Comments on: Isn’t Apple A Closet Monopolist, Just Like Microsoft? http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html I've been observing personal computing behavior for a long time, and now I have some things to say. Here are my two cents about computing, music, software, and related topics. Mon, 04 May 2026 12:49:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Kolbeinn http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-18 Kolbeinn Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:01:28 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-18 Ok check this out. Apple wants to make good products for the costumers and to do that they have to make money to be able to design and produce the products. When they have got the money to make the products and have manufactured them they have to sell them so that they can get proffit which is then used to further develop the products so that the customer does not feel stagnation with the companys products. Somehow apple has to make money from the products that it makes. Customers cant just expect apple to keep making great products if they sales are not good. Having saidt that, apple needs to find a way to insure a proffit and the best way is to link itunes with ipod as they have done. Basicly what they are saying is: Ok we want to make good products for you but if we are to keep on making them we ask you to play by our simple "rules" that are only put on for the customers sake. It is good for the customers that apple has somekind of restrictions on its products. If not then apple would perphaps not be going so well which would lead to worse products. Has everyone forgotten about the apple emulators that almost put apple under. Apple then bought the apple emulator companys and restricted its operation system to apple computers and look what fine products we have today? b.t.w. sorry about the spelling ;) (icelandic) Ok check this out. Apple wants to make good products for the costumers and to do that they have to make money to be able to design and produce the products. When they have got the money to make the products and have manufactured them they have to sell them so that they can get proffit which is then used to further develop the products so that the customer does not feel stagnation with the companys products.

Somehow apple has to make money from the products that it makes. Customers cant just expect apple to keep making great products if they sales are not good. Having saidt that, apple needs to find a way to insure a proffit and the best way is to link itunes with ipod as they have done.

Basicly what they are saying is: Ok we want to make good products for you but if we are to keep on making them we ask you to play by our simple “rules” that are only put on for the customers sake.

It is good for the customers that apple has somekind of restrictions on its products. If not then apple would perphaps not be going so well which would lead to worse products. Has everyone forgotten about the apple emulators that almost put apple under. Apple then bought the apple emulator companys and restricted its operation system to apple computers and look what fine products we have today?

b.t.w. sorry about the spelling ;) (icelandic)

]]> By: Klaatu http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-8 Klaatu Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-8 In the interests of accuracy you should make a small correction in this commentary. In the file formats you list the Creative Zen as supporting WAV, then you say you "get no high-quality audio options." WAV is the Windows version of AIFF so the Creative Zen does support one audio codec that is CD quality. <BR/><BR/>Other than that one small item I thought this was a great article. It is sad how a media organization like TIME magazine simply cannot get this stuff right. I do hope you've sent this to the writer. In the interests of accuracy you should make a small correction in this commentary. In the file formats you list the Creative Zen as supporting WAV, then you say you “get no high-quality audio options.” WAV is the Windows version of AIFF so the Creative Zen does support one audio codec that is CD quality.

Other than that one small item I thought this was a great article. It is sad how a media organization like TIME magazine simply cannot get this stuff right. I do hope you’ve sent this to the writer.

]]> By: mgrooves http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-9 mgrooves Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-9 Nice piece. But you're falling short on your point that "iPod users do not have to use the iTunes music store to buy their music." <BR/><BR/>While it's true that people who own iPods can rip their own CDs and move that music to an iPod, or choose to download music for free via file-sharing services, their only option for purchasing music downloads from the other leading online music services is, in fact, the iTunes Music Store. <BR/><BR/>This is because Apple's iPod doesn't support playback of WMA files (as sold by Napster, MusicMatch, et al) and because the company has thus far refused to let anyone else license their DRM and sell songs wrapped in Apple's FairPlay DRM. <BR/><BR/>The issue is NOT whether Apple's file format is proprietary --it's not-- but whether their DRM is. Which it is. You don't have to like it, but it's true. <BR/><BR/>Yes, people who purchase downloads from other online music stores have the option of burning those songs to CD, then re-ripping those CDs into MP3 format, but big lesson here is: if you want to purchase a legal music download of major label music online (which by default means it will be copy-protected) and transfer the download directly to your iPod, with no extra steps, then your only option is buying music at the iTunes Music Store.*<BR/><BR/>Matt<BR/><BR/>* (Last summer, RealNetworks introduced a technology, dubbed Harmony, that enabled consumers who purchased music from its RealPlayer Music Store to transfer music purchased from its RealPlayer Music Store directly to the iPod. This gave iPod owners another option for where to shop for downloads. Real did this without Apple's permission, and the company subsequently--and petulantly--disabled Harmony.) Nice piece. But you’re falling short on your point that “iPod users do not have to use the iTunes music store to buy their music.”

