, Mr. Kingsley-Hughes, I have one word for you: RIF.

At some point Adrian may defend his post by saying Jobs controls the studios. If so he’ll get another riffing because there are so many articles about the studios avoiding Jobs that the only way to miss them would be to stick your head in a Dick and Jane book. Come to think of it, if Adrian had done something similar a couple decades ago I probably wouldn’t need to be writing this now.

If you think of anyone else who needs a riffing, let me know.

Tech Headlines From The Last Week.

More tech headlines to chew over, with my comments.

Nokia and Universal Give Away Music. Not!

So today Nokia announced a new service that allows those who purchase certain Nokia phones will be able to download music “free” for an entire year.

What kind of music? Well, it should come as no surprise that Universal is all over this, which makes it all the more clear that this music will hardly be free. This is simply the first fruit borne of Universal’s Total Music initiative, which I wrote about here.

This music is heavily DRM’ed — no subscription model can function without it. I suspect the idea that you still “own” it after the year is dependent upon one’s definition of the word “own”. I don’t think I’ll like Nokia/Universal’s definition.

When the full details come out, I bet we’ll discover that unless you continue a Nokia “Comes With Music” contract on a phone (in which case you’re still paying for the subscription), or never change the PC you’re using when the phone terms expire, you will lose the music. And good luck burning a CD.

There is simply no way Universal is going to let you download tunes for a year and keep them forever.

Sales of iWork do impact Microsoft.

There’s plenty of proof that iWorks 08 has been a hit. But some claim that even though it’s taken 16% of the Mac market it won’t effect sales of Microsoft’s Office come their new version in January (or whenever they ship it).

I don’t necessarily disagree that the number of copies sold won’t be impacted much. However, the profit on those sold will be impacted. Look at the deals MS has felt compelled to make on Office lately (e.g., Pro edition to students for only $69; buy Office low now and get Office 2008 for only $7.95).

Bottom line is iWorks doesn’t need to impact Office sales so much as profits. Office is a major cash cow for MS, and taking a bite out of that begins to reduce the free money MS gets to print.

Thurrott Loves the Kindle.

Paul Thurrott wrote a glowing review of the Amazon Kindle.

What bothers me about the review is that he glosses over the real vendor lock-in represented by the device, yet howls frequently about Apple’s alleged (but non-existant) “lock-in” with the iPod.

Another Apple-basher says Leopard’s just like Vista (*yawn*).

This is getting old. It started with the usual MS apologists (Wilcox, Thurrott, Foley), and now we have PC Magazine’s hit piece.

The article is ludicrous, and like most of them simply mentions a personal experience and what was found on various message message boards as “proof” that Leopard’s just as bad as Vista.

But what about all the great reviews of Leopard (even from non-Apple-friendly sources)? He simply doesn’t mention those. Well, I’ll correct his oversight. In fact, I already did so when calling other MS apologists on this silly argument (see the link for numerous links to great Leopard reviews).

And what about all the horrendous news about Vista (from the day it was released up to right now)? Well, he doesn’t mention those either. I’ll correct that as well; there’ve been so many I’ll just pick a few:

• Windows Vista is essentially warmed-over Windows XP.
• Uninspiring Vista: How Microsoft’s long-awaited operating system disappointed a stubborn fan.
• The verdict: Leopard spanks Vista, continues OS X’s reign of excellence
• The majority of IT professionals worry that migrating to Windows Vista will make their networks less stable and more complex
• Windows XP Significantly Outperforms Vista, Tests Show

I picked the last three because they were written in the last four weeks. I did this in case an MS apologist wants to use the “Joe Wilcox” Vista defense. This is the claim that somehow all of Vista’s problems were early, and have since been cured (though Joe never specifies how they were cured). Well, he’s wrong. It still sucks.

It wouldn’t be hard to bring up another 40 or so articles praising Leopard or denouncing Vista or talking about them both where Leopard is judged superior.

Jermaine Dupri tells us what a good album is.

I’m a music lover, and I like albums, so reading this drivel was especially painful to me. A few thoughts on Mr. Dupri’s screed:

• You do not get to define what a good or great album is. I would like to think that most artists who create an album at least think it’s good anyway, don’t they? Don’t they?
• Only history can truly decide what albums are great, but good ones to the general public are noticed pretty readily. It’s already clear American Gangsta is not in that category.
• So it sold 425,000 units? What’s your point? If singles were allowed it would have sold, what, 250,000 of those? That’s the equivalent of 25,000 more albums whose money you left on the table. And much more importantly, it’s as many as a quarter-million potential new fans to enjoy Jay Z’s music, perhaps attend a concert, buy more of his work, etc., all because they got to buy one song and then wanted more. Do you get it now? You didn’t just shutoff immediate sales, but people who could become actual fans.
• To drive the above bullet point home, in case you didn’t get it: You need exposure. Selling a single song is a great way to gain that. What will you use instead, radio?
• You cannot tell your customer how to consume your product. Not in this day and age. You’re as out of touch as the record labels whose credo you’ve adopted.

As for all the crap about how you guys created iTunes, blah, blah, blah, you’re delusional. Sure, iTunes (and Amazon, Walmart, etc.) have nothing to sell if you don’t produce, but without them who’s going to sell the stuff? You? Um, no. You need an outlet for sales, and you need to connect with your fans. Crapping all over iTunes while telling me it’s all or nothing for an album is not the way to do it.

Universal CEO Scares Me: Part II.

Yesterday I wrote about Universal CEO Doug Morris and how he claims all the mistakes the major labels have made (and are making) in regards to digital downloads are only because they “just didn’t know what to do”.

My post was based on an excerpt of a longer interview with Morris. The full interview is available on Wired, and suggested reading. After reading the entire interview, this is what immediately sprang to mind:

Oh. My. God.

It turns out the earlier excerpt wasn’t just a quote pulled to make Morris look silly. No, pretty much all the stuff he says in the interview will do that. Let’s take a look at a few other gems Mr. Morris had for us…

“”It was only a couple of years ago that we said, What’s going on here?’ Really, an album that someone worked on for two years — is that worth only $9, $10, when people pay two bucks for coffee in Starbucks?” Morris sighs.“

He should be bounced out of the CEO office for that remark alone. The “worth” of anything is relative, and one item’s worth has no bearing on another. Morris implies a cup of Starbucks is worth $2 so an album should be worth X times as much. I could just as easily claim a downloaded album is overpriced at $10 (it is) so a cup at Starbucks should be worth 35 cents!

Doug, things are worth what people are willing to pay. No more. No less. The rampant “free” music your industry all but encouraged this decade has devalued your property. You had your “Starbucks” in the 90’s when CDs were 18 bucks and people bought ‘em. That’s over.

“If you had Coca-Cola coming through the faucet in your kitchen, how much would you be willing to pay for Coca-Cola? There you go,” he says. “That’s what happened to the record business.””

Geez, this guy’s analogies are killing me. With all the free-flowing music on tap today people still buy CDs (declining sales) and digital downloads (rising sales) by the truckload. You’re simply pissing and moaning because the truck’s not as big as it used to be. It’d be the same damn size if you’d sold the digital goods eight years ago instead of trying to sue everybody, charge too much, stomp all over fair usage rights, and sucker us into subscription models only 10 people want.

Even after the lessons of the last eight years you guys are still encouraging people to look into alternatives. I’ve got news for you: When somebody finds an alternative and becomes comfortable with it, I don’t think you can get them back.

In this next quote, the emphasis is mine:

“”I wouldn’t be able to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me.” Morris’ almost willful cluelessness is telling. “He wasn’t prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology,” says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. “He just doesn’t have that kind of mind.””

Then why the f**k is he still the Universal CEO?!

And Doug, why admit you’re an idiot to the world? Are you as clueless about digital print as you are digital music? Did you think nobody would read the article and see your quotes?

I don’t think a CEO has to know everything, but I think he has to know how to tell whether he’s being BSed or not. Telling the world you’re a dope, and were therefore better off following your own stupid ideas instead of somebody else’s stupid ideas is not a particularly encouraging strategy. Maybe Doug will get lucky; perhaps Universal shareholders don’t read Wired.

Meanwhile, when discussing the iTunes deal with Apple:

“”Looking back, the best thing we could have done would have been to mandate one format,” he says. So why didn’t that happen? Morris is happy to field this one. “It never crossed anyone’s mind!” he exclaims. “We were just grateful that someone was selling online. The problem is, he became a gatekeeper. We make a lot of money from him, and suddenly you’re wearing golden handcuffs. We would hate to give up that income.””

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!! (Sorry, had to get that out of my system.)

So what’s the problem, Doug? You’re making a lot of money from iTunes, and would hate to lose their business, but you’re actively working on initiatives to limit their revenue and crush them.

Universal has all but admitted the incredibly successful iTunes store simply doesn’t charge enough and provides too many usage rights for the consumer. Their goal is to jack up revenue in any way they can via subscriptions (with very restrictive DRM), higher prices, a cut of the hardware profits, ads, or any other screwy scheme that comes to mind. Apple won’t play ball, so Universal wants to crush them and hop in bed with Microsoft, who’s already paying Universal a hardware cut of the Zune and never met a DRM they didn’t like.

