December 15, 2004
Applesoft?
Last August, RealNetworks opened a music store that sold digital music that could be played on the iPod. They did this by reverse-engineering Apple's digital music format (AAC) and bypassing any persmissions or licenses a company would normally have to secure from Apple (Apple's never given such permissions to any online music stores). It should be noted that Real asked for permission/license and was refused by Apple. They went ahead and did it anyway.
Apple has answered ("Apple fights RealNetworks' 'hacker tactics'" via CNET News.com). Apple simply made a few changes to the iPod's firmware (available in its latest update), making RealNetwork's Harmony digital music incompatible. The revolution died only a few months after it started.
As a life-long Apple user, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'd like to support Apple, its products, and its choices. Still, I can't help but remember the painful early 90s when the company was on the verge of collapse, due in large part to the choices it made.
Yet I'm getting this nagging feeling about this whole issue. Here we have the market leader doing everything that it can to destroy competition and keep its music strictly proprietary. Sound like anyone familiar? Want an iPod? Want to buy music on the internet? It's Apple's Music Store or nothing. This is not a good situation for the consumer. As davextreme talks about in The Music War and File Formats, why should people have to be worried about whether their particular music player can play songs from one format or another? Most people aren't aware of these choices before they make them. Most people just want their digital music player to work, regardless of format or the store they purchased it at.
Additionally, competition breeds innovation. Monopolies rarely create a superior product. Look at Internet Explorer. Look at Microsoft Word. A competing online music store doesn't automatically mean a price-slashing war. (I know, I'm butchering the economics of the situation, but I think I'm roughly correct.) Brands depend on their branding to sell products, not their low-low prices.
I'd like to see an open format that is shared by all players, not some silly format war over a thing that means nothing to the consumer. While I don't really approve of Real's approach, I admire what they were trying to do. Maybe this can serve as a wake-up call to Apple that something needs to change. I don't like the way Apple's beginning to resemble Microsoft. It's making me uneasy.
glynn at December 15, 2004 10:48 PM
As a technological clarification, aac is not apple's proprietary format. the iTunes music store applies a proprietary encryption format to the files bought there (which are in aac, also the default format used my iTunes when ripping CDs), making them incompatible outside of iTunes and iPods, though this is rather easily circumvented. In this particular case, they have updated the iPod so they detect files containing Real's DRM-encoded files and block their play.
Initially, I am inclined to agree 100% with your feelings. Apple is attempting to establish a vertical monopoly (online music must go through iTMS and iTunes to iPods) as a result of it's pseudo-real horizontal monopoly (so many of the world's mp3 players are iPods). It's exactly what Microsoft did in the 90s with internet browsers, which was later found to be illegal.
But there's a complication... If Real were to sell mp3/aac songs with no DRM, they would play fine. The only reason apple is able to lock them out is because Real has implemented DRM to limit where and how the files can be played. Now I don't personally think there's anything wrong with that. If you don't want those restrictions, don't buy from Real. And what business is it of apple's what kind of music file I want to buy and play? But it is a complication.
end
kenji at December 16, 2004 10:43 AM
So is Fairplay Apple's proprietary format, and Harmony is Real's? I think so, but I'm not positive.
As for your complication, I agree that it's a problem and ultimately fuels the debate over whether a free market for digital music should have no DRM, or some universal DRM that's agreed upon by a consortia of companies (the way BluRay is being assembled, right?). I personally think that some form of digital rights management is a good thing as it protects the artists as well as the distributers (one more than the other, of course), but it certainly does muddle implimention.
end