The Mac Sucks!

Antone Gonsalves of InformationWeek posted an article on April 9, 2009, about the price wars going on between online digital music retailers. The record labels finally managed to make Apple budge on its “99 cents per track” pricing to offer a range of prices between $0.69 and $1.29 per track, all without Digital Rights Management (DRM) attached. Industry experts believe that Amazon MP3 and other online music retailers will counter this by offering more tracks at lower prices than Apple is charging (assuming, of course, that the labels allow this). As Gonsalves reports, “While Apple is by far the largest online music store in the United States, there were indications that Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN) was making headway. In 2008, 16% of people who downloaded music bought from Amazon versus 87% from Apple, according to the NPD Group. The survey took into account that people use more than one service, and Amazon’s share was the largest reached by any Apple competitor.”

InformationWeek speculates that the record labels will vary their terms with the different music retailers in an attempt to experiment with different pricing, marketing, and other strategies. The goal of this experimentation will be to learn the strengths and weaknesses of each retailer and of course to maximize profits. InformationWeek suggests that the real winners in this battle will be the record labels, rather than the retailers or consumers.

In a recent opinion piece on ExtremeTech, writer Joel Durham Jr. advises readers: “If you love music, don’t buy it from Zune Marketplace“. Durham explains that in 2007 he bought a Zune and decided to purchase an album (”Swordfishtrombones” from Tom Waits) from the Zune Marketplace. After having the album in his collection for two years, he lost it. As he tells it, the problem is all Microsoft’s. Of course, you may disagree after reading the rest of the story.

A few months ago, Durham “lost a bunch of data due to a hard drive crash” and although he thought he had reliable backups, “part of the drive evidently corrupted during the backup”… the part containing the Tom Waits album. He tried to re-download the album from Microsoft, but found that the record label had made it unavailable to the Zune Marketplace. He tried to plead with the Zune support people for help, but they were unable to help him because they’re no longer authorized to distribute that album.

While I certainly sympathize with Durham for the lost music (I’ve got about a 300GB collection myself), I can’t say that I agree with his recommendation that people not buy music from the Zune marketplace. It’s hardly Microsoft’s fault that his hard drive failed (they didn’t manufacture it). It’s hardly their fault that the drive became corrupted before or during the backup process (at least, it’s unlikely that’s their fault). It’s also not their fault that Tom Waits’ record label terminated its contract with the Zune Marketplace and that it won’t allow them to distribute the album anymore. That would be like blaming Apple if (as a hypothetical example) U2 decided to stop selling its music via iTunes and demanded that Apple stop distributing it. iTunes customers would be just as much “out of luck” in this situation as Durham was.

Durham closes the article by recommending that buyers burn a copy of the albums they purchase to CD or DVD as soon as they purchase it (which is good advice). He also recommends checking your backups periodically to make sure they are working and that data can be restored (also good advice).

His final point, though, I do agree with. The Zune Marketplace, upon learning of Durham’s situation, should have offered a remedy such as credits to buy an album they ARE allowed to distribute. On the other hand, the Zune folks would have no way to know for certain that Durham isn’t trying to scam them or claim that the album is no longer usable when in fact it is.

This should be a cautionary tale in today’s age of digital media. In the end, you’re purchasing nothing more than a series of ones and zeroes recorded in a computer somewhere. If you don’t want to lose what you’ve paid hard-earned money for, you need to be very sure of your backup procedures.

In my own case, I use Zune Marketplace’s subscription feature to try out albums I think I might like. After I’ve listened to them, if they’re albums I expect I’ll be listening to for years to come, I investigate either buying the commercially-manufactured CD or a non-DRM-protected digital version. I make regular backups of my MP3 collection and periodically test those backups to ensure that they’re OK, since sometimes a hard drive does go bad, or get corrupted, or otherwise garble its data and I don’t want to lose anything. Fortunately, with DRM thankfully going away, there are likely to be fewer cases like Durham’s in the future.

