What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
115 Comments
- unit101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+52Well, of course DVD Jon doesn't want an end to DRM, his company Double Twist sells Fairplay related software, which he conveniently didn't disclose.
- Andy.D, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42Until Jobs sells DRM-free music for the artists that want it (there are many), then his words don't amount to much.
Another reply to Jobs that I thought was good:
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_case_of_FairPlay_versus_Windows_Media - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39You don't want Fairplay to be licensed to everyone though. You really don't. The reason being is that if everyone has fairplay, then all DRM'ed music will play on all computers and be sold from all stores. The result will be all music in the future will be DRMed in a standard way. Sure it will be better this way, but we will still have DRM.
Right now Apple's near monopoly on music sales online is so strong, that it actually has record companies considering selling music without DRM, because that's the only way they can knock Apple off its perch as sole online music retailer to everyone who owns an iPod. Apple's dominance in the field will hopefully be the end of DRM altogether, because the RIAA are too greedy to allow just one company (Apple) to have all the power when it comes to online music sales. - kassaralzabadi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Summary:
I hope you'll consider taking these actions - none of which require approval of the music industry, nor require you to license your Fairplay DRM technology that you see as problematic.
1) Start selling some content in MP3 format in the iTunes store.
2) Publish the database format for iPods so other music software can be used.
3) Open the doors for iTunes software to work seamlessly with other stores.
4) Make iTunes software for Linux. - profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Jeez, apparently open letters are the new black.
- danknerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Banning music forever is now the only feasible solution.
- benanzo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26@ haggie
you can't sell a domain (mp3.com) for $375 million unless there's a solid business behind it douchebag. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28"1) Start selling some content in MP3 format in the iTunes store."
I hope you mean non-DRM music. MP3 is a step back in audio quality from AAC. I
"2) Publish the database format for iPods so other music software can be used."
This format is already well known, and Apple shows no sign of going after software that works with iPods without their permission (e.g. Yamipod).
"3) Open the doors for iTunes software to work seamlessly with other stores."
Honestly, why the hell should they?
"4) Make iTunes software for Linux."
Hands up Linux users who want iTunes please. - Keropipi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24You must be joking it has been proven time and time again that AAC is not better than VBR encoded MP3 files.
for example
http://www.xciv.org/~meta/audio-shootout/
"Listening
I auditioned the sample files using Sennheiser HD445 headphones plugged straight into an iBook and a flat panel iMac. Testing two different Macs makes me pretty sure it's not a matter of faulty hardware, and note that I didn't use a "golden ears" high-end audio system--just a decent pair of headphones on a regular Mac.
The results are quite clear to my ears. For the 128kbps files, the LAME-encoded MP3 is the closest to the original, followed closely by the Ogg Vorbis file. The AAC file is truly awful.
I was rather surprised at this, as Vorbis is supposed to be better than MP3. I was also shocked by how bad the AAC file was.
Allowing 160kbps, Ogg Vorbis seems to overtake LAME MP3, in that it requires slightly fewer kbps to achieve a result that isn't glaringly different from the original CD. Both are better than the best iTunes can manage in MP3. AAC at 160kbps is slightly worse than LAME MP3 160kbps, but it's a close thing.
Conclusions
If you care about audio quality and listen to a lot of electronic music, avoid MPEG-4 AAC, particularly if you use bit rates below 160kbps. iTunes MP3 at 160kbps is better than AAC at 128kbps if you can afford the extra file size. If you really want CD quality, you'll need to use Ogg Vorbis or LAME MP3 encoding." - klawz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16AAC sound quality isn't better than MP3 sound quality; What is advantageous to using AAC over MP3 is that AAC files can be smaller in size for the same quality of sound.
BTW, AAC is an open format, however, Apple just uses it more, kinda like Apple used Firewire, more so than others - and of course trademarked the name firewire, even though the same sort of technology is in non-Apple hardware, it too is still an open standard. - PradaPete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15whoever says the word "interoperability" first, loses.