I find it laughable that Universal reminds everyone the hardware vendors didn’t create the content, but never point out that the content providers didn’t create the hardware.

“”Our strategy is to have the people who create great music be paid properly,” he says. “We need to protect the music. I know that.””

The labels have been using artists for years; stop acting as if you’re a caretaker over anything other than next quarter’s profits. If you were taking care of artists, they’d be coming to your defense. They’re not. Instead, the successful ones are leaving the labels and forming their own deals (sadly, in some cases with the same digital download detest that Morris has).

Finally, this item in the article is particularly enlightening:

“Morris’ ascent coincided with the rise of CDs — the biggest boon the music business has ever known… By 2000, more than 900 million CDs were being shipped each year. Many of those were back-catalog purchases, as music fans converted to the format that seemed destined to make all others extinct.”

This tells us Morris was not some kind of genius, but rather simply rode the CD wave where it was all but impossible not to grow and rake in huge volumes of cash. The entire industry was doing it hand over fist. So what we’ve learned is not only that Morris isn’t very bright now, we don’t even know if he was particularly bright then.

Universal CEO Tries Being Candid and Scares Me.

I’ve written numerous posts about Universal’s stupidity regarding their moves in relation to digital downloads and sales. Not only their actions to prop up the unworkable music subscription model, but also those designed to damage Apple’s iTunes store even at the expense of selling more of Universal’s own product.

Through all these moves Universal’s ignorance has been evident. I always thought that ignorance was not because they were actual idiots, but rather the result of them unable or unwilling to “let go” of the old business models. They continued to believe (wrongly) they could get back to their glory days when they controlled everything and charged too much for it, but could sell it anyway because there were no practical alternatives.

But now, having read excerpts of an interview with Doug Morris, Universal’s CEO, I see the inability to let go was only part of it. The rest is that, as it turns out, they are idiots. What’s more, they knew they were idiots but made no attempt to do anything about it. This quote from Morris absolutely boggles the mind:

“”There’s no one in the record industry that’s a technologist,” Morris explains. “That’s a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn’t. They just didn’t know what to do. It’s like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?””

Remove my dog’s kidney? What kind of f**king analogy is that? Your company is losing money, CD sales are in the toilet, you’ve piled one stupid idea on top of another (all doomed to fail) while simultaneously sticking your tongue out at the online store that’s making you money, and your excuse for this debacle is that you guys “just didn’t know what to do”?! Are you insane? Unbelievable!

Even if I bought the analogy, wouldn’t you rush your dog to the nearest vet or animal hospital? In other words, find people who do know what to do. Honestly, this quote conjures up images of sick animals writhing in pain around Universal’s offices because their management is too stupid to know what to do or find the required expertise. This guy kind of scares me now.

Universal shareholders, how can you read this stuff and not want to rush out and sell all your stock?

Tech Headlines From The Last Week.

As I continue to fight off some sort of cold, or flu, or death, or whatever it is, it’s time for another review of recent headlines.

Leopard’s Translucent Menu Bar.

OK, I’m convinced I’m the only one who likes the Leopard menu bar. Fine, sue me. As near as I can tell every Mac user on the planet but me cannot sleep and will not rest until the menu goes back to its (*yawn*) former self.

That’s fine, and as long as I can keep mine the way it is I’m all for people getting back to the Tiger bar if that’s what they want.

However, some of the arguments against the new bar are just silly. Not least of which is the one presented here. OMG! The “o” in an iTunes menu looks weird! How could Apple not have caught this in QA?! This is clearly proof that Apple doesn’t know what they’re doing!

Whatever.

Oh, and those of you who hate the new Dock, I disagree there, too. Oooh, there are multiple shadows on the iconc, it’s a travesty of design! Are you people only ever in a room with one light source? You got a spotlight on you all the time? I frequently see items with multiple shadows, and so would you if you were half as observant in the real world as you’ve been with the Dock.

That said, I believe the color of the Dock shelf is too light for the desktops I tend to choose, so I went with a darker color and love it. With or without the color change, Tiger’s Dock looks lifeless, flat, and so 2000 to me now.

Again, whatever.

MS Surface Delayed Until 2008.

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!

Does this surprise anyone? The demo video Microsoft put together is known to be half-vapor anyway, and the technology is nothing new. But as I pointed out at the time, in the iPhone Apple’s technology is not just a different approach than Microsoft’s (and others’), but also a practical one. Since then, Apple has sold a million and a half portable, real-world touch-screen devices in the USA alone, while MS has had to delay their “big ass table”.

Linux Question And Answer.

I found this interesting because it’s a great example of outlining a lot of stuff that can never happen to claim what will make something a success. It’s like saying if Mercedes Benz could sell their cars for half-price they’d be more popular. So? It’s never going to happen.

When I look at this list, frankly, I see items 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 as never happening. Indeed, don’t 3 and 12 run counter to Linux distros? Why tout “free”, then include licensed items? And you can’t ignore the “nerds” because they’re the ones that kept you (and are helping to keep you) alive. In fact, aren’t they the ones contributing the most code?

I think the items require a degree of agreement that the various parties required simply won’t ever come to.

Let’s face it, Linux’s primary feature for the consumer is that it’s “free”. But it’s only “free” if you happen to have a PC hanging around on which to install it. If you buy a PC with Linux pre-installed, where’s the “free”? Seriously. I can get a Vista laptop from HP or Dell, or a MacBook from Apple, or a Ubuntu laptop from System 76. The latter’s Gazelle, outfitted similar to a base MacBook, is $1,027. At only $74 more, the MacBook includes better software in iLife, a web camera, longer battery life, “N”-spec wireless networking, in a smaller, lighter package. (You can get better video and a webcam in the Gazelle for $200 more).

So, where is the “free”? The fact is the OS is not that great a cut of the computer pie at anything other than the dirt-cheap level, and anyone buying there is, frankly, not that particular about what they get.

Dell Price Advantage Disappearing.

Like a lot of Mac “news”, the price advantage shrinking between Dell and Apple has actually been true for a while.

At the mid- and high-end of desktops, Apple has been competitive with similarly configured PCs for a while. They’re not always the least expensive but they’re competitive, especially given their aesthetic and software advantages. I wrote about this in the areas of price and software shortly after I got my iMac.

Apple has a better price edge in their laptop line than in desktops. In other words, starting where Apple enters the laptop market (i.e, the base MacBook) they are immediately competitive with similarly configured laptops. This is different than desktops, where Apple enters the market with the Mac mini, which is not particularly competitive against similarly configured PCs.

Excellent Music Commentary: The Greenfield Report.

A couple of my favorite quotes:

“The major labels will not rule the music landscape in the future. No way. They’re just too fucking stupid. Holding on so tightly to what they had, and wanting acts to give them ever more. It’s not about the disc business, or the t-shirt business, but the FAN BUSINESS! And the majors have disrespected fans FOREVER! Until the majors realize THEY made music free, they’ve got no hope.”

“Oh, what a long strange trip it’s been. And who do we have to blame? Industry strongmen Doug Morris and Zach Horowitz. Who not only refused to embrace Napster, but sued Bertelsman and everybody else involved. Winning the battle, but losing the war. Making some money now, but destroying the future.”

I still think the future of music business and sales is up in the air. People point to Radiohead’s online distribution of their album as the future, but I disagree. At least I disagree with the way Radiohead did it, which I considered to be as disrespectful to downloaders as the labels have been. Clearly, some artists want to dictate how their music is consumed, the customer be damned. Ultimately they will do no better than the labels.

I keep waiting for some label to approach Apple (or Amazon) with something truly different: DRM-free music, individual tracks no greater than 79 cents, albums no greater than $5.99. The fact is the biggest issue even with DRM-free music files is that $10 for an album is too much. If YourMusic.com can sell physical CDs (all of them) for only $6.99 each, and eMusic can sell downloaded albums for an average price of around $3.50, then iTunes and Amazon charging $9 or $10 is borderline robbery.

Movie Rentals May Be Coming To iTunes.

This is just a rumor but I thought I’d comment on it anyway. I am not a video guy, but I really think an iTunes video rental would be a great idea. People like to rent videos, and iTunes could pull it off nicely since I think the terms would be relatively generous, and we know the user experience would be nice.

Biggest question I have is if the content providers (which provide Apple squat for video sales) would be any nicer about rentals. They’re trying to kill Apple in the video market, so it will be interesting to see if they’d open their catalogs for rental. If not, then this cannot possibly be the success it could otherwise be; currently there’s simply not enough video content in iTunes upon which to build much of a rental store.

Google’s New Non-phone.

Wasn’t Open Social vapor enough? Now Google has formed a handset alliance and, no matter how you read it, it’s purpose is to allow Google to get ads all over your phone. Who really wants this?