The folks at CNET have taken the time to compare Apple’s iTunes Store to Amazon’s MP3 service in the manner of a prizefight.

Round 1 looked at the user interface. iTunes had a definite edge here, scoring 4 out of 5 points, while Amazon MP3 scored only 2.7.

Round 2 considered the library of tracks available from the service. Here, iTunes scored a 4.3 to Amazon’s 3.7.

Round 3 looked at the service’s compatibility with media players. In this round, Amazon’s offering of MP3 tracks, which are compatible with virtually every media player on the market, earned it a score of 4.7. iTunes, while having recently done away with DRM on its AAC formatted tracks, still only offers tracks in AAC format. Many non-Apple players don’t support AAC (protected or not), so iTunes scored only a 2.7 in this area.

Round 4 examined the quality of the audio downloaded from the service, for which both services earned a score of 4.0.

Round 5 considered the overall value of the service’s offerings. In this case, iTunes earned a 3.0 across the board from the reviewers. Because Amazon offers more-flexible pricing (with some albums priced as low as $2.99 and some tracks at $0.79), it earned a 4.0 from the reviewers.

In the final analysis, Amazon MP3 outscored iTunes. Amazon’s 3.8 overall score gave it a slight edge over the iTunes score of 3.6. CNET reported that “Although iTunes held its own in the interface and library rounds, earning points with the judges for its seamless, easy-to-navigate interface and massive and diverse catalog, Amazon MP3 smashed the online music veteran in terms of compatibility, scoring a massive win for selling content in the universally-supported MP3 format. The Internet retail beast also edged out the competition in terms of value, given its propensity to offer deals on tracks and albums. Both services fared well when it came time to give the music a listen, but in the end, Amazon MP3 took the crown with a higher overall point average.”

PCWorld’s Business Center posted an article on Friday, March 20, entitled “iTunes HD: The Price is What?” in which writer Dan Moren talks about the confusing “long and winding road” of high-definition content in Apple’s media store. Moren explains that HD content was first announced at Macworld Expo 2008, but only rentals were in HD format and only Apple TV owners could rent the HD titles – PC and Mac users were left out. In September 2008, Apple added HD television episodes to the store, but those shows couldn’t be bought from an Apple TV. Worse, Moren says, “The only thing more headscratch-inducing than the haphazard rollout of HD content to all of Apple’s various devices is the pricing structure for video from the iTunes Store.” He explains that HD movie rentals range from $3 to $5. Television shows in HD cost $3 versus $2 in standard definition, and TV shows can’t be rented at all. Movie purchases cost $10 or $15 depending on age, and HD titles will cost $20.

“The astute will notice,” Moren says, “that this means that, for the moment anyway, iTunes HD’s catalog isn’t the same on your Apple TV and your Mac (probably because it required the negotiation of different rights from the movie studios). Confused yet? Yeah, us too.” Later in the article he says, “It’s enough to make you long for the good old days when all iTunes sold was songs, for a dollar apiece. Those days are on the verge of ending too, of course, as the tiered pricing that Apple yielded to the record companies in exchange for a wholly DRM-free catalog begins next month. At that point, songs will be available for either seventy cents, a dollar, or $1.30. So much for one price to rule them all.”

In early 2008, we predicted that Apple would be forced to change its pricing model for the iTunes Store. While we suspected it would happen in 2008, and to some extent it did. We were a little early for the “more sweeping changes” we predicted would happen, but it seems that we were on target for the “what” would happen though not the “when”. To quote our original prediction “We suspect the other content providers will put pressure on Apple in 2008 to offer more pricing options…[snip]… lower prices for ‘older’ albums in an artist’s catalog, higher prices for HD content, etc. Regardless, we think the ‘one price fits all’ era of iTunes is likely to end this year.” In some ways, this is good for the consumer. You’ll be able to pick up older albums and video at a lower price, though you’ll be paying a bit more for the latest releases. Depending on your purchasing habits, that could mean higher costs (e.g., you tend to buy only new stuff), little or no change (e.g., you buy a mix of older and newer items), or a sharp decrease in cost (e.g., you tend to buy older stuff only) – versus the older one-size-fits-all pricing.

