skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The war is going public. For the past few years the iTMS has been the far and away winner of the authorized digital music stores. There are several reasons for this, not least of which is runaway iPod sales. But Apple CEO Steve Jobs has consistently said his store's success is also based on generous use rights and the simple dollar-a-track price point. Now that the iTMS has established itself as a legitimate music purchasing outlet, a few labels are a little disgruntled. In the midst of renegotiating with the record companies, Jobs last week made the rift more public, stating that the music industry is getting greedy if they want to raise prices.
This didn't sit well with Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman who last Thursday shot back at Jobs, stating that no content industry has uniform pricing. As if he's a bastion of artist representation, he stated that such pricing schemes are unfair to artists and consumers. The dishonesty of his position is pretty clear: even if back catalog songs floated to less than a dollar, hiking prices on popular songs would really be a boon to the copyright holder (the record labels) but only would minimally impact the creator (the artist). Consumers, obviously, would also be left with higher prices on the songs they want most.
Even more incredible was Bronfman's statement about revenue streams. While the music industry has a right to seek more ways to monetize their intellectual property, do they genuinely believe they deserve a piece of the hardware market? Bronfman, dizzy from his sense of entitlement, says:
We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue. We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only. We have to keep thinking how we are going to monetize our product for our shareholders. We are the arms supplier in the device wars between Samsung, Sony, Apple, and others.
With that kind of logic, the music industry could ask for kickbacks from Ford or Bose or any other company that includes a product to reproduce music. And if the music industry is entitled, why not software companies? In that case Microsoft certainly deserves a kickback from any company that builds an application on top of Windows.
I'm sorry Mr. Bronfman, but music is not a highway. You can't just erect toll plazas because your product is used in ways that don't directly benefit your bottom line. Instead of trying to nickel and dime every last piece of potential revenue, you should focus on your business: publishing music.
I'm a big fan of my .mac account. Yeah, I know, it's a lot of money to pay for a vanity email address when you can get them for free all over the web. And I also realize the free ones frequently come with larger storage space. Yeah, I've got my gig-sized Yahoo and Gmail accounts but something skeeves me about the latter scanning my messages to target their ads to me.
But despite the "free" stuff, there are limitations that don't work well for me. I want to be able to use a desktop email client because searching, opening multiple messages (and composing multiples as well), and overall presentation don't cut it on web-only mail. And while Gmail gives you POP access for free (Yahoo only provides it for Plus customers), neither service has IMAP. That's a key for me since I have at least 3 places where I check my email regularly. I'll pony up the $100 per year so I can get to my mail using Mac mail or Outlook.
But my big problem with .Mac was storage... It's good to clear our mailbox out, saving those attachments out to your computer for instance. However it defeats the purpose of IMAP and limits the effectiveness of Spotlight (since I have 2 macs with different data sets on each). But thankfully I got the following email from Apple last week:
Dear .Mac Member,
.Mac membership now comes with 1 GB of combined .Mac Mail and iDisk storage and monthly data transfer limits have been increased to 10 GB. We have already updated your account. You can use your Account Settings to take advantage of .Mac's storage flexibility and reallocate storage to best fit the way you use the service.
In addition, .Mac is now available in French and German as well as in English and Japanese. You'll also find that .Mac now includes new Backup 3 software and the ability to create .Mac Groups.
We value your membership and hope you enjoy these enhancements to your .Mac service.
Way to increase value, Apple. Kudos for helping make me a more effective emailer...
So there's been a lot of chatter this year about internal Microsoft problems. Several high profile employees have left the organization, some to arch-rival Google, and there have been comments all around about low morale over in Redmond. Well it looks like Microsoft is listening and announced that they will be reorganizing the company. Three divisions have been created with their own presidents: the platform group, the business group, and the entertainment group.
I have to say I'm impressed. As a long time Microsoft customer, I've been frustrated with the integration issues Microsoft has faced for key products like SQL Server, causing big delays and missed product launches. With more autonomy, hopefully each unit will be able to execute more effectively and bring promised features to their products on time.
My cynical side is telling me, "Oh great, big bloated company is trying to appear more nimble." Time will tell whether this is a legitimate change that brings better execution or masks the problems a little better...
My big question: where does Microsoft Office fit? Nothing in the press release or over at Scobelizer mentions it specifically even though it commands quite a large share of the revenue pie...
It's funny how Mac (and now iPod) users get the word "zealot" attached to their name the moment they express their appreciation for Apple products. These detractors seem to feel that computers only provide the most basic utilitarian purposes, with no flair or thoughtful design necessary. They think all you need for a good computer is a bunch of top end components tossed in a beige or the newbeige (you know, black) box. "My machine cost a third of your crApple and runs faster too, man."