And with 30 companies involved, how can the resulting designs avoid the “designed by committee” look and function? That’s never a good thing. Or, if they don’t all follow each other, then how can they avoid being just as different from each other and carrier-specific as they are now, so then what’s the point? It seems like a lose-lose to me (except for Google, of course).

It’s interesting how quickly second-rate or desperate players in the game will line up behind a big dog even when the big dog is attempting something that dogs don’t normally do. Why believe that Google can suddenly write killer software? Why believe users will have no issue with ads plastered on their phone? Why believe Google is even remotely interested in the alliance members and won’t ignore or drop those that don’t seem to be doing them any good?

With these phones at least a year off it means a lot of players who might possibly (though not likely) have competed with the iPhone are now tied up for a year. A year in which Apple will not stand still, that’s for sure. A year from now there will certainly be more than one iPhone model (and price point) to compete against.

Meanwhile, as we all wait to see the fruits of this alliance’s collective wisdom — and our phones covered with ads — keep in mind there’s at least one other attempt at advertising that’s even worse.

Total Disaster: Universal’s Never-Ending War Against Apple.

BusinessWeek published a story about yet another move Universal is taking against Apple. Before we get to their latest, let’s review the recent shots Universal has fired:

• Pulled out of negotiations for iTunes contract extension.
• Supplied DRM-free tracks to Wal-Mart’s PC-only music store as a “test”. Not for Mac.
• Threw a boatload of DRM-free titles at Amazon in support of their AmazonMP3 store.
• The Amazon and Wal-Mart tracks were not offered DRM-free to Apple’s iTunes store.
• Teamed with SpiralFrog to offer “free” subscription music. You know, the exploding media that renders itself inoperable if you don’t visit the site often enough. Not for Mac. Not for iPod.

I wrote about the last item here, and the Amazon deal here. It’s amazing Universal changed their DRM views (for now) on selected titles — still a small percentage of their catalog — to spite Apple and hinder an online store that’s working, is popular, and making them lots of money! How greedy/stupid/arrogant do you have to be to potentially harm your sales in the belief that you’ll get back to the “good old days” of controlling all music distribution with an iron fist? And how pathetic do you have to be to do this while complaining about the very sales you’re hindering?

OK, enough review, let’s see what BusinessWeek says is next up Universal’s sleeve:

“Now, [Universal CEO Doug] Morris is going on the offensive. The world’s most powerful music executive aims to join forces with other record companies to launch an industry-owned subscription service. BusinessWeek has learned that Morris has already enlisted Sony BMG Music Entertainment as a potential partner and is talking to Warner Music Group… The service… will be called Total Music.”

Total Music? Total Disaster is more like it.

I can see why Sony would buy into this. After all, these are the guys who invented the CD root-kit and ATRAC, both disasters. They also spawned the ridiculous “ringle”, which will be a disaster when they bring it to market (I blasted it here).

As for Time Warner, they were the relatively “quiet” label until a week ago when they formally announced they can be as stupid as Universal. They’ve shown nothing in the way of original thinking and I’m sure would follow Universal down one of its many meandering paths.

“This isn’t only about Jobs; Morris badly needs to boost his business, and Apple is the one to beat.”

Dear Morris, APPLE IS SELLING YOUR PRODUCT! They’ve sold over three billion tracks, and statistically most of those were yours. When Apple sells one of your titles, you make money. And you spent zip for that profit; all you did was supply a source file. Do you understand any of this?

You should be helping Apple and iTunes, not wasting profits on building something inferior. You should attempt to leverage Apple’s success, not treat it as an enemy to turn your back on. That makes zero sense. Do you really think another subscription model and/or jacking up prices are your only options?

“And let’s not forget that existing subscription services have signed up only a few million people, vs. hundreds of millions of iTunes software downloads.”

The music labels have already forgotten this. This is why most of their initiatives revolve around very restrictive DRM and a subscription system. They keep chasing that dream.

“While the details are in flux, insiders say Morris & Co. have an intriguing business model: get hardware makers or cell carriers to absorb the cost of a roughly $5-per-month subscription fee so consumers get a device with all-you-can-eat music that’s essentially free.”

Oh, gee, another subscription service with another twist on “free”. While the SpiralFrog service is funded via ads, this new initiative will be funded by the consumer, having to pay for it in the initial price of the device. How the heck does this make it free?

“And though Morris hasn’t publicly blasted Jobs, his boss at Universal parent Vivendi is not nearly so hesitant. The split with record labels–Apple takes 29 cents of the 99 cents–”is indecent,” Vivendi CEO Jean-Bernard Levy told reporters in September. “Our contracts give too good a share to Apple.”"

Dear Levy, you don’t create the music, you don’t promote it, you don’t host it, you don’t distribute it, you don’t support it, and you built no infrastructure for it. In essence, you spend nothing yet rake in 70% of the price. It’s indecent alright, but not in the way your twisted view sees it.

Apple gets 30%, and from that must fund the infrastructure to make this happen. What’s that leave them? Half? Not bad, but nowhere near 70. Are you begrudging them any profit at all? The service they provide isn’t worth ~15% to you? You get nearly five times their profit, do none of the work, and it’s not enough? You’re even more out of touch than Morris. The truth is, you are indecent.

“With the Total Music service, Morris and his allies are trying to hit reset on how digital music is consumed. In essence, Morris & Co. are telling consumers that music is a utility to which they are entitled, like water or gas.”

Aren’t water and gas more like, you know, necessities? And don’t you usually have just one source? It’s not like I went online, shopped around, and then picked the best gas and water companies to service my home. It’s a dumb analogy, and shows that BusinessWeek should maybe mind another business.

To me, this is just another BS maneuver by the labels in a bid to get people to rent music. They want what the video guys have, but the difference in the two is pretty fundamental. People listen to their favorite music over and over. While there may be a few movies or TV shows watched numerous times, the majority are watched once or twice. This is why DVRs or renting flicks work so well. Video and music are different animals, with different experiences and totally different expectations.

“The big question is whether the makers of music players and phones can charge enough to cover the cost of baking in the subscription. Under one scenario industry insiders figure the cost per player would amount to about $90.”

So, right now an incredible music player with 4GB memory and video/podcast/game capability sells for $149. But they’ll sell an inferior one (no one’s made one better) with a price 60% higher, and justify it by saying the user can load it with DRM-infested music for “free”? Wow. Can you show me the dictionary being used to define “free”?

Oh, and let’s talk about the DRM they’ll be using. Can the user put this music on an unlimited number of mobile players? Of course not. Can they play it on up to five PCs? Don’t bet on it. Can they effortlessly burn it on CD? Hell no. Remember, folks, this DRM won’t be FairPlay. It’s going to be a subscription DRM. You do not own these songs; they must be locked tightly to the device or the subscription model is useless.

“Of course, Morris still needs Jobs. It’s noteworthy that Universal has not pulled its music from iTunes–Morris simply can’t afford to do that.”

But apparently he can afford to thumb his nose at Apple and their iTunes customers. I’d love to hear why Universal didn’t cut Apple the same deal they cut Amazon for DRM-free tracks. There’s little reason except a certain disdain for iTunes and those who use it. The labels have decided that iPod consumers (most of them are pirates, remember?) and their overwhelmingly favorite online music store must be the cause of their declining sales.

Personally, I think the cause of the music labels failure is a lot more simple. It’s the morons in charge. I’ve asked this before but it bears repeating: Where are the labels’ stockholders? Why aren’t they calling for these guys’ heads?

So Many Tech Headlines, So Little Time.

Here’s some reading for the weekend with a few of my comments.

Bill Gates: Music genius.

The New York Times seems to think Bill knows what he’s doing re: Online Music. My favorite is this quote from Bill at the conclusion:

““People are going to listen to a lot more music because it’s going to be easy to find neat new exciting music, its going to be easy to have your music with you, in the car, when you’re running,” he said. “It seems like there ought to be a way to translate that into an opportunity.””

Easy to find? You mean like via a one-stop shopping online store with music, movies, TV shows, free podcasts, and more? Listen to it when you’re in the car or running? You mean like if you could easily burn a CD for the car, or have a player that clipped to your running outfit? Hmm, yes, Bill, you’re so visionary only you can see that that could be translated into an opportunity.

Retire, Bill. Now. Seriously, you’ve been looking awfully foolish lately.

A new Zune requires new management.

Now that the Zune 2 is here, Microsoft can get down to what they do best: Bureaucracy. They hired another exec to toss at the problem. Remember, you can never have too many managers. Heh.

The secret behind why WGA was removed from IE7.

I’m glad we have Mary Jo Foley to question this, otherwise all us gullible morons would just assume MS told the truth when the IE 7 team says it’s because of this:

““Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows ecosystem seriously, we’re updating the IE7 installation experience to make it available as broadly as possible to all Windows users””

But Mary actually wonders if maybe there is another motive. Firefox is digging into IE, and perhaps Safari could gain ground as it improves in beta. So to Hell with WGA, we just want as many people to download IE and use it. We’re all about numbers; always have been, always will be.