Pro-Apple, Pro-Macintosh site AppleTell posted an article today by Adam Fisher-Cox entitled “iTunes is Apple’s worst consumer product“. Here are a few of the tidbits from the post:

• [iTunes is] “buggy, bloated, inconsistent, bloated, slow, bloated, and bloated”
• “On Windows, iTunes has always been a joke. It’s no secret that Apple isn’t the best at developing speedy, optimized Windows applications.”
• [On the Mac] “it still takes fifteen seconds to open and be functional, and that’s after it has already been opened and quit, so it opens faster due to having some data in cache.”

Fisher-Cox closes by suggesting that Apple do with iTunes what it’s doing with OS X Snow Leopard – clean out the “unneeded stuff” in the application.

The LinuxHaxor.net site posted an article on February 3, 2009, entitled "iTunes Wishes it Could be Like Songbird" which provides screenshots of Songbird and a discussion of why Songbird is better than (but not a replacement for) Apple’s iTunes software for Windows and OS X.

According to the article, "Songbird is an open source media player powered by Mozilla’s XULRunner platform and developed by members who [have] previously worked on Winamp, Yahoo! Music Jukebox, Netscape Navigator, and Mozilla Firefox… Depending on the platform you install it on, packages are available for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X, Songbird will install some core add-ons which you can decide to add/remove whenever you feel like, the feature that you have come to enjoy with Firefox all these years." 

Songbird apparently provides extensive information about the track you’re playing, iPod support to synchronize with Apple’s player, ticket and concert information about artists, and even an add-on that fetches lyric information for songs you are playing.  It can even be used as a tabbed web browser.

Since there is both a Zune (120GB) and iPod Touch (32GB) on my wish list this year, I thought it might be interesting to compare the music available from both sources to see if there was a substantial difference.  

I began by taking a sampling of some of my favorite artists (this is by no means a comprehensive list, nor is it even a list of my “most favorite” artists), then checking to see how many albums and EPs appear on the iTunes Store and the Zune Marketplace for that particular artist.  I tried to be as objective as possible, assuming that if iTunes or Zune list the “same” album or EP twice that there’s a reason for it (e.g., maybe one is a remastered version of the other, or an edited version) and counted it twice.

Notes and Observations:

• There are some albums and EPs in the iTunes store that are labeled “iTunes Exclusive” and thus shouldn’t appear on the Zune Marketplace. This could account for some of the higher numbers on the iTunes side.  I didn’t notice any “Zune exclusive” content.
• The iTunes store more-clearly labels EPs and Singles than the Zune Marketplace does.  For Zune, when an entry contained 3 or more songs, it was treated as an EP.  For iTunes, an item was only considered an EP if labeled as such. Singles were not counted on either side.
• If you attempt to do your own count for the above artists, you may reach a different total than I did, due to the fact that artists frequently release new albums and EPs, the stores tend to acquire additional content on a regular basis, etc.  At the time you do your count, the exact totals could vary significantly from mine.
• iTunes tends to have the same album “mixed” various ways. For instance, a given album might be listed for its “explicit” version and “edited” version, an “extended” and “bonus tracks” version, a version with “video content included”, and perhaps other variations.  The Zune marketplace tends to list fewer variants of an album (which you can argue is either better or worse), and this may account for some of its lower total.
• In a few cases, the iTunes store seems to list what is apparently the exact same album by the same artist more than once, with no indication that there is a significant difference between the two, and for the same price.