But computers have crossed over into mainstream long ago. These aren't microwaves or refrigerators; computers are lifestyle items that deserve vanity status and Apple has become successful because they positioned their hardware as such. Do you think car manufacturers just toss together components and put them into a shell for driving you to the grocery store? No, they design them with flair, have big events to show off their latest model, host conventions to get feedback on prototypes... Computers aren't any different and the joy of getting a new piece of equipment matters.
I was amused by this Wired article entitled "Meet the Apple Pack Rats" discussing the phenomenon of Apple customers keeping all the packaging that their equipment and software came in (not to mention photographing them as art pieces). I've noticed this for years, from my brother-in-law holding onto his iBook box until he moved overseas to other Mac fans who quietly store the boxes in a closet or under a desk. It's not just a container that protects the product from damage and enables shipping, but a piece of design work. Yes, it's just a bunch of cardboard or Styrofoam but a team of people created it with the specific intent to immerse you into Apple's world.
From the moment I started my trek home from work with my first "trend Mac", an iBook G3, I noticed I was fast becoming a part of this world. I say "trend Mac" to describe anything after the original iMac and "Yosemite" Powermac debuts, where form became an integral part of the Mac design process. (My Powermac 7100 was as stodgy as anyone else's box back in the day.) But oh all the stares I got on the subway with my iBook in my hands. Furtive glances, knowing nods, and outright stares... It heightened the anticipation of tearing into it and starting it up.
Funny, though, because when I got home I started obsessing about the little touches Apple put in. Opening the box was a revelation; Apple tantalizes you with the components right on top, like the color matched phone cord or the power brick's wonderful cord management feature. It's as if Apple designers went to a strip club and watched a sultry dancer slowly, tantalizingly removing an article of clothing at a time. By the time you pull the actual notebook out, you are simply hooked.
That experience made me hold onto the box. I had to explain to my wife that it's normal, that even her brother kept his box despite his almost transient lifestyle. And that she had 40 odd pairs of shoes which I rarely mention in complaint. I think a part of me enjoys the fact that Apple cared enough to make the unveiling of their equipment important. It's almost fetishistic, but it's not all that extreme; the love affairs men express for their cars or motorcycles can make an Apple user seem indifferent to their prized PowerBook or Mighty Mouse.
I've since bought other Apple equipment and software. A scroll-wheel iPod, iLife '04 and '05, Mac OS X Panther and Tiger, iMac G5, and most recently my own Mighty Mouse. I have all the boxes, not necessarily organized, but never discarded. Including one my wife won't throw away: her iPod's box. Why? Because now she's been immersed too. Her iPod is lovingly named "totoro" (complete with engraving), after the wonderful movie made by Studio Ghibli. And once you're hooked, the box is part of the experience...
Pedophiles deserve no regard. Their actions endanger children and those abused kids can grow up scarred for their entire lives. Few things in this world are as damaging to humans as pedophilia. They deserve our derision, our disgust, and our jail cells. Our laws should be used to their fullest extent to ferret out child predators so that they may not harm innocent lives.
But the phrase "fullest extent" means we still have to follow the rule of law. And the US rule of law requires some specifics, including obtaining warrants and limiting search and seizure. This system wasn't created as a haven for pedophiles; it was created to protect the People's interests. The Fourth Amendment guarantees us specific freedoms and an expectation that our embarrassing foibles don't become the interest of our government, even if those behaviors happen to be unlawful.
And while I have nothing but contempt for pedophiles, I find myself supporting an accused one. Out in Washington the case of State vs Westbrook is being litigated. The case involves the government being tipped by a computer technician working on the defendant's computer; the tech's company contacted the police after discovering child pornography. The police viewed the material and then sought a warrant to seize the computer.
And while the child porn is sickening to read about, the bigger issue is this: do you give up your right to privacy the moment that hand your personal equipment to a service technician? The EFF believes that you retain that right and has written an amicus brief in this case. I fully support their contention as our personal computers reflect us in very profound and meaningful ways. Much more so than library records, credit card statements, and even medical records. Email, IM, websurfing habits, and online purchasing can provide a rather complete picture of the kind of person you are.
Privacy rights are codified in US law and are an important part of having a free society. Just as the police can't conduct a full search of your house without reason, it's imperative that technicians honor your private property. Do you really want a tech rifling through your personal files just because you couldn't fix your own computer? Are techs supposed to be extensions of the police or FBI, minus the legal restrictions that limit those authorities' power?
Regardless of the pedophile subject in this case, a chilling effect will be seen if this sort of activity is permitted. But for any of you that are as cynical as me, that just means you should encrypt, encrypt, encrypt. In fact, do it now, because you won't be able to do much about it by the time your equipment breaks. Hopefully the courts will reaffirm this principle but thankfully computers come with locks that are stronger than the ones protecting your house or car...