What’s most amazing about this, and the little secret nobody will talk about, is that it’s absolute proof — if any were needed — that WGA has never been a GA to anybody but Microsoft.

Time Warner to Universal: Oh yeah? Well, we can stick our heads up our asses even further than you!

Can you believe another label is setting up yet another online store? No, I don’t mean one that’s been successful like iTunes. And no, I don’t mean one that’s DRM-free like eMusic. And no, I don’t mean one that’s a major new force (and going to be successful) like Amazon. Instead, I mean one that has everything that makes a music store fail:

• DRM? check
• Microsoft WMA files? check
• Won’t work with iPods? check
• Only half the songs of iTunes? check
• Build a new PC client player from scratch? check
• PC only? check
• Subscription service? check

Holy shit! This is absolutely unbelievable to me. How freakin’ stupid do you have to be? Where has TW been that last few years? This boggles the mind. Universal, I take back everything I said about you (I’ll just say it again later anyway), TW has got to be even dumber than you are. Amazing.

Thurrott again.

Didn’t want to spend a lot of time on this one since Thurrott is piggybacking on an article that itself is overreaching in its attempts to be “fair” about eight reasons why Windows users don’t switch to Macs. Still, Paul takes the nauseating and makes it worse.

For example, price is listed as one reason, and Thurrott drools all over it:

“Well. Actually, the truth remains: Macs are more expensive than PCs, they still are. Yes, Macs are often comparably priced to similar PCs. The problem is that PCs come in many, many more price points, and unlike with Apple, PC users are used to choosing exactly what they want and getting it. “

And yet, when it comes to MP3 players Paul says that you can only look at comparable devices. So what have we learned? As a shill, when it suits Microsoft you compare everything, when it doesn’t suit Microsoft you narrow the parameters at least until you can claim the #2 spot.

Number 5 (lies) and 6 (Windows bashing) and 8 (Mac users) in the list bother me even from the original author but Thurrott, as usual, piles on:

“This is, quite possibly, the biggest problem facing the Mac community. You may not realize how serious this is. But consider this:

Mac fanatics are like Detroit car lobbyists. They’ve spent decades doing nothing but propping up the Mothership, all for what they think is a good cause, but all they’ve really done is harmed the thing they love so much. People understand quality, and that’s why so many are swayed by Apple’s products. People also understand bullying, and that’s why so many ignore Apple’s products.”

Paul, Microsoft INVENTED bullying. Regarding lies, isn’t your leader Bill Gates quoted as saying Vista was the first OS with parental controls, and that every day the Mac OS is hacked? Every day! Didn’t Balmer claim the iPhone was the most expensive phone ever? Doesn’t Microsoft claim shipped units as sold? Didn’t the IE7 team just claim they removed WGA to “protect the entire Windows ecosystem” (see above, and do try to keep up)?

The fact that marketing people “lie” is a given everywhere. That somehow Apple has done more of this, or been more egregious about it, is such horse shit I wonder if you have to wash yourself after you type this garbage.

Microsoft’s sins are not just on paper. They’ve been dragged into more LEGITIMATE court cases (not the BS type that they and Apple have to suffer through) and have SETTLED more times than anyone cares to count. Did you read ANYTHING out of the Iowa antitrust case? And wasn’t Microsoft just busted big time by the EU?

As for bashing, go to the comp.sys.mac.advocacy usenet news group to see what your precious sainted MS community has to say and how they act, Paul. Heck, just go to Digg. As Microsoft is fond of pointing out, they outnumber the Apple supporters by 9 to 1. They make Apple “zealots” look like kids at Sunday school, and have for 20 years!

Oh, and don’t forget this FACT: The vast majority of Apple supporters have experience with Windows (as Microsoft is also fond of pointing out, most people have to use it at work). Meanwhile, what the vast majority of Microsoft zealots know about Apple and Mac OS X would fit under a gnat’s armpit.

Any blogger attempting to be “fair” and somehow equating Apple’s sins with Microsoft’s, or Apple’s supporters with Microsoft’s, is either trying way too hard to get in the “big boys’” sandbox, or has a disgustingly short memory, or is too young to be writing about it with any authority. Paul saves his “best” for last:

“while Apple’s fanatics might have been desirable or even necessary during the rebuilding years, now they’re just dead weight. Good riddance, I say.”

Screw you, Paul. I love the way you bash people in a post that includes a lecture on bashing people. Jerk. Your livelihood is crumbling around you. The only dead weight is on the back of your old ideas about technology and the supporting business models. It’s to those ideas you should be bidding “good riddance”.

Radiohead’s stance must be honored; Jobs is an ass who doesn’t care.

I like the Rough Type site, but in this piece I think Carr is way off the mark.

Basically he says that since Radiohead won’t allow singles to be sold (only albums) they can’t be on iTunes. This is true, and it’s a choice made by them and Jobs. Jobs wants singles (rightfully so, album buyers like me are a dying breed; people want singles).

I haven’t seen Radiohead badmouth Apple or iTunes about this, and I haven’t seen Jobs or Apple badmouth Radiohead, so what’s the big deal? Agree to disagree, and all that. They both have stances and stick to them. Seems OK to me.At first Carr even seems to agree with this:

“You can applaud Radiohead’s lonely stance, or you can, as Crunchgear recently did, dismiss the band as “a bunch of crybabies.” … And you have to admit that Radiohead’s motivation in protecting what it sees as the integrity of its works is no different from Jobs’s motivation in protecting what he sees as the integrity of his products.”

Exactly. A sound statement and, as I said, agree to disagree. Crunchgear is wrong. But then Carr says this:

“Jobs’s lack of concern for the desire of Radiohead, and other artists, to control how people experience their creations undermines his attack on the people who would alter the iPhone to serve their own purposes.”

WTF? How the heck did we get from Radiohead and Jobs both protecting the integrity of their works/products to Jobs suddenly having no concern for Radiohead and other artists? And, oh yeah, Carr throws in the iPhone from left field ’cause it’s all the rage these days.

That’s nuts and, frankly, the one paragraph simply does not logically lead to the other.

I like Radiohead and have no issue with them not wanting to sell singles. I don’t agree with it because I believe it’s outdated thinking. And the fact is no artist can ever tell me how to enjoy their art. Ever. But I appreciate both sides stuck to what they believe, and really don’t see how either can be “wrong”. But Carr apparently believes one must be “wrong”, and that it’s Jobs. Nonsense.

As for throwing in the iPhone, well, why not? Apparently every blogger was contractually obligated to post a scathing “we want third-party apps” and/or “Apple is evil and mean to developers” piece on the iPhone this week.

Well, except me, I’m non-union.

Some Thoughts On The Zune 2 Preview.

Paul Turrott has been laying low lately. He says it’s because he’s been working hard on his Microsoft Propaganda SuperSite blog, but I tend to think he was also ramping up for some serious Zune humping. He did not disappoint.

He posted a Zune 2 Preview on his SuperSite for Windows, or maybe it’s Windows IT Pro, or WinInfo Daily News, or one of his other clearly non-biased (ahem) Microsoft sites. Let’s take a look.

In referring to the first Zune, he says:

“As I noted in my Zune review, however, the device isn’t a total dud. It featured a bigger screen than the iPod of the day, had a more grippable and attractive exterior, complete with a cool “double shot” dual color effect.”

The Zune was butt-ugly and everyone knows it, especially in brown. It was huge and boxy, and no amount of “gripability” (hey, I like that word!) is going to fix that. Why try to suggest otherwise?

“Depending on how you look at it, the Zune’s first year was either an epic disaster or a decent first step into the market. “

No, depending on whether you’re a Microsoft zealot (or Apple-basher) it was either a first year disaster or a decent first step.

“Compared to the iPod, the Zune didn’t exactly fare very well; Microsoft sold about one million Zune devices in its first 8 months of availability.”

It’s 1.2 million in nearly a year, Paul. I’m still trying to understand why you can count Apple’s numbers to several decimal places but can’t seem to grasp Microsoft’s weak sales.

“Of course, Microsoft prefers to compare Zune sales to the single iPod model that it technically competes most closely with, which was a 30 GB iPod for much of that first year.”

I suppose Paul lets Microsoft make this comparison because they say they can. But don’t ask him to compare Apple’s Macintosh only to machines that it technically competes most closely with, I guess that wouldn’t be fair.

“And according to the marketing mavens at NPD, Zune was consistently the number two selling MP3 player in the market for hard drive-based devices that cost $250 and less.”

Microsoft is slipping; if they add the color brown as a requirement they were #1.

“Just by entering the market, Microsoft was able to jump ahead of products from Creative, Samsung, iRiver, and others, and do so with its very first device.”

Paul conveniently neglects to mention that those other players were using PlaysForSure, which Microsoft abandoned when the Zune was released. Gee, do you think having the technology abandoned by its maker had something to do with people maybe not being too sure about going that route? Even if Paul couldn’t figure it out, Microsoft certainly could. They crippled their so-called partners with one stroke.

