Comments on: Polarizing an audience unified by Apple and EMI http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/ Editor and technology critic in the midst of founding a new content startup. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:33:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: jeff fowler http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/comment-page-1/#comment-26887 jeff fowler Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:46:16 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/#comment-26887 first, well done. I thought it was a good piece. Engadget readers are becoming too much like digg readers for my liking, and they came down on you way too hard. DRM is obviously something that is very important to you personally and that came through in your piece. people tend to forget that Engadget isn't about regurgitating press releases, it's a blog, whose writers have opinions about technology issues. As an editor, you had every right to run that, it was well written and didn't just say 'steve ended drm today, he is my god'. and DRM free music is a right in my opinion. We have the right to expect that when we purchase something, it can't be turned off remotely, or expire. we should be able to use it on the devices and systems we choose, however we want as long as we pay for it. When I buy a cd, I can do what I want with it, why should a file be any different? (if anything, it should be easier) And everyone in the comments was repeating 'but AAC plays in 'X' player!!' so? there's a reason they call them mp3 players. that's what people identify with. Steve is seeing his monopoly erode under his feet, and by staying with aac he hopes that most people continue to assume the files wont play in their 'mp3 players'. If Disney releases movies in 720p divx (or even avi, i'll be generous), then Steve gets his pat on the back, but not now. Screw those who swear off engadget. gizmodo needs the traffic a lot more than you do ;) first, well done. I thought it was a good piece. Engadget readers are becoming too much like digg readers for my liking, and they came down on you way too hard. DRM is obviously something that is very important to you personally and that came through in your piece. people tend to forget that Engadget isn’t about regurgitating press releases, it’s a blog, whose writers have opinions about technology issues. As an editor, you had every right to run that, it was well written and didn’t just say ’steve ended drm today, he is my god’.

and DRM free music is a right in my opinion. We have the right to expect that when we purchase something, it can’t be turned off remotely, or expire. we should be able to use it on the devices and systems we choose, however we want as long as we pay for it. When I buy a cd, I can do what I want with it, why should a file be any different? (if anything, it should be easier) And everyone in the comments was repeating ‘but AAC plays in ‘X’ player!!’ so? there’s a reason they call them mp3 players. that’s what people identify with. Steve is seeing his monopoly erode under his feet, and by staying with aac he hopes that most people continue to assume the files wont play in their ‘mp3 players’. If Disney releases movies in 720p divx (or even avi, i’ll be generous), then Steve gets his pat on the back, but not now.

Screw those who swear off engadget. gizmodo needs the traffic a lot more than you do ;)

]]> By: Teve Torbes http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/comment-page-1/#comment-26867 Teve Torbes Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:05:44 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/#comment-26867 The article is an okay read, but the slant is obviously sensationalist. I expected much better writing on endgadget. The issue of Indy bands not getting their way into the iTunes store, is more complicated than the picture you paint. If Apple had gone ahead and adapted its model to allow the production of music by Indy labels/bands on the iTunes store without DRM it would have had to adopt a specific format. Would it really have been wise to adopt a format (256kps/non-drm) with the Indy market before negotiating one with a large label first? A lot of commenters on the engadget article are also miffed in the perceived slant to downplay AAC. As many know AAC is an open format w/o some of the licensing requirements of the prevelent mp3 (with many many other benefits). There are many other issues with the devil's advocate slant of the article, but the most severe appears to me be that quite frankly Ryan has issues with the persona that is Steve Jobs. Backdating scandal issues aside, he has been an important icon for consumers (and less so geeks). What is important is that Apple has put its money where its mouth is and taken a step which has happened in a time window to imply a cause-effect relationship between the open letter and the EMI announcement. What is great about the approach Apple has been doing is that they have consistently graviated towards issues that either Jobs thinks is important, or the general public (aka not techies) has eventually shown to be important. This gravitation has in the past led to very real results. The MS approach is fundamentally different and usually consists of: _______ is important to us, and we are working with important industry partners to develop new exciting technologies in __________. At least there is a more obvious Apple track record in regards to the Jobs-General public relationship that is generally a win for consumers. -Teve The article is an okay read, but the slant is obviously sensationalist. I expected much better writing on endgadget.

The issue of Indy bands not getting their way into the iTunes store, is more complicated than the picture you paint. If Apple had gone ahead and adapted its model to allow the production of music by Indy labels/bands on the iTunes store without DRM it would have had to adopt a specific format. Would it really have been wise to adopt a format (256kps/non-drm) with the Indy market before negotiating one with a large label first?