Overall, though, you should notice that there is a comparable amount of music from most of the listed artists on both the Zune and iTunes stores.  Thus, music lovers should be reasonably satisfied with either store, though admittedly looking at just the numbers alone the iTunes store appears to have the edge.  As explained in the notes above, however, some of this could be explained by multiple listings of the same album or multiple variants of an album.  

Which music store is “better” for you is, in the end, a very subjective choice.  Your list of favorite artists probably varies considerably from mine. As a result, a “numbers” comparison like the above for your favorite artists may lean toward one or the other service more than mine does.  Similarly, if you are an iPod user, the subscription features of Zune are lost on you because the iPod doesn’t support Microsoft’s version of DRM used for controlling access to subscription tracks. If you use a non-iPod player, the Zune marketplace might serve you better because the iTunes DRM-protected tracks probably won’t work on your player, so you’ll have to buy the more expensive non-DRM or MP3 tracks (or go through the “burn to CD and rip back to MP3″ process, which takes more time and effort).  Maybe if you’re a “true” music fanatic you will want to use both stores, to ensure that you have the widest selection of tracks available as possible.

If you’re looking at media players this holiday season, it’s worth looking at all your options.  The purpose of this article isn’t to sway you toward one or the other service or device, but to give you some “food for thought” in making your selection.  Just as a Mac fanatic would tell you that Windows’ high market share doesn’t mean Windows is necessarily “better” than OS X, the iPod and iTunes’ higher market share doesn’t mean the iPod and iTunes are necessarily any “better” than the competition.  What’s important is that you make your own evaluation based on the features of the player and the complementary service(s) to ensure that you’re choosing something that’s “right” for you.

I’ve talked a few times about how there’s a kind of “lock-in” between iTunes and the iPod, a lock-in that doesn’t quite exist in players made using Microsoft’s technology.  That’s a bit of a misleading description.  If you buy an iPod, you’re not really prevented from buying content from other sources.  Similarly, if you buy a third-party player, you’re not prevented from buying content from iTunes.  But there is a subtle but effective set of barriers in place to keep iPod customers being iTunes customers, and to keep iPod customers from jumping ship to a third party player.  This might be a little more clear if I bring out a real-world example to illustrate the point, so let’s try that.

First, let’s look at Creative’s Zen media player, which in terms of its basic functionality is comparable to an iPod Nano (i.e., play music, play video, and display photos). Beyond that, I acknowledge that they’re very different.  Here is the list of formats supported by the Zen:

Let’s now compare that with the music and video formats supported by the iPod Nano, which is intended for the same basic function (a flash-based media player):

At first glance, the iPod has a longer, perhaps even superior, list of formats.  In fact, depending on the formats your existing digital content takes, the iPod may support many more of your media files than the Zen (or less).  I won’t argue that point, and it’s not the gist of what I’m getting at anyway.

If you boil the above lists down to the more-significant differences, what you see are:

Nano:
Supports these formats the Zen does not:  AAC protected format, Apple Lossless, AIFF, H.264 video, MPEG-4 video, BMP, GIF, TIFF, Mac format PSD, and PNG.

WMA (protected and unprotected) and WMV9 (protected and unprotected) are used primarily by Windows PCs and music stores other than iTunes.  They’re also used by subscription services like Napster to Go and the Zune Marketplace.  The Zen would be compatible with such services, while the iPod Nano would not, because the Nano does not support WMA or WMV (protected or otherwise).  That’s a “soft” barrier to keeping iPod users from straying to services other than iTunes. (Rhapsody uses a RealAudio format for at least some of its subscription files, which some players don’t support, including the iPod.)