“…Microsoft is getting ready to launch its second generation Zunes. There are new devices, new capabilities (all of which, yes, will be ported back to the original device), new PC software, a completely redesigned Zune Marketplace, a completely new Zune community service, and even new accessories (that, yes, will also work with older Zunes).”

Translation: Microsoft threw out the junk they slapped together for the Apple-bashers to buy, and are now going to offer something they hope looks like maybe a small amount of effort was involved.

“In what I consider to be a classy move, Microsoft is imbuing each Zune device with exactly the same features. (And yes, this includes the original Zune 30, which will require a software update.) Think about that for a second: When it comes to purchasing a Zune, you will only have to factor in size and pricing, unlike Apple’s complicated iPod line…”

You owe me a new keyboard Paul. I spewed coffee over it reading that paragraph. Wow. Microsoft took the cheap way out and wouldn’t even slap a 30 GB drive in the new 80 housing. That’s not a feature, that’s designing on a shoestring. Further, look at the picture at the top of this article and tell me which one is the 30GB. Yes, the small HDD model is actually the huge one in the back. How stupid is that? This has nothing to do with being “classy”, MS took this route no doubt because they have plenty of 30GB inventory left to sell.

If it makes you feel better, a fellow Microsoft fan, Mary Jo Foley, thinks that upgrading the old crappy model also shows just how swell Microsoft is compared to Apple. She goes so far as to state this could be all about Microsoft’s great customer service. Tell me, does Microsoft require their shills to proofread their own stuff? I’d get nausea if I had to see that kind of writing with my name on it.

As for the iPod line being complicated, how delusional do you have to be to say that Apple’s iPod line is somehow complex, but Zune’s is somehow simple and easy? If you really believe this way, why not give Apple’s Macs kudos for only having a few models over the hundreds of PC models available?

“Each device will include a brand new user interface that Reindorp says is “more 2D” than what’s out in the market at the moment.”

Translation: Much like the old hardware, the old software was junk so we trashed it.

“The two new device form factors (Zune 4/8 and 80) were designed from the ground up by the Zune team’s industrial design group.”

They spent a lot of time hunched over photos of the iPod nano. Too bad Apple’s already moved beyond that. Microsoft didn’t get it right anyway; started from the ground up and are still over 20% thicker than the nano. Worse battery life, too.

“All Zunes will now support wireless synchronization as well.”

All you have to do is plug it into something wired and it will synch wirelessly. No, no, no, don’t think about that, let’s move on quickly…

“The Zune software, which I believe is simply called Zune, has been completely rewritten from scratch,”

Did we mention that our 1G Zune was a piece of crap in every way, shape, or form? Just like the hardware and its software, we had to trash the PC client as well. Still, you gotta admit we managed to get over a million Microsoft zealots and anti-Apple zombies to foot the bill while we tried to design something that at least looks like it’s only bad instead of intolerable.

“If you have a red Zune 8, for example, the software will display an icon that is visually identifiable as that exact device.”

Just like an iPod in iTunes, but of course when Microsoft does it it’s innovation.

“As with the PC-based software, the Zune Marketplace–Microsoft’s online content service–has also been redesigned and is no longer using the awful URGE front end from the first time around.”

Sorry, 1G Zune users, everything you defended the last year was pure unadulterated crap. We knew it when we foisted it on you and are changing it all now. But don’t feel bad, you’ll get the new software and syncing for your Boat Anchor 30. Heck, until we clear out the inventory we’re even putting the BA 30 into a new Zune box at $199, so you’ll have some company soon.

“The company is going to launch with one million DRM-free MP3 tracks. But these aren’t just MP3 songs, they’re “pure MP3s,” devoid of any watermarking or tracking technology. Reindorp tells me that the company “absolutely refused” to go in that direction, or settle on non-standard audio technology. So the Zune’s DRM-free tracks will be pure MP3. Halleluiah.”

Microsoft has provided no details about these tracks. No watermarking means they won’t know where they were sold. The labels want to know this — Apple and Amazon both use this at the labels behest. Maybe Microsoft’s MP3s are indie tracks that may not care about market stats, or maybe Universal figures that since MS is bribing them with a buck a unit they won’t mess with a watermark.

In any case the watermark is harmless, and for MS to say they “absolutely refused” to go in that direction is utter bullshit! They paid Universal’s extortion fee, their DRM is the worst in the industry, Vista is clogged with DRM from front to back, and they still cling to a subscription model. They will go in whatever DRM direction the labels tell them, Paul, and you know it. Why don’t you ever call them on this stuff? Oh, that’s right, because you’re a shill.

And stop calling the AAC standard (which is MP4) a non-standard. I realize as a Microsoft fan you have little use for, or exposure to, standards, but your disingenuous BS about AAC is getting old. It’s every bit the standard MP3 is, and improves upon it. Maybe as a worshiper in the church of Redmond newfangled technologies scare you? Does it concern you how foolish you look doing a “Halleluiah” for DRM-free MP3s that most of us have been using since 1998? Microsoft, like Apple, should be bringing something better to market, but as usual they choose to hold technology back.

“In addition to the Zune software and Zune Marketplace, Microsoft is also launching a new community Web site called the Zune Social”

I puked when I read about this, so my readers will have to get details on it themselves.

“In another dig at Apple and its consumer-unfriendly policies, Microsoft is doing something a bit different with accessories. That is, it’s not automatically obsoleting old devices or accessories just because something new is out now.”

Another big fat lie. The iPod has used the same 30-pin dock connector since April, 2003. Some devices didn’t work initially with the iPhone but Apple fixed it in firmware. Further, the universal dock just needs an adaptor (included) with new models. Yes, the A/V cable has changed with this new release, but that’s primarily because the new iPods output both composite and component video. That’s an improvement. Do the Zunes output video at all?

“Microsoft plans to launch the new Zune devices, Zune software, Zune Social and Zune Cards, and the new Zune Marketplace in mid-November.”

As usual, no date is specified. Maybe they’ll be on time, maybe they won’t. This is, after all, Microsoft.

In sum, Paul is back in a big way. I knew it was too good to last. Meanwhile, I have a new slogan for the Zune team — Microsoft: Building yesterday’s iPod tomorrow. What do you think?

New Zunes And A Certain Rodent We All Know.

So the new Zunes are here. Stories are just rolling in since the embargo only recently lifted for the major outlets a little while ago (though smaller outlets trickled the word out, such as the Gizmodo picture above).

My initial comment: The new squared-off circle “Zune Pad” and the buttons at its upper left and right are going to make comparisons with Mickey Mouse inevitable.

Photo below is from Daily Tech. The hard-drive model still has the buttons on the side. It’s only the flash-based model that looks like Mickey:

They dropped the brown color, and the black one doesn’t look all that bad. I like the red, not sure about the pink, and they sure picked an ugly green.

These were clearly targeted at the old generation iPod classic and nano lines, and they boast larger screens than that older generation (physically, not sure about resolution). Apple moved the goal posts ahead last month, though. The interface has been redone, and the squircle “Zune Pad” apparently has some touch controls (well, they had to get the word “touch” on the device somehow, didn’t they?).

Looks like they added h.264 and MPEG-4 video support. Wise move.

Went to the Zune site’s web page, but except for marketing spiel (with appropriate footnotes) there’s no data. When are they gonna publish specs for the thing?

From the Daily Tech article we see prices are identical to Apple’s iPod classic 80GB, nano 4GB and 8GB offerings. The HDD unit is slimmer than their first generation at .5”, but still nearly 20% thicker than the iPod! In fact, the 160GB iPod is only a hair thicker than the Zune 80. As for the flash units, they were designed with a shape like the old generation nanos, but are still 25% thicker than Apple’s.

The Zunes still “squirt” music, but it seems that now the limitation is just three plays (i.e., not also three days). This means there is still DRM on squirted music, and the footnote that not all music can be squirted is also still there. In other words, squirting is still kind of silly. They get some use out of WiFi by allowing OTA syncing, but Apple’s WiFi music store is a much better use of WiFi in my opinion. I mean, a whole lot better use. I mean, literally miles ahead.

Microsoft says the Zune marketplace is adding maybe a million DRM-free tracks. Again, no details. What is it with Microsoft and having no freakin’ details?! This is their big launch for the holidays and they won’t tell us anything. Isn’t it bad enough they did it in the middle of the night? Gee, Microsoft, ashamed much?

The Zunes will auto-sync video with Media Center PCs, which require Vista Home Premium or Ultimate and a TV tuner card. Not sure of the details (surprise!) on this syncing yet. Podcast support is now available. Further, the interface is said to have been rewritten.

They ship in November but — you guessed it — no date provided yet.

In short, these do look like nice improvements to the original, and a firmware update will add the OTA syncing and newer interface to older Zunes, which is nice for them (what a shock, no word on when that update wil be available). Still, they seem a bit behind the times after the latest iPods, yet they won’t even ship for another 4-8 weeks!