A lot of commenters on the engadget article are also miffed in the perceived slant to downplay AAC. As many know AAC is an open format w/o some of the licensing requirements of the prevelent mp3 (with many many other benefits).

There are many other issues with the devil’s advocate slant of the article, but the most severe appears to me be that quite frankly Ryan has issues with the persona that is Steve Jobs. Backdating scandal issues aside, he has been an important icon for consumers (and less so geeks). What is important is that Apple has put its money where its mouth is and taken a step which has happened in a time window to imply a cause-effect relationship between the open letter and the EMI announcement. What is great about the approach Apple has been doing is that they have consistently graviated towards issues that either Jobs thinks is important, or the general public (aka not techies) has eventually shown to be important. This gravitation has in the past led to very real results. The MS approach is fundamentally different and usually consists of:

_______ is important to us, and we are working with important industry partners to develop new exciting technologies in __________.

At least there is a more obvious Apple track record in regards to the Jobs-General public relationship that is generally a win for consumers.

-Teve

]]> By: Ryan Block http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/comment-page-1/#comment-26786 Ryan Block Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:15:52 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/#comment-26786 Well, I think "right" may not have been the proper word (and I've since replaced it). I meant it in the sense of "deserve" -- as in, the customer / consumer deserves the better product over the worse one. The news today is definitely about a "better" product than a DRMed one, but all things being equal this is far from what it could and probably should be. But that's Apple's choice -- not EMI's. EMI will also be selling music through other vendors who might not be as likely to charge a premium, or try to offer it as a separate product than DRMed music. We'll soon see. Either way, it's not just about Disney switching to DRM-free, it's about EMI "starting" this when indie labels have been asking to sell unprotected music forever, and have been constantly rebuffed by Apple. Well, I think “right” may not have been the proper word (and I’ve since replaced it). I meant it in the sense of “deserve” — as in, the customer / consumer deserves the better product over the worse one. The news today is definitely about a “better” product than a DRMed one, but all things being equal this is far from what it could and probably should be. But that’s Apple’s choice — not EMI’s. EMI will also be selling music through other vendors who might not be as likely to charge a premium, or try to offer it as a separate product than DRMed music. We’ll soon see. Either way, it’s not just about Disney switching to DRM-free, it’s about EMI “starting” this when indie labels have been asking to sell unprotected music forever, and have been constantly rebuffed by Apple.

]]> By: Steve http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/comment-page-1/#comment-26780 Steve Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:06:26 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/04/polarizing-an-audience-unified-by-apple-and-emi/#comment-26780 ryan, i think the reason you got hosed by engadgeters is twofold: the semantic one is that you're demanding (and that is not too strong a word) the world of steve jobs, who, it should be pointed out, doesn't even have a plurality of movie studios *on itunes at all* yet; in trying to point out stevie's hypocrisy (which is real, but a fact of business - and how do you know he's not working on iger?), you seem to want the whole enchilada and frankly, you come off kinda whiney. the second reason is much more arrogant on your part - in a capitalist society, yes, the consumer does have rights, but to declare a certain distribution method as an absolute right? what are you smoking? music is art, and to say that you have the correct opinion on how it's to be distributed is just wrong. obviously said opinion is shared by 99% of those out there, but if we're arguing this on philosophical terms (and indeed you are), you must see how casting this in absolutes can only serve to actually impose restrictions on artists and their distributors in the long run ("artist: you must produce in this format" or somesuch). and btw, it was that post that drove me to discover you have a blog; not tryin to hate, i'm a fan otherwise :) ryan, i think the reason you got hosed by engadgeters is twofold: the semantic one is that you’re demanding (and that is not too strong a word) the world of steve jobs, who, it should be pointed out, doesn’t even have a plurality of movie studios *on itunes at all* yet; in trying to point out stevie’s hypocrisy (which is real, but a fact of business - and how do you know he’s not working on iger?), you seem to want the whole enchilada and frankly, you come off kinda whiney.

the second reason is much more arrogant on your part - in a capitalist society, yes, the consumer does have rights, but to declare a certain distribution method as an absolute right? what are you smoking? music is art, and to say that you have the correct opinion on how it’s to be distributed is just wrong. obviously said opinion is shared by 99% of those out there, but if we’re arguing this on philosophical terms (and indeed you are), you must see how casting this in absolutes can only serve to actually impose restrictions on artists and their distributors in the long run (”artist: you must produce in this format” or somesuch).

and btw, it was that post that drove me to discover you have a blog; not tryin to hate, i’m a fan otherwise :)

]]>