To be fair, there are tools that allow you to remove the protection from locked-down WMA and WMV files.  In some countries, those tools are probably even legal to use.  But under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it’s considered illegal to take steps to remove protection from digital content (in the U.S.A.).  There are some similar laws on the books in other countries, but not all.  Thus, if an iPod owner wanted to use WMA and WMV content, they could download protected WMA/WMV content, use one of the tools available to lift the protection off it, convert it to a format the iPod supports (like MP3), and load it on their device.  But even with some automation, that’s a lot of steps to go through to get something that you could have theoretically bought from the iTunes Store and had it “just work” on the iPod.  That’s what I mean when I say it’s a “soft” barrier to keep iPod owners from straying too far away from iTunes.  Apple certainly doesn’t stop you outright, but between having users potentially breaking the law, adding a conversion step, and the likely resultant loss of quality (converted media files are rarely the same level of quality as the original), it effectively discourages iPod owners from doing so.  If the iPod supported just the unprotected versions of WMA and WMV files, this would be less of a barrier, but it would still be a barrier.

Now, let’s look at the other side of the coin: AAC files.  The unprotected AAC format is an international standard, meaning access to the format isn’t limited to Apple’s control.  Not coincidentally, the Zen supports unprotected AAC format, which gives Zen owners some degree of access to iTunes content.  The “protected” part of the iTunes “protected AAC” format, however, does belong to Apple, and Apple doesn’t license third parties to create players which work with that format.  They’ve stated that doing so could violate their existing agreements with content providers.  That may be true.  They’ve also stated that if they were to license the format, their “trade secrets” could leak out and allow people to find ways to circumvent AAC protection.  That may be true as well.  However, on the Apple web site, they tell users how to burn protected music files to a normal audio CD for playback on CD players.  Files written to CD in this way can be “ripped” from the CDs into another format, like an unprotected MP3, WMA, or AAC file.  If users can do that, more or less with Apple’s blessing, exactly how is AAC providing any real content protection other than stopping direct copying of protected AAC files from one device to another?  It certainly won’t stop users who have converted AACs to MP3s from sharing those MP3s with the world if they choose, so its protection of providers’ content is limited at best and illusionary at worst.  Regardless of its reasons or motives, Apple’s FairPlay DRM technology used for the protected AAC files becomes another “soft” barrier tying iPods to iTunes.  How?

Let’s say you have owned iPods for 3-4 years.  You’ve probably been getting a lot of your music from iTunes because it’s easier than fiddling around with deprotecting and converting WMA and WMV files from other services, and protects you from any legal liability there might be in your country for doing so.  So you’ve amassed a decent-sized library of music and video that you’ve invested in and will likely want to use with any player you have.  Let’s say you decide to invest in the Zen we’ve referred to here because it’s cheaper than the iPod Nano and iPod Touch, and has a higher capacity than the Nano currently offers (as of this writing).  What happens next?

First, you try to copy over some of your older protected AAC files, only to find that they don’t work with the Zen.  Your options are to buy the unprotected AAC files or MP3 files from iTunes, or to deprotect the protected files (in possible violation of the law).   Still, all this conversion is going to take you some time, especially if you have lots of files.  If you opt to stay legal, it’s probably going to cost you a decent amount of money to buy the unprotected versions of those files (if indeed you can).  Suddenly, any price advantage of the Creative player decreases.  The “hassle factor” increases.  Possibly, the quality of the files themselves even decreases due to conversion.  None of this is necessarily going to make you happy or improve your “overall experience” with the Zen compared to the iPod.  It doesn’t at all “stop” you from making the move, it just makes the move more of a hassle and perhaps a little bit of a disappointment.  You think to yourself, “if I’d bought an Apple player, I wouldn’t be doing all this conversion crap.”  Without actually doing anything, Apple has just made you think twice about keeping the Zen, and consider going back to an iPod.  It’s a subtle message, to be sure.

Second, if you decide to stick with iTunes as your content provider for the Zen, you’re going to be paying a little more for the unprotected files (if you want to save the conversion time) or converting the content you buy into a format the Zen supports (spending some of your time converting the things you buy into a form you can use).  Again, there’s probably a little voice inside you going “if I had bought an iPod I wouldn’t have to do this.”  Maybe that’s enough to make you dump iTunes as a source.  Maybe not.  After all, you’ve probably spent a good bit of time getting all that media organized around iTunes, time that may be wasted if you drop iTunes for some other package. You’re probably more likely to dump the Zen, having more invested in the content than the player.