The 30GB model will still be available at $199, which seems ridiculous since it’s bigger and uglier. If they still wanted a 30GB model why the heck didn’t they put it in the newer case? Microsoft just doesn’t make any sense sometimes… Oh, wait, I know. They have a boatload of leftover inventory and they need to clear it all. That makes sense. Unlike Apple, they can’t count on older stock being cleared before rolling out the new stuff. It’s not that popular.

Real iTunes Competition, But Why Are The Labels Being So Nice?

Amazon opened their MP3 store today, and it’s clear iTunes has legitimate competition since Amazon avoids the pitfalls that made other music sites a joke. However, through it all some curious questions arise, which I’ll get to below. Meanwhile, here’s why this new site is a valid alternative to iTunes:

Type:
This is a buy-to-own store, not a music-rental store. And there is no DRM. Enough said.

Brand:
This is not some entity you’ve never heard of. This is Amazon. Even though the system is beta, I tend to trust it more than a new company formed by groups looking to make a quick buck or fit a marketing plan. Further, even as beta I expect Amazon to have fewer glitches than a new company. After all, they’ve been doing this online sale thing for a long time (it remains to be seen how well they are at the download process, however).

Interface:
Works fine on PCs and Macs. While not as slick as iTunes’, the interface is pretty easy to navigate and will be familiar to anyone who’s used Amazon. I bookmarked the site, and occasionally used that to get “home” because an obvious way back was not available. Also, on a couple of occasions I found myself in the CD section of Amazon when that’s not what I wanted. Overall, though, it’s a pretty good interface for a beta.

Compatibility:
Since there’s no DRM, all files are playable on any MP3 device (your computer, iPod, CD, iPod, car player, iPod, Sansa, iPod, Zune, iPod, etc.).

Price:
Price is quite good. Lots of popular albums for $8.99, a dollar less than iTunes. They advertise albums for under $4.99, $5.99, etc., but that’s misleading since they’re EPs. You’re still paying ~90 cents a song. The iTunes store has lower prices on such “albums” as well. Amazon singles are 99 cents, better than iTunes because their DRM-free tracks are $1.29.

Quality:
All tracks are 256K MP3. The free track I got was 256K VBR LAME encoded, which is about as good as MP3 gets. However, the album I bought was 256K CBR with no information about the encoder. Clearly there’s some variance, but at 256K they should all be very good quality.

Selection:
Since this is DRM-free music, an initial offering of two million tracks is actually pretty good. It pales next to iTunes’ six million, but that’s not all DRM-free. Amazon’s site really shines a light on what is not DRM-free. For example, where’s Sony? And where is most of Universal’s catalog?

Clearly, this is not yet another “me too” site that will close with a whimper in 18 months. For now, it’s a legitimate place for me to browse when I want to buy an album, though by no means a slam dunk.
But something doesn’t smell right…

Amazon’s DRM-free prices are in line or even less than iTunes’ DRM prices. Think about that for a minute. The labels hate iTunes pricing — it’s what they constantly bitch about — yet here is Amazon with those same iTunes prices (or less!) for tracks having a distinct advantage.

EMI wanted more money from Apple for singles with no DRM, but seem perfectly satisfied with Amazon’s 99 cent price for the same thing. Why? Further, Universal has repeatedly said they’d never remove DRM, yet they tossed a few hundred thousand DRM-less tracks to Amazon at only 99 cents. What gives? Why the special treatment?

In my opinion this is just a push for Amazon to get customers while the labels hope to break iTunes’ grip on the digital music world. If the store gets popular, expect the labels to raise prices and, unlike Apple, expect Amazon to have little issue with this. The labels might also rollout more tracks, but with DRM. We know Amazon’s video site is in bed with content providers (most recently NBC); they clearly have no issue with DRM. I think if Amazon were seen as a threat to balk at any of this they wouldn’t be getting this preferential treatment to begin with.

So what’s going on, is this all just to spite Apple? That makes no sense because the labels gain nothing from it; all they‘d have done is create another iTunes store, or worse. Have they changed their mind on DRM? Then offer all of Universal’s tracks and, for that matter, the other labels’ as well. Have they decided iTunes pricing isn’t so bad after all? Then offer Apple the same terms. Do they just want to build a popular store with a partner who won’t argue over pricing and DRM restrictions? DING DING DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

Of course, I could be wrong, but something doesn’t smell right.

Universal And Yet Another Subscription Model: iPods Need Not Apply.

So Universal has teamed up with SpiralFrog on a subscription service with a twist; the service is now out of beta and officially launched. SpiralFrog is unique among subscription services in that it’s subscription-less (at least for now). No monthly fee is required, the site is intended to be funded solely by advertising and your recurring visits:

“The only catch — the music is supported by the site’s advertising revenues, so your clicks keep those tracks downloading.”

Even though there is no monthly fee, make no mistake that this is still a subscription service, and therefore has the five disadvantages all subscription services have had so far:

1) Requires recurring activity.

“You must sign up for a free account and provide demographic information in order to gain access to the media. You must also use your account each month in order to keep it active, which is intended to prevent users from simply downloading and not returning to the site.”

Keeping your account “active” is code-speak for them shutting off your music if you don’t use it every month. What constitutes “use” of your account? Not sure. Clearly all tracks and videos are DRMed so they can shut them off whenever they want.

2) Limited content.

“The site… currently carries about 800,000 tracks and 3,500 music videos”
“The site intends to have over 2 million tracks available within the next several months.”

With Universal on board they ought to be able to scrounge up more than 800K for starters. Heck, Apple has almost that many songs available for just ringtones! Two million tracks in the next several months? What the heck is the matter with Universal when — even under excruciating DRM terms — they still won’t open up their library?

3) Risk of losing the music.

Of course you lose your downloaded music if you don’t use the site every month, but that may be your own choice. However, what if their advertising-only model fails (it will), or they begin charging monthly fees (which they’ll do when the ad model won’t fully support them)? If they go belly up you’ll lose everything. If they charge, and all you cared about was “free”, then you’ll lose everything, too. Good luck thinking you’ll have any recourse when any of this happens.

4) Strict Controls.

“Files from SpiralFrog are digitally protected and can be played on mp3 players, but cannot be burned to CDs.”

They are DRMed to a very high degree. Just a reminder that you don’t own these, you’re simply renting them under strict terms. The TOS specifies only three devices are allowed. Since your PC and MP3 player are two of those devices there’s not a whole lot of freedom to play them elsewhere. Compare this to Apple’s five PCs and unlimited iPods approach.

5) Incompatibility with the iPod.

“There is another minor detail, though — the files cannot be played on Apple’s wildly popular iPod MP3 players.”

Well, of course not. The highly restrictive DRM these subscription models use is not on the iPod, and I hope it never is. This is Microsoft’s DRM; note that SpiralFrog’s web site requires Windows Media Player 11. This service will land you knee-deep in the wonderful world of a Microsoft DRM that kow tows to the content providers and leaves little in the way of rights for the user.

Music subscription services have always failed because the vast majority of people want to own their music. The only thing truly unique about this one is that it could be argued you get what you pay for. Even then I think it’s a bad deal.

A Disagreement With DF On Apple’s Approach To The Ringtone Racket.

Daring Fireball’s John Gruber had a lot to say in his article about ringtones and what he calls the “ringtones racket”. However, I disagree with part of his premise, and ultimately his conclusions. For other views on this subject here’s a great post from Epple, and Roughly Drafted touches on the subject as well.

I don’t necessarily disagree that it’s a “racket” in the sense that I’d say nearly all people agree that ringtones should be considered “fair use”. However, the article seems to believe they’re that way now, whereas I don’t believe the matter is settled at all — certainly not settled enough for Apple to act in the manner the article suggests. And that’s where I disagree the most: The call for some Herculean effort on Apple’s part that’s simply not realistic in the current environment. Gruber does not like Apple’s approach, I think it’s a start.The DF article concludes thusly:

“Faced with the choice between doing what’s right for customers or charging them money for something they shouldn’t need to pay for, Apple chose the latter. There is no middle ground. And any business that hinges on your customers “not knowing any better” is a bad business.”

Apple’s real choices were to offer nothing or something much better than what’s available now, and at a lower price. Apple negotiated this while Verizon and other carriers never even tried to. Apple took an approach that didn’t put an end to the ringtones “racket” altogether because they cannot do so. There are limits to what Apple can do with content that’s not theirs. Such things must be negotiated, and we’re talking about negotiations with companies whose heads are still in the 70’s and believe you should pay them every time you so much as hum a song.

I’m not sure why Gruber believes a better ringtone deal available today is somehow not “right for customers”. He believes it should be free or nothing, but there are alternatives. Apple is correct at this time to negotiate major changes that shake the status quo, even though they don’t reach the utopian plane DF (and others) believe should be the only next step.

The argument that Apple is now restricting non-iTunes songs is overreaching. All “MP3 players” let you rip and play your own CDs, but how many let you make ringtones from them? None. Asking Apple to do what would be flatly refused by the labels is not just living in Utopia, but running for mayor as well.