While it’s true that people who own iPods can rip their own CDs and move that music to an iPod, or choose to download music for free via file-sharing services, their only option for purchasing music downloads from the other leading online music services is, in fact, the iTunes Music Store.

This is because Apple’s iPod doesn’t support playback of WMA files (as sold by Napster, MusicMatch, et al) and because the company has thus far refused to let anyone else license their DRM and sell songs wrapped in Apple’s FairPlay DRM.

The issue is NOT whether Apple’s file format is proprietary –it’s not– but whether their DRM is. Which it is. You don’t have to like it, but it’s true.

Yes, people who purchase downloads from other online music stores have the option of burning those songs to CD, then re-ripping those CDs into MP3 format, but big lesson here is: if you want to purchase a legal music download of major label music online (which by default means it will be copy-protected) and transfer the download directly to your iPod, with no extra steps, then your only option is buying music at the iTunes Music Store.*

Matt

* (Last summer, RealNetworks introduced a technology, dubbed Harmony, that enabled consumers who purchased music from its RealPlayer Music Store to transfer music purchased from its RealPlayer Music Store directly to the iPod. This gave iPod owners another option for where to shop for downloads. Real did this without Apple’s permission, and the company subsequently–and petulantly–disabled Harmony.)

]]> By: 7over http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-10 7over Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-10 Great article. Loved your commentary. As a happy iPod / mac user I'm all for Apple continuing to make the experience as great as they possibly can. <BR/><BR/>Even if Apple did license WMA from Microsoft, that would not "free the iPod" from iTunes. Apple's near flawless integration of the iPod with iTunes is the secret ingredient to the iPod's success. Expecting Rhapsody or Sony's music sites to integrate as seamslessly with the iPod as iTunes does is a hollow hope. Apple needs to control the entire process to keep the user experience top notch, keep the record companies happy and enable Apple to plugg holes as hackers create or exploit them. <BR/>Allowing someone else to make softare that integrates with the iPod would greatly lessen the whole iPod/iTunes experience and end up devaluing the iPod. <BR/><BR/>Allowing Fairplay to work on the competitions mp3 players would not be a good move for Apple either. Apple makes its money from selling the iPod, not from the songs downloaded from the iTunes store. Licensing Fairplay and allowing the integration of other mp3 players into iTunes would only help the competition eat into iPod sales and reduce Apples profit margins. Which of course would not be good for Apple or its stock holders (to whom Apple is ultimately responsible). Great article. Loved your commentary. As a happy iPod / mac user I’m all for Apple continuing to make the experience as great as they possibly can.

Even if Apple did license WMA from Microsoft, that would not “free the iPod” from iTunes. Apple’s near flawless integration of the iPod with iTunes is the secret ingredient to the iPod’s success. Expecting Rhapsody or Sony’s music sites to integrate as seamslessly with the iPod as iTunes does is a hollow hope. Apple needs to control the entire process to keep the user experience top notch, keep the record companies happy and enable Apple to plugg holes as hackers create or exploit them.
Allowing someone else to make softare that integrates with the iPod would greatly lessen the whole iPod/iTunes experience and end up devaluing the iPod.

Allowing Fairplay to work on the competitions mp3 players would not be a good move for Apple either. Apple makes its money from selling the iPod, not from the songs downloaded from the iTunes store. Licensing Fairplay and allowing the integration of other mp3 players into iTunes would only help the competition eat into iPod sales and reduce Apples profit margins. Which of course would not be good for Apple or its stock holders (to whom Apple is ultimately responsible).