Hell, why do people still wonder Jobs is popular?? Read what awky language other CEOs are using, and what he's using. So of course the public is on his side.
He seems to have the magic touch to take geekiness out of geeky topics.
But of course, he's still part of the system - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@emildew
If you want to split hairs, as explained ITFA, the iPod has a proprietary database format only interoperable with iTunes. Of course iTMS is part of the scheme and its all DRMed to the hilt. I have to hand it to Jobs though. He actually has you all believing that DRM is good as long as its Apple. - knuckles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@ farty
You are clueless yourself:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/en/guide
You can buy DRM free music off dozens of sites (including the now troubled allofmp3) which work fine on the iPod. - BradleyBo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22I'd like to buy Michael Robertson a beer.
- lpmiller, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17why do people assume apple could sell drm free music now? I'm betting part of their agreement with the music mafia is that they in fact cannot sell ANY drm free music, period.
- hungarianhc, on 10/12/2007, -20/+30haha i used to work for robertson - the guy thinks he's some kind of god just because he got lucky and sold mp3.com at its height for millions. He considers himself a visionary. Riiiiiight.
- saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The beauty of all this is steve will pull out his holier than thou and ignore everyone "because he can".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Jobs wants to keep "fair"play because when your ipod breaks (which it will) you will buy another one to still be able to use the music you bought.
- benadamson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Apple will never consider any of Michael Robertson's suggestions. Why you ask?? Because it's all bad business for Apple.
- hotani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Hands up Linux users who want iTunes please."
*holds hand high.... stands on chair..*
Have you tried working with an iPod on linux? One day, and that day may never come, there will be a painless method of organizing files on an iPod with linux. Until then, can we please have iTunes? - serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12iTunes on Linux would require Quicktime on Linux. While definitely within the realm of capability for Apple, what monetary gain would they see by porting QT/iTunes to Linux.
Answer: Probably none.
If Linux makes larger in-roads on the desktop, that would probably change. But right now, the majority of the Linux user base shuns anything that costs $$$, and opts instead for the FOSS solution. This isn't exactly the crowd that you invest money in to infrastructure to sell stuff to. - meepus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I feel like it's safe to say that by this point, Ogg Vorbis has failed to be adopted as a standard by any sizable group of music listeners. How about we all use FLAC and VBR MP3 files instead? Sure, MP3 requires licensing... but it's also supported by EVERYTHING. Unless OGG suddenly becomes as universal as MP3, it won't ever be as useful. There's a reason why people should adopt FLAC though. Lossless audio doesn't get nearly enough attention.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17@drlha
I can't believe you actually think that Jobs is using DRM just to gain leverage against the RIAA. Apple's entire business model, from the mac to iTunes/iPod to the iPhone, is totally based on DRM and would crumble without it. Its insane that people are defending one form of DRM and condemning another in the same breath. - Hercules, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Yea but the Windows port has money in it, and the Linux port won't.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I can't believe you actually think that Jobs is using DRM just to gain leverage against the RIAA"
I'm sorry, where exactly in my post did I say anything about Job's intention? - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Here's my response to DVD Jon:
Can you back up your assertion as to why MS did Zune DRM instead of PlaysForSure?
No? You just said that to bolster your own argument?
At least Jobs stuck to what he actually knows. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It was a way for him to act polite while publicly shouting "put your money where your mouth is!"
- hotani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I would have no problem paying for DRM-free music via the linux version of iTunes. I don't think I'm alone here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"iTunes on Linux would require Quicktime on Linux. While definitely within the realm of capability for Apple, what monetary gain would they see by porting QT/iTunes to Linux."
More people buying music at iTMS? Playing nice with the FOSS community? - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Ok then where can they buy music online from, that will play on the iPod?"