Thus, Apple’s choice to hold tightly to FairPlay and to charge more for unprotected content does three things.  One, it makes the use of iTunes with third party players potentially more of a nuisance, giving iPods a mindshare advantage because they seem “easier” by comparison.  Two, it ensures that Apple benefits if you do switch away from the iPod, because it means you’ll be paying a little more (most likely) to get your content on an non-Apple device (thus negating a potential price difference) and possibly paying a fee for some of it to get unprotected versions of the media.  Three, it sends a subtle (but largely inaccurate) message that non-Apple players are something of a pain to work with.  It may send the potentially misleading message that content is “cheaper” for the iPod (since Apple charges more for unprotected tracks).  All of this subliminally encourages a “switcher” to come back to an iPod.  It isn’t a lock-in, in the truest sense.  It isn’t a brick-wall barrier.  It’s more a hidden message that iTunes and the iPod are “better” than the alternatives, or at least “easier” and “more compatible”.

Let’s flip things around now and look at another subtle form of “locking-in”.  Let’s say you don’t get rid of your iPod Nano (and buy something else), but that you read about a subscription service like Rhapsody, Napster to Go, or Zune Marketplace.  The first thing you’ll find is that the subscription files all use a protected form of WMA, WMV, or Real Audio, none of which is supported by the iPod.  Now you have a couple of options.  You could ditch the iPod and buy a third-party player the service supports.  (Note, per the above, how there’s a hurdle there from your existing content.)  You could also opt to instead use some kind of software tool to remove the protection from the WMA, WMV, or Real Audio files.  As noted earlier, doing this may very well put you in violation of the law, depending on your country’s rules.  Even if it’s legal in your country, what you’ll now have is an unprotected WMA or WMV file in some cases, and/or a potentially time-consuming wait to convert each into an MP3 or other iPod supported format.  Over time, you’re probably going to tire of all this conversion.  You may lament the likely loss of audio or video quality.  As before, Apple hasn’t really “stopped” you from leaving iTunes behind at all, nor has it “forced” you to use only iTunes.  You could in theory use a service like Napster to Go with the iPod.  It’s just going to be a bit of a nuisance since the iPod doesn’t natively support the format.  If you’re an average or novice computer user, it may be a very big nuisance compared to just buying the same content through iTunes.  Again, the subliminal messages are that iTunes is “easier”, the content may appear “better” in quality, and it’s possibly “cheaper” compared to the time, effort, and complexity associated with deprotecting and converting WMA and WMV content to something an iPod can work with.

It doesn’t have to be this way, though.  From what I understand, the chipsets used in the iPod (at least some older models) actually contain WMA and/or WMV support, but Apple chooses not to use it.  I’m pretty confident that if Apple approached Microsoft and appeared interested in licensing their DRM for use in the iPod that Microsoft would jump at the chance. After all, the Zune hasn’t captured that big of a share of the market (at least not yet), and the possibility of making a few cents (or dollars) off each iPod sold would have to be worth looking at.  Apple says a subscription model is of no value to it at this time and hasn’t implemented one in iTunes.  If that’s true, why not let the third parties sell subscriptions to iPod owners in Microsoft formats?  If Apple is right and a subscription model is something customers aren’t interested in, then it shouldn’t in theory lose anything on the deal, and it should be able to give this a positive spin in its advertising as an added feature and a way to help people “switch” from competing players and services.  After all, just as people who have used iPods for a long time probably have a decent-sized library of AAC files, people who use non-iPod players may see their WMA/WMV files as a barrier against switching to the iPod.