]]> By: Dak http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-11 Dak Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-11 I'm sorry, but I fully disagree with the second commenter about being tied to the iTunes music store. As an iPod user myself, I have purchased music from 3 different music stores, burned music to CDs, and re-imported them into iTunes to put on my iPod. Plus, I have a significant collection of music CDs I import and put on my iPod. I can purchase them at any time from any music store in my shopping mall or local stores. I am in no way soley tied to the iTunes Music Store. Now if you say "That's too many steps (or hoops) to go through," I say you're full of it. It is completely rediculous to think that 3 simple steps are "Too much work". You're just lazy if you think that. It serves 3 purposes. 1) I backs up the music I purchase so I have a hard copy version if I ever lose my PC hard drive. 2) It allows me to put the music on the top MP3 player, the iPod, easily, without need for special conversion software to rip out the other DRM. When you burn the music to a CD, it removes the DRM automatically. And finally, 3) I have my music all organized on the best (in my opinion) Music player around, iTunes. <BR/><BR/>So exactly *how* am I "tied" to the iTunes Music Store? I’m sorry, but I fully disagree with the second commenter about being tied to the iTunes music store. As an iPod user myself, I have purchased music from 3 different music stores, burned music to CDs, and re-imported them into iTunes to put on my iPod. Plus, I have a significant collection of music CDs I import and put on my iPod. I can purchase them at any time from any music store in my shopping mall or local stores. I am in no way soley tied to the iTunes Music Store. Now if you say “That’s too many steps (or hoops) to go through,” I say you’re full of it. It is completely rediculous to think that 3 simple steps are “Too much work”. You’re just lazy if you think that. It serves 3 purposes. 1) I backs up the music I purchase so I have a hard copy version if I ever lose my PC hard drive. 2) It allows me to put the music on the top MP3 player, the iPod, easily, without need for special conversion software to rip out the other DRM. When you burn the music to a CD, it removes the DRM automatically. And finally, 3) I have my music all organized on the best (in my opinion) Music player around, iTunes.

So exactly *how* am I “tied” to the iTunes Music Store?