Hey look at that: a NYTimes piece about the box office slump where they didn't claim copyright infringement was to blame. And even better, it comes up with some interesting points as to why the box office isn't bringing in the masses like they have in years past. I think it chronicles many of the reasons why I am loathe to visit the cinemas these days.
The last movie that got me to ante up $20 (I never go to the movies alone) was Batman Begins, a blockbuster that still manages to be a good film. But that's been an exception over the past few years. Let's face it, there's little to be excited about when movie studios rely on old favorites to bring in new audiences. Bewitched or Dukes of Hazzard or Herbie could only inspire the most nostalgic and least jaded of movie watchers.
And then there's Netflix... I am a big fan of this service for a few reasons. First, it's not BallBuster. Second, unlike pay-per-rent, you don't get penalized for picking poorly. No matter how many bad films you happened to see, your membership price stays the same. You can't roll that dice in the theaters and you certainly can't watch a movie you liked more than the one entrance your ticket allowed you. And the other thing about Netflix is that you are part of a community. Rate movies and they will recommend other titles. And after using those recommendations, they've turned me on to some really great stuff. Netflix killed the theater experience because they make movies a fun endeavor. Loews and Regal just seem like all the other big corporations that exist merely to extract dollars from you. Why the endless crap film trailers, NBC's latest TV lineup, or car commercials? The theater should be insulation from the world outside where it's all but impossible to avoid such advertising. Instead theater owners insist on bringing that world right back inside the cocoon.
The last big reason movie theaters have lost me is for the audience itself. Yammering on a cell phone through the presentation is bad enough. But worse is the hooting and hollering that ensues at the inappropriate moments. An ironic joke? You'd think moviegoers never heard of such a thing... Don't get me started on the seat kickers or the late arrivals. The shared experience you gain from watching the movie with others is totally lost when they aren't your friends and have no respect for your enjoyment of the film.
But in the end I think this story is similar to the music industry one. You can't expect the old paradigms to work for eternity. The home theater with the DVD as centerpiece has provided (as mentioned in that NYT article) an intimate version of the movie theater experience. This goes to show how powerful the medium of film really is, despite the lackluster box office sales. If the movie industry focuses on quality content, they can take heart in knowing that their material will continue being in demand.
After all these years feuding with the entertainment cartels, p2p is becoming legitimated. News.com has a writeup discussing the coming launch of MashBoxx and how SonyBMG CEO Andy Lack thinks it'll make millions for MashBoxx head Wayne Russo. The recent Supreme Court decision against Grokster makes it apparent that US operators will be found liable for copyright infringement but this desire has been in the works for years. However the emerging authorized services don't mean that P2P will go from record industry bane to digital music retail stars. Currently the only largely successful retailer is iTunes Music Store but they offer the traditional server-client approach. It results in effective search, lightning fast downloads, and an extensive catalog that can be readily downloaded.
Contrast that to current p2p applications: search is spotty, download speeds vary greatly depending on the peer's upload speed and number of uploaders, and the catalog available is polluted by the likes of MediaDefender or Loudeye's Overpeer. While authorization will take that last problem away, the other 2 issues are outstanding. Perhaps the next crop of legitimized p2p services like MashBoxx will relieve the searching problems but if they rely on the peer system, download predictability will remain suspect.
The second big issue is whether peers will appreciate their paid-for broadband connections being used for music industry profits. After years of being sued by the RIAA, will users be agreeable to providing free infrastructure to line executives' pockets? With iTMS, Apple supports the entire infrastructure and bears the bandwidth costs. This creates a significant bar of entry; for example iTMS Japan racked up a million downloads in its first 4 days online. If you assume the average file size is 4 megs (about 4 minutes of music), the service transferred about a terabyte of data each day. In order to even move that much data in 1 day you'd have to provide at least 2 T3 connections which theoretically only provide close to half a terabyte maximum. Once you factor in the network bursts and redundancy, even more connectivity is required.
On the other hand utilizing users' bandwidth instead of bearing those costs is workable only when there are perceived benefits. In that sense, p2p has shown hugely successful because you can find rare, prereleased, or catalog deleted songs (or movies or video games or porn). A second reason p2p providers have flourished is because their systems barter upload streams and user data collections in exchange for unlimited data downloads.
Monetizing this ends the community's bartering system. No longer given the free data downloads, will users continue providing their upstream bandwidth and their data collections? Considering that most p2p users already limit upstream rates or disable shared files, it's very likely the "sharers" (who provide the bulk of available data) will simply vanish.