So, when I say that the iPod locks users into iTunes, I don’t mean that you literally have no choice for content other than iTunes.  You can buy and rip CDs to MP3s.  You can download WMA and WMV content from alternate services and convert it to something the iPod can use, if you want to invest in the tools and techniques for doing so (and aren’t worried about violating the law). But by not including WMA/WMV support in the iPod, and by not licensing third parties to support FairPlay protected AACs, Apple sets up some hurdles that make the iPod/iTunes combination appear to be your best option (especially if you’ve already owned an iPod).  And that’s a subtle, but (judging from market share) effective lock-in strategy.  Combine that with the fact that “iPod” has almost become a generic term for “media player” and it’s a powerful bit of marketing. 

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t just hand-pick the Creative Zen as an example.  The Microsoft Zune supports WMA, MP3, AAC (unprotected), and WMA lossless files, as well as JPEG images.  It also supports WMV video, MPEG-4 video, H.264 video, and a format called DVR-MS video.  Even though Microsoft is positioning the Zune to compete with the iPod, they haven’t locked it into the Zune Marketplace, at least not as tightly as Apple locks the iPod to iTunes.  I haven’t tested the theory, but I suspect that non-Microsoft media players that support WMA and WMV protected formats will work just fine with the Zune Marketplace or any of the other services based on Microsoft’s DRM, and the Zune should work with the other services that offer protected WMA/WMV files. While that’s hardly “wide open” support, since it’s limited to non-DRM and Microsoft-DRM files only, it’s certainly “more open” than the iPod/iTunes combination (because, without conversion, you can also buy unprotected iTunes content for a Zune).  If you own a Zune, in theory at least, you should be able to switch to another WMA/WMV capable player and have your protected content work with it.  You should also be able to switch services with impunity, or use multiple services.  The same with players from Sansa, Sony, iRiver, or any of the other manufacturers.  That may not be a completely open system but it’s certainly less “locked in” than the iPod and iTunes combination, which works smoothly together but plays “less well” with other combinations.

Naturally, users of iPods or WMA-based players can use MP3 based services like Amazon’s MP3 service, since there is no DRM involved.  If a user bought only content purchased from an MP3-based service (or DRM-free content from any other service), then switching between iPod and non-iPod would be a (relatively) trivial matter since at least the content would work or be legally convertible.  That’s a much more open option than either the Zune or the iPod with its “recommended” service.

Microsoft has upped the ante for players in the digital music distribution market.  Zune Pass subscribers have always been allowed to download as much music as they want and play it on their PC/Zune as long as their subscription is current, but Microsoft and the record labels have negotiated a “sweetener” for Zune.  In addition to the “unlimited” subscription content, you’ll be allowed to keep 10 songs each month (i.e., if your subscription lapses, they remain playable).

Ars Technica reports that, “As a result, the value of the $15 [monthly] Zune Pass has gotten a whole lot better. Assuming that you will want to keep 10 songs every month and a typical download track is worth $1, then you’re only paying $5 to have unlimited access to the Zune Marketplace. This is certainly a step up from most other subscription models out there right now.”  I’d have to agree.  Most other subscription models don’t offer free songs.

This places the Zune Marketplace well above iTunes on my personal “value meter”.  I can usually find at least one album each month that I’d like to own.  With iTunes, I’d be spending $10-15 a month to get that album.  During said month, I could listen to that album and any other album I’d previously purchased.  That’s all.  With the Zune Marketplace, my $15 would not only get me that album, but also “unlimited play” access to pretty much everything else that’s available through the Zune Marketplace.  My Zune could always be full of music, some of which I own, much of which I’m more or less “renting”, for approximately the price of a single CD at retail.  For someone like me, who likes to listen to lots of different artists and comedians, this is a fantastic deal.

On the other hand, if you can’t find 10 tracks a month that you’d like to add to your collection, or at least listen to without adding to your collection, then iTunes would certainly come out cheaper since it doesn’t cost anything until you buy a track or video.