]]> By: Sean DALY http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-12 Sean DALY Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-12 Great piece - thank you.<BR/>I'd just like to add some precisions concerning formats. To better understand audio formats, it's necessary to follow their big brothers, the video formats.<BR/><BR/>In point of fact, Microsoft's RIFF file format - better known in its popular manifestations WMA, WMV, ASF, AVI, WAV - is EXACTLY comparable to the Apple QuickTime format - It's a _container_. You put whatever audio or video or interactive-interface codec the container owner permits... in both Microsft RIFF and Apple QuickTime. In fact, both containers are very flexible and scalable: PCM (uncompressed) audio is IDENTICAL in both formats, just like uncompressed video... it just so happens that serious multimedia work is done on Macs because of their harware/OS advantages, in particular memory management. Which didn't slow down Digidesign, maker of the ProTools pro multitrack audio systems I often use, from choosing RIFF WAV as a container for ridiculously high quality audio (think 192 kHz 24-bit sampling rates).<BR/><BR/>There are many, many codecs and audiovisual standards, but the only ones that matter are MPEG:<BR/><BR/>* MPEG-1= VideoCD, SuperVideoCD, institutional databases such as mine at work (22,000 videos)... and Chapters (or Layers) 2 and 3 for audio... this last known as MP3<BR/><BR/>* MPEG-2= First-generation DVD, TV over ADSL, much improved over MPEG-1 but nearly always requiring hardware assistance for playback<BR/><BR/>* MPEG-3= Abandoned, among other reasons because the public called MPEG-1 Layer 3 "MP3" and the committee feared confusion<BR/><BR/>* MPEG-4= Today's - AND tomorrow's standard. Chapter 2, Simple Profile and Advanced Simple Profile, is familiar to everyone from the Microsoft hack version and the DivX hack of the Microsoft hack version. An improvement over MPEG-2 video especially in terms of scalability, but not a revolution nevertheless. Chapter 3, Audio, goes by the name of AAC (and every time I read a misinformed journalist referring to AAC as proprietary, I get riled). The reasons MPEG-4 is a very great standard is that it is flexible, and designed to be amended & improved over time... which happened just last year: a new chapter was added, Chapter 10: Advanced Video Coding (AVC) which, as a joint project with the ITU, is also known by its ITU handle, H.264. The qualiy of this codec is stupefying.<BR/><BR/>If anyone seeks the evidence of Microsoft's evil intent and Apple's fair play concerning codecs and containers, it is sufficient to study their actions concerning the MPEG-4 AVC / H.264 standard which has been universally adopted by the audiovisual industry - in particular for second-gen DVDs - with ONE exception...Microsoft. They were furious when the MPEG committee chose Apple QuickTime as the official technical platform for MPEG-4 AVC / H.264, after the successful real-world tests of the Sorenson Spark codec which was none other than a pre-version of this standard. Microsoft wants the the Windows PC to be the center of a home entertainment system (as if Windows was stable & secure enough for that - a Linux job if there ever was one) and so is pushing their own codec, VC-1... which they "donated" to the SMPTE committee expecting quick ratification, but only managed to enrage AV professionnals who swear by serious MPEG standards.<BR/><BR/>Here's the catch: very shortly, Apple will release version 10.4 of OSX ("Tiger"), which will contain QuickTime 7, which will contain - you guessed it - the first widely available MPEG-4 AVC /H.264 codec for personal computers (Apple calls it "H.264" to avoid confusion with the earlier MPEG-4 Chapter 3 standard). Microsoft is so upset about it, they have refused to even work on providing a codec for Windows Media... proving to AV professionnals around the world that they cannot be trusted, while Apple is supporting open standards. (I should add here that although the standard is open, it is not free; royalties are paid to patent holders, in a complex scheme; in fact, it is estimated that approximately $20 of every Apple OSX license goes to the Fraunhofer Institute for MP3 royalties).<BR/><BR/>So to sum up... the container system for audiovisual content, with standard file formats, is a Good Thing... what bears inspection is how the consumer is left with flexibility and choices (MPEG standards) or deadend lockup (proprietary Microsoft standards)<BR/><BR/>Sean Daly Great piece - thank you.
I’d just like to add some precisions concerning formats. To better understand audio formats, it’s necessary to follow their big brothers, the video formats.

In point of fact, Microsoft’s RIFF file format - better known in its popular manifestations WMA, WMV, ASF, AVI, WAV - is EXACTLY comparable to the Apple QuickTime format - It’s a _container_. You put whatever audio or video or interactive-interface codec the container owner permits… in both Microsft RIFF and Apple QuickTime. In fact, both containers are very flexible and scalable: PCM (uncompressed) audio is IDENTICAL in both formats, just like uncompressed video… it just so happens that serious multimedia work is done on Macs because of their harware/OS advantages, in particular memory management. Which didn’t slow down Digidesign, maker of the ProTools pro multitrack audio systems I often use, from choosing RIFF WAV as a container for ridiculously high quality audio (think 192 kHz 24-bit sampling rates).

There are many, many codecs and audiovisual standards, but the only ones that matter are MPEG:

* MPEG-1= VideoCD, SuperVideoCD, institutional databases such as mine at work (22,000 videos)… and Chapters (or Layers) 2 and 3 for audio… this last known as MP3

* MPEG-2= First-generation DVD, TV over ADSL, much improved over MPEG-1 but nearly always requiring hardware assistance for playback

* MPEG-3= Abandoned, among other reasons because the public called MPEG-1 Layer 3 “MP3″ and the committee feared confusion

* MPEG-4= Today’s - AND tomorrow’s standard. Chapter 2, Simple Profile and Advanced Simple Profile, is familiar to everyone from the Microsoft hack version and the DivX hack of the Microsoft hack version. An improvement over MPEG-2 video especially in terms of scalability, but not a revolution nevertheless. Chapter 3, Audio, goes by the name of AAC (and every time I read a misinformed journalist referring to AAC as proprietary, I get riled). The reasons MPEG-4 is a very great standard is that it is flexible, and designed to be amended & improved over time… which happened just last year: a new chapter was added, Chapter 10: Advanced Video Coding (AVC) which, as a joint project with the ITU, is also known by its ITU handle, H.264. The qualiy of this codec is stupefying.