Buy a CD from Amazon. - GALILEE77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm having a really hard time following your logic. If the "apple monopoly" is broken how will that raise the cost of music? You say that record labels wouldn't sign contracts with itunes. I ask you, how would that benefit the labels? If two gas stations open in a town, does the price of gas go up? Of course not. The price goes down because each station wants your business. Do the fuel companies refuse to sell to one of the stations because they can make more selling gas to just one station? No, because having more than one place selling your product will have a greater financial benefit. The only one hurt by the breaking of apple's "monopoly" (your word, not mine) is apple.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Sorry I didn't mean to start a codec flamewar.
However to my ears 128kbps MP3s are not of acceptable quality, whereas 128kbps AAC files are. I'd agree that VBR MP3 files around 160kbps are indistiguishable or better than 128kbps AAC files however.
Oh and AAC is not "Apple's proprietary codec", its a MPEG standard audio format, and the successor of MP3. Its just as open as MP3 is (i.e. sort of). - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -24/+29Here's DVD Jon's reply:
Let's look at the real world outside the Reality Distortion Field:
http://nanocrew.net/2007/02/06/steve-on-licensing-fairplay/
Meanwhile, i[Tunes|Pod| rivals are fuming because Jobs still refuses to simply adds interoperability. Instead, he tosses the blame onto someone else, which is convenient. - daborg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Hands up Linux users who want iTunes please."
I don't want iTunes, I want iTunes DRM to play in Amarok. - sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6These meaning semi-literate, semi-informed rants?
- sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you had half a clue, you'd discern that Jobs is saying that everyone will make more money if DRM goes away.
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@benanzo
Being a domain name squatter is a long way from having any real business acumen. - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"I would like to purchase that song, you only have one choice, that's it, one choice, iTMS anything else is just plain illegal..."
some would argue iTMS and other DRM-laden stores are illegal too. - KirinDave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I dunno why he cares about the specific format. AAC is extremely good and smaller at higher bitrates, which makes it a better archival format, and a better choice for a music download store. There is nothing intrinsic to DRM in AAC, it's just a newer codec.
It's depressing to see somene who obviously doesn't really know what he's talking about try and jump in on a me-too bandwagon, especially when it's the CEO of Linspire. - jlowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You miss the point. Jobs says in his letter that he would go no-drm if he could, but that the labels force him not to.
If 30% of the music on iTMS is not mandated to be protected by DRM, then why does iTMS add that protection layer? If he is serious about no DRM, then apple should put it's money where his mouth is.
This would also benefit them in furthering the argument with the EU that they are forced to keep DRM. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"And if you think Steve will actually change anything until it BENEFITS the company, you are wrong. Apple is about making money now, not about innovating like they used to be"
Thank you Captain Obvious! A business that doesn't make money goes out of..well..business. Innovation means little in the business world if you can't sell it at a profit. - Vanish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3dogmaticatheism: try posting again when your head is screwed on straight and you aren't spouting FUD like a fanboy of an Apple competitor. I'm so sick of the "Apple Fanboy" bashing while everyone ignores fanboys of other companies/products. Yeah, I know. Digg me down. I couldn't care less. I don't care for tripe whether it's from an Apple fanboy, a Windows fanboy or a Linux fanboy. I stopped reading Slashdot to avoid that crap, only to have it infiltrate here.
- lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Well, of course DVD Jon doesn't want an end to DRM, his company Double Twist sells Fairplay related software, which he conveniently didn't disclose."
Agreed. I used to admire DVD Jon (though I didn't know too much about him) because he was fighting for what he thought should be everyone's rights (being able to back up dvds that you own). But opening a company that basically reverse-engineered fairplay so that other companies could put their music on the ipod? How is that for our rights? That's complete greed.
Just goes to show, no one is truely doing anything self-less, everyone is out for themselves. - klawz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm sure I'm not alone, but I am not an iTunes customer just for the very reason there is DRM. If iTunes would remove the DRM, I'd buy from them. Even if they lowered the price per song to 10c with DRM, I'd still now buy it. Opening it up won't hurt them as much as you would like to think.