The fact that most people want a ringtone considered “fair use” doesn’t change the fact that currently the labels have, at the very least, the upper hand in this argument. They have years of precedent in sales of ringtones, as well as specific prohibition of using songs as ringtones in online music stores’ TOS, on their side.

How did it get this way? Easy, we were all asleep. Ringtones weren’t as much in demand years ago and we didn’t notice or care. For every person that might have balked when the first trickle of such ringtones were offered for sale, there were 50 people who bought ‘em. It’s not so easy putting that cat back in the bag. Too bad. Sucks to be us. Now it’s gonna be harder to change.

Take the labels to court, or let their own failing business tactics eventually force them in the right direction; those are the only things likely to make them change. But given how slow they’re moving on DRM, and their own warped views on ringtones (see below), that’ll take a while. Gruber seems to think that in the meantime Apple should either do nothing, or launch an initiative of free ringtones they’d be forced to pull within 48 hours, tops.

To put Apple’s approach in perspective, let’s look at ringtones from Apple’s and the labels’ point of view to compare and contrast…Apple’s ringtone offering is radical compared to the options available before it:

• Cost is ninety-nine cents, or $1.98 if you don’t own the iTunes song.
• Make it yourself (up to 30 seconds, with optional fade in and fad out).
• Initially half a million titles available.
• Purchase online and receive immediately for synching to multiple iPhones.

Notice that both prices are less than ringtones available from service providers elsewhere, and in their case you don’t even get the song! What if, As Gruber suggests, you already own the song on CD? Apple charges $1.98 for the ringtone, which is still less than anybody else, you still get to make it yourself, and you can still use it on multiple iPhones. In other words, even the worst-case iTunes ringtone scenario is a better value for the consumer than anywhere else.

Now let’s look at what the labels apparently believe is a ringtone value: The “ringle.” I’ve already written about how stupid these are, and their announcement provides a perfect point of comparison to Apple’s approach:

• Cost is six or seven bucks.
• Somebody makes it for you.
• Initially 60 to 70 titles available.
• Available at retailers on a CD, so you get to drive there, stand in line, etc.
• Bundled with a couple songs you don’t want (so they can charge six or seven bucks).

The above two scenarios are the reality of ringtones now (well, ringles are due this Fall). They’re legitimate and legal. Neither is free, and both charge for a ringtone of a song you ultimately own, yet look at the world of difference between them! Heck, the “ringle” can even make buying ringtones from current carriers look good. Who would have thought that possible? Sony and Universal combine to scrounge up maybe 70 titles? Seventy?! I’d say that makes Apple’s half-million look pretty damn good.

How can anyone look at these two approaches and not realize Apple just made a game-changing move? How short-sighted do you have to be to eye only an ultimate goal, and consider any progress short of that some sort of misstep? In my view, Apple’s patience in building itself back up these last 10 years has probably been its greatest strength.

There are other ways to get ringtones on an iPhone, but their legality is highly questionable and I won’t dwell on them. Apple makes half-hearted attempts to block them since it’s no doubt obligated by the labels to do so. You cannot be the #3 retailer of music and simply turn a blind eye to it, the labels would have your head on a platter. Apple has every incentive to just quit the whole thing.

Thankfully, Apple doesn’t live in Utopia, but rather the real world where they realize change is made (sometimes slowly) one positive step at a time. This is exactly how they built the iTunes store. Gruber certainly doesn’t have to follow in Apple’s footsteps, but he shouldn’t attempt to cover their tracks either.

Sony And Universal Team Up To Create Something Stupid

Oil and water. Matter and anti-matter. Sony and Universal. These are apparently combinations that just don’t mix.The brilliant minds at the record labels have come up with a new idea for the holiday season. They’re going to sell “ringles.” Heh. Ringles. I just had to see that name again.

It’s a single combined with a ringtone. Get it? A Ringle. No doubt they selected that name after many hours of heated debate over the name “Singtone.” Maybe they can get Scooby Doo for the ads: “I rearry rove my ringles, Raggy.”If it wasn’t their own doing, I’d feel sorry for the labels right now.

Anyway, here’s the gist of this new offering from the labels’ best and brightest:

“Each ringle is expected to contain three songs — one hit and maybe one remix and an older track — and one ringtone, on a CD with a slip-sleeve cover.”

So I get the same song twice (a remix), a song I probably don’t want, and a ringtone whose length and content have been decided for me — maybe by the same guy who thought up the name “ringle”.

“The idea is that if consumers in the digital age can download any tracks they want individually, why not let them buy singles in the store as well?”

Um, except the song I download is just 99 cents and I don’t have to drive to the retailer to get it, or did that fact elude the labels? More importantly, it’s the one song I wanted; not a remix and not an “older track.” Do they see the difference now? No, of course they don’t. As a label they stopped reading at the part about it costing 99 cents. That’s what’s bothering them.

“Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which came up with the ringle idea, and Universal Music Group are going to be the first out of the box with ringles.”

Yes, Sony’s had so many great ideas about music distribution lately. Their CD rootkit was a big hit. And isn’t ATRAC wonderful? Well, I mean wasn’t it wonderful before they had to kill it? And with Universal on board you just know this can’t really be a good deal for the consumer.

“The former will unleash 50 titles during October and November, while UMG will have anywhere from 10 to 20 titles ready.”

Um, 60 or 70 total songs to choose from initially? Are they serious? Hey guys, Apple is starting with half a million! How can the largest label on the planet in Universal only come up with 10 or 20 titles to start with? Universal is truly pathetic.Further, with iTunes I get the song I want and a ringtone I create myself for $1.98 (unless I already own the song, in which case it’s just 99 cents), so tell me what will the “ringle” cost?

Drumroll, please…

Wait for it…

“Sources suggest the ringle will carry either a $5.98 or $6.98 list price,”

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! For three to six times the cost of iTunes I get the “bonus” of a questionable remix and an old song I don’t want, but I have to visit a retailer to get it, stand in line, pay tax, and the ringtone is created by someone else. Six or seven bucks is the price of an EP, which typically provides maybe five real songs. This is such a horrible deal for the consumer I can see why Universal jumped all over it.

“If it’s $5.98, ringles will have a 31 percent gross margin, shy of the 35 percent profit margin that CD albums carry nowadays; if it’s $6.98, that would give retail a 42.7 percent gross margin, similar to the profit margin cassette and vinyl albums enjoyed back in the day.”

CDs aren’t selling. Isn’t that what the labels are telling us? Isn’t that what the sales data says? Isn’t that what everybody knows? Yet the morons at Sony and Universal have decided that they’ll make a less desirable package at the same profit margin? Sure, that’s the solution. This absolutely boggles the mind.

Why isn’t everyone who owns stock in these labels calling for the heads of all senior management? At what point will the stock holders speak up?

“On the plus side, big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and Amazon have agreed to support the configuration, although all of them may not be ready to do so at launch date, sources say.”

Yes, it will be hard to find shelf space for maybe 60 CDs not even in jewel boxes. Please. If they’re not ready at the launch date it’s because they know these won’t sell. Does anybody outside of Sony and Universal think these have a prayer? In the words of Scooby: “Rorry, Rony, your ringles won’t rell.”

NBC Admits Greed And Stupidity: Issues A Non-Denial Denial.

You know the saying “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”? Well, NBC executives do not.

Today, NBC felt the need to counter Apple’s press release from yesterday, in which Apple claimed NBC wanted to more than double the cost of their TV shows, to $4.99. Apple’s claim was pretty strong; it would have been in NBC’s best interest to simply be “thought a fool” by most while leaving room for people to still have a doubt that Apple was coming clean. Instead, NBC decided to remove that doubt in a statement of their own.

No, their statement doesn’t come right out and say, yes, Apple was right. But in its non-denial denial language one can gather that individual TV shows would in fact have been $4.99 (or at least considerably more expensive than they are now). Further, it reveals another plan by NBC that Apple hadn’t even mentioned, but NBC was too stupid to keep their mouths shut about. Let’s take a look:

“We never asked to double the wholesale price for our TV shows. In fact, our negotiations were centered on our request for flexibility in wholesale pricing, including the ability to package shows together in ways that could make our content even more attractive for consumers.”

Whoa! That’s corporate speak for “we were going to take the shows you like and force you to buy them with the shows we happen to be pitching that day.” In other words, for every popular show you bought you’d get stuck with a clunker. This whole packaging thing rarely benefits the consumer, it’s simply a way to use popular content to shovel less popular drivel on the consumer, and make you pay for the privilege. A good musical analog would be if iTunes only let you buy albums or EPs, but not singles. This is what NBC was clearly trying to put a halt to. Why should you just buy individual episodes of The Office you like, when we can force you to swallow some other crap with it?

“It is clear that Apple’s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices, at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying.”