If anyone seeks the evidence of Microsoft’s evil intent and Apple’s fair play concerning codecs and containers, it is sufficient to study their actions concerning the MPEG-4 AVC / H.264 standard which has been universally adopted by the audiovisual industry - in particular for second-gen DVDs - with ONE exception…Microsoft. They were furious when the MPEG committee chose Apple QuickTime as the official technical platform for MPEG-4 AVC / H.264, after the successful real-world tests of the Sorenson Spark codec which was none other than a pre-version of this standard. Microsoft wants the the Windows PC to be the center of a home entertainment system (as if Windows was stable & secure enough for that - a Linux job if there ever was one) and so is pushing their own codec, VC-1… which they “donated” to the SMPTE committee expecting quick ratification, but only managed to enrage AV professionnals who swear by serious MPEG standards.

Here’s the catch: very shortly, Apple will release version 10.4 of OSX (”Tiger”), which will contain QuickTime 7, which will contain - you guessed it - the first widely available MPEG-4 AVC /H.264 codec for personal computers (Apple calls it “H.264″ to avoid confusion with the earlier MPEG-4 Chapter 3 standard). Microsoft is so upset about it, they have refused to even work on providing a codec for Windows Media… proving to AV professionnals around the world that they cannot be trusted, while Apple is supporting open standards. (I should add here that although the standard is open, it is not free; royalties are paid to patent holders, in a complex scheme; in fact, it is estimated that approximately $20 of every Apple OSX license goes to the Fraunhofer Institute for MP3 royalties).

So to sum up… the container system for audiovisual content, with standard file formats, is a Good Thing… what bears inspection is how the consumer is left with flexibility and choices (MPEG standards) or deadend lockup (proprietary Microsoft standards)

Sean Daly

]]> By: Franki http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-13 Franki Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-13 Its a shame that the ogg format isn't supported by more devices. It might not be the technically superior to the others, but it isn't far behind if at all. (and it's much better then MP3) www.vorbis.com Patent free, cost free. I notice Real are adding ogg format to their player (for Linux at least)<BR/><BR/>If these hardware makers really wanted to make more profit and have more interoperability, they would work on plug-in DRM facilities for Ogg.<BR/><BR/>I saw a news article recently to the effect that the us government are looking into forcing compatibility with DRM schemes.. as long as they don't settle with Microsoft, and the solution they find is not overburdened by patents and such then I'm happy. Though I'd rather see them do it by offering incentives to makers rather then forcing it on them.<BR/><BR/>rgds<BR/><BR/>Franki Its a shame that the ogg format isn’t supported by more devices. It might not be the technically superior to the others, but it isn’t far behind if at all. (and it’s much better then MP3) http://www.vorbis.com Patent free, cost free. I notice Real are adding ogg format to their player (for Linux at least)

If these hardware makers really wanted to make more profit and have more interoperability, they would work on plug-in DRM facilities for Ogg.

I saw a news article recently to the effect that the us government are looking into forcing compatibility with DRM schemes.. as long as they don’t settle with Microsoft, and the solution they find is not overburdened by patents and such then I’m happy. Though I’d rather see them do it by offering incentives to makers rather then forcing it on them.