- October, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4iTunes in linux means linux users can seriously consider an iPod as a *smart* purchase (?) and can also throw a bunch more money away on the crap the itunes store sells just like all the other idiots that think buying music from ITMS is a good idea. Apple wouldn't make any money by porting iTunes? Grow some brain cells to rub together.
That said I think me personally, I'll stick with Amarok and my rockbox hacked Nano. Screw itunes. - tyrione, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are correct that AAC is a standardized format. With that comes ISOs that you either write your encoder/decoder to meet or you don't. If you meet the spec then the AAC files will be read and decoded depending upon the abstraction layer which is DRM. As Steve Jobs eluded to by saying, "remove the DRM," if the DRM is removed then all you have left is the AAC standard.
Regarding Standard/Open:
Licensing and patents
In contrast with the MP3 format, which requires royalty payments on distributed content, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. [7] This reason alone makes AAC a much more attractive format for distributing content, particularly streaming content (such as Internet radio).
However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs. [8] It is for this reason FOSS implementations such as FAAC and FAAD are distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement.
Although AAC requires a patent license, contrary to popular belief, it is not a proprietary format. - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@benazo
In the end, Vivendi couldn't do anything with their purchase, and sold the domain name separate from the other parts of the website's assets. The amount was undisclosed, but I'm pretty sure it was a bundle. Sadly, it was the biggest asset they had in my opinion. - Willie0248, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Punctuation is a wonderful thing.
- October, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
vbr mp3 might sound better than aac from a local source but when it comes to streaming, a 64kbs aacPlus stream will blow away a 128kbs mp3 stream and even a 48kbs aacPlus stream is pretty acceptable. Don't believe me? Try http://somafm.com/ for a couple of channels... the last one, Tag's Trance Trip, offers both, 64kbs aac+ and 128kbs mp3. Get someone to do a blind listen test and switch between them.
Also that "shootout" was so last century. Who REALLY cares about buying audio files at such a low bitrate any more unless you are still on dialup?! If you love music enough to buy hundreds of songs off of iTunes you should probably take a step back, take a deep breath, and really understand what you are doing! You are paying almost a dollar a song for virtual media that is of much lower quality than the original recording (or a CD made from that recording) and is "lossy" to boot meaning that through compression, into your AAC files, you are actually loosing bits of the music (no pun intended), also compression artifacts like false echo, etc. can be created. Why do this? Naive about how and where to buy music? Because all the other kids in school have one?
Usually for a dollar a song I can find the CD of the same music and rip it myself into MUCH higher quality sound files which also have the benefit of being DRM free! Drag and drop them on a non-ipod (in linux even), burn a dozen mix cds for the car, stream them to my living room stereo ( http://www.slimdevices.com/ ) and still have the original CD to look at (love the cover art on those little booklets!) or to rip again in case something happens to my digital collection or if say a new format or hardware comes out down the road. Not only is buying a CD future proofing your music collection but it's doing it at what ever quality YOU want.
If I'm not buying CDs I buy from emusic.com (192kbs mp3 without DRM, second biggest online music file seller just behind iTunes) for about 33 cents a song or better yet, if I can find what I like, I pay somewhere between 50 cents and a dollar a song for truly CD quality FLAC files from http://www.magnatune.com . This is the age of broadband (over half the US now connects with something faster than 56k dialup). Why limit yourself to dialup sized music downloads?
If you listen closely to your music and think that the crappy files you buy from iTunes Music Store sound "good enough" maybe instead of buying music you should be buying better audio equipment instead like real headphones, speakers, etc. and maybe a hearing examination would be warranted too. The only way iTunes makes good monetary sense is if you live in a cave with 28.8kbs dialup and never plan to drive to a store that sells compact discs. - Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple can keep prices low only because they hold the leverage, the moment they lose their power,the labels balk at them and yank their tunes off of itunes for other stores that sell it at higher prices.. This isn't complex people.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is