I call bullshit on this one. What is clear, and well-known, is that Apple makes little profit from their iTunes store. Sure, it’s designed to ensure content for iPods, Apple’s never made any bones about that. But prices are partially held in check because Apple’s profits are minimized. They do not lose money on iTunes, but their profit is trivial. It’s known that in music 70% of the money goes to the studio, is video much different? Doubtful. And Apple does all the work, NBC just supplies source files and counts their money. In other words, Apple helps keep the price down by cutting into their potential profit (they benefit in other ways), the studio gets plenty.

“In addition, we asked Apple to take concrete steps to protect content from piracy, since it is estimated that the typical iPod contains a significant amount of illegally downloaded material.”

Screw you, NBC. Seriously. Screw you for calling me a thief, screw you for blaming Apple for it, and double-screw you for playing the Piracy Card. Further, screw you for taking steps even now to drive more people to consider pirating by refusing to make your product available on the #1 online media store, in a reasonable manner, and at a reasonable price. A price increase on the individual shows I want of 150% is borderline robbery. Why you think it’s reasonable that a season of Heroes should cost $110 on iTunes, with no packaging or special features, yet be available on DVD for less than half that is beyond me.

The truth is, you don’t think it’s reasonable. You went into the Apple negotiations not caring if you were turned down, but hoped Apple would be quiet about it instead of exposing you for the old-school media moguls that you are. When it didn’t work out quite like you planned, you were stupid enough to issue a release of your own that admits it in language you hoped would obscure it.

Your shows accounted for around 35% of iTunes’ video business. Over one-third! How dare you state that you were just looking to make your content “more attractive for consumers”? When a third of iTunes’ business is for your shows, I’d have to say it’s already pretty damn attractive! You wanted to pull your shows out from under the consumer in the middle of the season. This is the move of a company that doesn’t give a hoot about their consumers, not one trying to be more attractive.

“Furthermore, we want consumers to know that all our returning series, including new episodes, will be available on iTunes through the remainder of the contract, which expires in early December”

No they won’t. Apple killed your strategy of getting people “hooked” into the season and then having to run wherever you lead them to buy on new terms. By this one move, it is painfully obvious that Apple cares far more for your own consumers than you do. Apple dropped over a third of their video business to help avoid their customers from getting screwed come January when they find out you’ve moved to wherever and jacked up the price or made the show only available in a “package” that serves only your own ends.

You cannot win. If your shows appear on Hulu, Amazon, wherever, and cannot be played on an iPod, you lose. If they are not available individually and/or are packaged with drivel, you lose. If they are sold separately, but are $4.99, you lose. And if you somehow came to your senses and they are compatible with iPods, sold separately, and are $1.99, you still lose because that’s what you already had on the world’s most popular online media store!

In short, when the fecal matter hits the rotating blades it will be clear that your methods are galling, anti-consumer, last century, completely out of touch with an already successful model and the primary reason content providers are held in such contempt by most consumers today.

Nyuk Nyuk: The Three Stooges And DRM-Free Music Online.

“What are you, a wise guy?”

What would happen if the three stooges tried to take on Apple’s iTunes Store? Well, now we know, because its happened.

First we have Universal Music. Wanting desperately to sell DRM (preferably Microsoft’s) music, and to jack up prices for newer and more popular titles, they are frustrated by Apple at every turn. So in their own way of trying to poke their fingers in iTunes users’ eyes, they’re offering DRM-free music for a limited time. They claim they’ll gauge reaction to determine if they should continue the practice. Sounds good, right? So what’s the problem? The problem is it’s all a bunch of hooey:

• The tracks are not be available on iTunes. Aside from the obvious fact that you can’t gauge market reaction by not offering it on the world’s largest and most popular (by far) online music store, it makes Universal’s real motives pretty transparent. Universal should have been more low key but, frankly, they’re not bright enough.

• They teamed with Wal-Mart. Why them? Well, aside from the fact that there aren’t many online music sellers left, this second stooge is perfect because, like Universal, they haven’t a clue how to step into online media sales and distribution. They’re made for each other. In my opinion Wal-Mart already started off wrong because, like Amazon, they’ve chosen the wrong file format.

• The new service doesn’t work on Apple’s Mac. I can just hear the Universal execs now: “We’re already not making it available on the store used by most Mac users. Still, in case that’s too subtle about how much we despise Apple — though they pour millions into our coffers for doing nothing but supplying source files — let’s also utilize a web site they can’t use. Ha ha! Oh, but will they get wise to this not really being an experiment? Naaaah, we’re too clever for them.”

• Looks like only their older catalog of music is available. What, you though you’d be able to get all the Universal music on Wal-Mart DRM-free that you can get on iTunes? What part of “this is not really an experiment” are you not getting? Universal has no intention of selling current titles for .94. They abhor Steve Jobs for not raising the .99 price, they’re sure not dropping it a nickel! They’re throwing their back catalog at it and hoping to get purchases so people will at least think about buying online music somewhere other than iTunes.

Fine, but what about Microsoft? How are they the third stooge? They’re not mentioned in the press releases and articles on this. In fact, the new tracks sell alongside their own WMA music. Why am I throwing them in the mix? Simple:

• Wal-Mart and Microsoft have been in bed since the beginning. It’s no coincidence Wal-Mart’s site only works in Internet Explorer! Not even Firefox on the PC works! This isn’t incompetence, and it’s not because Wal-Mart’s developers just wanna code like it’s 1999, it’s deliberate. Further, Wal-Mart not only uses Microsoft’s DRM, they also use their WMA file format. These guys are tighter than Larry and Curly.

• Microsoft is tight with Universal, too, even agreeing to a “Universal tax” on the Zune. Microsoft slips a dollar to Universal for every Zune sold. Sure, this has only added 47 dollars to Universal’s bottom line, but these two behemoths share similar views of online distribution, which is to lock it down as much as possible and charge you again for what you already own. Even worse, the agreement gave Universal a swollen head, making them think they could push other companies around. Never mind that Microsoft is nothing in the media business, and was simply desperate to get Zune sales (though it didn’t work).

• Microsoft is for anything that gets people to Wal-Mart’s music site. After all, when visitors find out they can’t get current Universal titles DRM-free, perhaps the “bait and switch” kicks in and they’ll buy the WMA version.

• Microsoft wants Universal to succeed in this ruse as much as Universal and Wal-Mart do. If Universal “wins,” and gains clout, they can keep DRM at least for their popular titles, and whose DRM do you think they’ll choose? Universal wants to tell Apple to take a hike; Microsoft would love that, they have DRM for sale.

So maybe you’re thinking, let’s say you’re right, Tom. So what? Why should that prevent me from buying the music DRM-free as long as its available and a lower price than iTunes? If it’s not available, I won’t buy the DRM version (pointless if I have an iPod anyway), so what’s the harm?

The answer is, maybe none. But I’m not going to do it. I’m not a boycott person, but this move seems so transparent and disingenuous, I’m not going there. But if you snapped up lots of Universal’s back catalog DRM-free, I couldn’t say I’d blame you.

If Wal-Mart sells a lot, and manages to become a player in this game, Universal will have the leverage to force a price hike on popular stuff and still keep it DRM’ed. This is their primary goal, and one Apple will not help them achieve. If Wal-Mart sells very little, Universal will claim it as proof that people don’t care about DRM. Either way, I don’t see a DRM-free current Universal catalog anytime soon.

Personally, I don’t think Wal-Mart will sell much. It’s more than just money, the iTunes store is very slick and well-integrated. Rather, I see iTunes users raising their collective hand up sideways in front of their nose to keep Universal’s fingers out of their eyes. In other words, we’ll moidelize ‘em!

Amazon to sell DRM-free music online in the wrong format.

Amazon recently announced they will begin selling DRM-free music later this year. They have hooked up with EMI, who also inked a deal with Apple’s iTunes.

My question for Amazon is: Why MP3? You could give iTunes a run for its money here, but are blowing it by not offering the superior AAC compression. AAC is essentially “MP4″, and has many improvements over MP3.

I think I know the answer. I’m sure the marketing types were all over MP3 because it can be used in every player. But AAC is supported by iPods, Zunes, some Sansas, some Sonys, and even some Palms, Nokia phones and Blackberrys. In other words, it’s very commonly supported. And for the ~15-20% potential additional customers whose players do not yet support AAC, I think they lose a lot of the ~80% of people whose players do. I, for instance, will not buy an MP3 from them when I can get an AAC from iTunes.

Amazon should sell AACs, and then differentiate themselves in other ways:

• Higher quality (Apple will be 256K, Amazon could go the full 320k).
• Lower price (I assume EMI will take the same amount no matter what, but maybe Amazon could shave a nickel of profit and try a lower price for a while).

Instead, they will offer an inferior product to most of us. Even if it was a nickel less, no thanks.

This is a shame, because selling the same (or better) product as Apple’s iTunes, Amazon could capitalize on their existing site traffic, especially the traffic for CD sales. It would be a natural.

I really think the decision to use MP3 is short-sighted and will cost them in the end. I think lots of iPod (and other AAC player) users would rather go for the better quality and lower size of AAC tracks.