rgds

Franki

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-14 Anonymous Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-14 I have to agree with mgrooves, the point here is the DRM not the audio format. If you want to sell music from big labels today you need DRM or you won't strike a deal. Since Apple won't license the DRM only Apple can sell DRM-protected music to iPod users, and that is the monopoly part of it. Basically Microsoft, Real, Napster etc. are unable to sell DRM-protected music (i.e. music from big labels) to iPod users due to Apple's DRM (non-)-licensing policy. I'm not saying Microsoft is any better, though.<BR/><BR/>The article states: "The only format it can't play is WMA... probably because Apple refuses to license an inferior audio technology (which WMA demostrably is) from its competitor, Microsoft."<BR/><BR/>I don't think that is the reason. I think Apple know very well that as long as they do not license their DRM for AAC and do NOT support the WMA (with its DRM), then only Apple can sell DRM-protected music to iPod users. And I think that is the reason they didn't include WMA support. It makes good sense from a business perspective if you think you have a killer product.<BR/><BR/>A few other comments: Ogg Vorbis---a widely used audio format which is completely royalty free---is apparently not supported by the iPod.<BR/><BR/>The article states: "Compression always removes information from a file".<BR/><BR/>Not necessarily. There are lossless formats that use compression (.flac comes to mind). Zip and RAR are examples of lossless compression as well. I have to agree with mgrooves, the point here is the DRM not the audio format. If you want to sell music from big labels today you need DRM or you won’t strike a deal. Since Apple won’t license the DRM only Apple can sell DRM-protected music to iPod users, and that is the monopoly part of it. Basically Microsoft, Real, Napster etc. are unable to sell DRM-protected music (i.e. music from big labels) to iPod users due to Apple’s DRM (non-)-licensing policy. I’m not saying Microsoft is any better, though.

The article states: “The only format it can’t play is WMA… probably because Apple refuses to license an inferior audio technology (which WMA demostrably is) from its competitor, Microsoft.”

I don’t think that is the reason. I think Apple know very well that as long as they do not license their DRM for AAC and do NOT support the WMA (with its DRM), then only Apple can sell DRM-protected music to iPod users. And I think that is the reason they didn’t include WMA support. It makes good sense from a business perspective if you think you have a killer product.

A few other comments: Ogg Vorbis—a widely used audio format which is completely royalty free—is apparently not supported by the iPod.

The article states: “Compression always removes information from a file”.

Not necessarily. There are lossless formats that use compression (.flac comes to mind). Zip and RAR are examples of lossless compression as well.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-15 Anonymous Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-15 You wrote:<BR/>>>(Idea for future essay: If consumers had actually been given a choice between an IBM PC and a Macintosh back in 1984, would the PC have had a chance in hell?)<BR/><<<BR/>My first Mac was the Macintosh 128k. Guess when it was released? That's right, January 1984.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.apple-history.com/" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Apple History<BR/></A><BR/>Sorry to nitpick, I do mostly agree with the points you make in your article. You wrote:
>>(Idea for future essay: If consumers had actually been given a choice between an IBM PC and a Macintosh back in 1984, would the PC have had a chance in hell?)
< <
My first Mac was the Macintosh 128k. Guess when it was released? That’s right, January 1984.

Apple History

Sorry to nitpick, I do mostly agree with the points you make in your article.

]]> By: Leland Scott http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-16 Leland Scott Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-16 I want to thank those of you who have left comments with constructive criticisms of the technical accuracy of my article. I am by no means an expert on digital audio formats and though I did some research before writing it, I obviously made some mistakes, which I'll correct shortly. In particular, thanks to Klaatu for the information on WAV and to Sean Daly for the seriously great lesson on the history and interrelationships among these various digital formats.<BR/><BR/>The commenter who points out that compression doesn't necessarily remove information is also correct. Most kinds of digital files have some "meaningless" information which can be removed without degrading the "meaning" of the original. I should make clear that what I mean is the formats that are currently available for download from the various online music stores... all of these involve degradation of the audio "meaning."<BR/><BR/>As a relative neophyte in the technical architecture of digital audio, I have heard of Ogg Vorbis and am aware that it has a large fan base. If I were one of those fans, I'd certainly be clamoring for Apple to support the format on the iPod. Since it's a free, open format that wouldn't cost Apple anything to support (other than a little up-front development time), I don't see why they wouldn't let customers convert files to Ogg Vorbis within iTunes, or at least allow iTunes to read and play Ogg Vorbis files for synching with the iPod.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the issue of Apple's proprietary DRM is certainly a sticking point, and I waver on my opinion of which way Apple should go with this. Most of the time, I come back to the view that Apple should go ahead and license Fairplay to the other download stores and device manufacturers. Why? Well, Apple has the market pretty much sewn up now, with the iPod and the formats it supports being the defacto standards. I don't think Apple risks losing much market share to other device manufacturers that can incorporate support for iTunes-music-store AAC files into their players. And with respect to the online music stores, I think you'd see a veritable stampede of support for Fairplay AAC from those vendors. After all, some of them actually ARE in the business to sell music (rather than to sell an mp3 player), so why not go for where most of their customers are... in iPods?<BR/><BR/>The risk for Apple in this latter scenario is that iPod customers might not have the same wonderful synching experience they now enjoy with iTunes. However, I suspect that iPod customers who decide to buy from Walmart would instead just like to import their new songs into iTunes rather than use whatever clumsy software Walmart provides (Oh, is that the Windows Media Player?) <BR/><BR/>By licensing Fairplay, it's my belief that Apple would effectively lock up their current advantage in the market and block WMA from ever taking hold. Notice that what I'm not advocating is that Apple start supporting WMA on the iPod. I do think that would be a big mistake. I want to thank those of you who have left comments with constructive criticisms of the technical accuracy of my article. I am by no means an expert on digital audio formats and though I did some research before writing it, I obviously made some mistakes, which I’ll correct shortly. In particular, thanks to Klaatu for the information on WAV and to Sean Daly for the seriously great lesson on the history and interrelationships among these various digital formats.

The commenter who points out that compression doesn’t necessarily remove information is also correct. Most kinds of digital files have some “meaningless” information which can be removed without degrading the “meaning” of the original. I should make clear that what I mean is the formats that are currently available for download from the various online music stores… all of these involve degradation of the audio “meaning.”

As a relative neophyte in the technical architecture of digital audio, I have heard of Ogg Vorbis and am aware that it has a large fan base. If I were one of those fans, I’d certainly be clamoring for Apple to support the format on the iPod. Since it’s a free, open format that wouldn’t cost Apple anything to support (other than a little up-front development time), I don’t see why they wouldn’t let customers convert files to Ogg Vorbis within iTunes, or at least allow iTunes to read and play Ogg Vorbis files for synching with the iPod.

Finally, the issue of Apple’s proprietary DRM is certainly a sticking point, and I waver on my opinion of which way Apple should go with this. Most of the time, I come back to the view that Apple should go ahead and license Fairplay to the other download stores and device manufacturers. Why? Well, Apple has the market pretty much sewn up now, with the iPod and the formats it supports being the defacto standards. I don’t think Apple risks losing much market share to other device manufacturers that can incorporate support for iTunes-music-store AAC files into their players. And with respect to the online music stores, I think you’d see a veritable stampede of support for Fairplay AAC from those vendors. After all, some of them actually ARE in the business to sell music (rather than to sell an mp3 player), so why not go for where most of their customers are… in iPods?

The risk for Apple in this latter scenario is that iPod customers might not have the same wonderful synching experience they now enjoy with iTunes. However, I suspect that iPod customers who decide to buy from Walmart would instead just like to import their new songs into iTunes rather than use whatever clumsy software Walmart provides (Oh, is that the Windows Media Player?)

By licensing Fairplay, it’s my belief that Apple would effectively lock up their current advantage in the market and block WMA from ever taking hold. Notice that what I’m not advocating is that Apple start supporting WMA on the iPod. I do think that would be a big mistake.

]]> By: Leland Scott http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-17 Leland Scott Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.musingsfrommars.org/2005/04/isnt-apple-closet-monopolist-just-like.html#comment-17 Very quickly... to anonymous about when the Mac was first released... I think you're missing my point. Yes, the Mac was released in 1984, but even at that early date, it was entering a marketplace already dominated by the IBM PC. And the market then was primarily businesses, who didn't see the value in a graphical user interface at all. If only they could have seen the future, which was sitting right there in that beautiful little machine Apple called a Macintosh. Very quickly… to anonymous about when the Mac was first released… I think you’re missing my point. Yes, the Mac was released in 1984, but even at that early date, it was entering a marketplace already dominated by the IBM PC. And the market then was primarily businesses, who didn’t see the value in a graphical user interface at all. If only they could have seen the future, which was sitting right there in that beautiful little machine Apple called a Macintosh.

]]>