I’m forced to agree with Ars Technica that these changes in the Zune Marketplace are unlikely to sway many, if any, customers to the Zune from iTunes and the iPod.  But as they also point out, “The key measure of these changes may not be in how many people switch from à la carte purchasing; instead, it’s likely to be whether the changes convince people to pick up a Zune when they go shopping.”

According to a post on CNet, iTunes customers are angry with Apple over copy protection measures used in iTunes content.  ”Some Mac users are teed off that they are getting error messages saying the iTunes movie they rented or bought can’t be played on their display because it is not HDCP (High Digital Content Protection) authorized. And some people are complaining they are only able to play certain standard definition iTunes content on their laptop or via an HDMI connection,” says CNet’s Elinor Mills.

While I’m sure Apple didn’t unilaterally decide to include and activate HDCP technology in OS X (i.e., I’m sure the content providers asked for it), it seems that the implementation has surprised many Mac users.  Regardless, it’s pushing some to beg Apple CEO Steve Jobs to set the music free”.  CNet’s Greg Sandoval says DRM (Digital Rights Management) doesn’t fit in with the Apple image and is starting to make iTunes “look stodgier than that ‘PC guy’ you’re always mocking in your commercials.”

Apple seems to be very committed to its DRM.  They recently threatened the “iPodHash” project that they were breaking the DMCA laws by continuing to try to reverse-engineer the “hash” used to protect the iPod’s internal music database file.  They weren’t trying to remove DRM from iPod content, just gain access to the database used in the device so that they could build an open source synchronization application to talk to the devices.

It will be interesting to see if Apple continues to pursue the path of DRM or if they renegotiate their deals with the major music industry publishers.  As Sandoval points out, the same labels whose iTunes content is protected with DRM are selling unprotected MP3 ontent on Amazon.com, the Zune Marketplace, and more.

CNet’s Greg Sandoval reports in “Hulu won’t be clowned by iTunes” that while digital movie sales from sites like iTunes may deliver higher profit margins to Hollywood studios, ad-supported content like that on Hulu can draw from a much larger market and earn more money overall.

Having enjoyed some of the content on hulu.com and having browsed iTunes, I can’t say that I see these as necessarily competing services.  They probably compete for the content, but not so much for the viewership.  A consumer going to iTunes is typically looking for something to download and install on their iPod.  A consumer visiting Hulu’s site is generally planning to watch the content there and then, and isn’t expecting to shell out any money.  Those are two different markets.  I would have to think, too, that Hulu is right to say that they represent a much wider audience (since their content is viewable on personal computers, which I suspect outnumber iPods).

According to Physorg.com, Apple is facing increased pressure in Norway to change  the way the iTunes Music Store and iPod work.  Norway’s Consumer Ombudsman Erik Thon has asked Apple to make its online store compatible with music players other than the iPod.  Apple has attempted to show such compatibility by explaining to consumers how to burn songs to CD and rip those CDs into MP3s, but Thon says this is not enough and ”iTunes has shown a lacking will to comply with our demand and we are now preparing to try this case in the Market Council…The company is in other words unwilling to make changes to make music in the iTunes Store available to all music players.”

If Apple loses the case in the Market Council, our guess is that they will either stop doing business in Norway or they will alter the Norwegian iTunes store so that only those tracks available in MP3 format are sold there.  On the other hand, if Apple wins the case it’s most likely nothing will change.”

Apple apparently hasn’t learned yet that Windows users and Mac users expect different things from a software vendor.  Right or wrong, Windows users have come to expect that Microsoft will only mark software updates as “required” if they correct problems with existing software, don’t add substantial new functionality, and don’t require payment of an additional license or service fee.  If you look in Windows Update, you’ll see this policy adhered to pretty much religiously.  The only possible exception might be when a product like Internet Explorer reaches the end of its life cycle and becomes non-supported.  They might (and I stress “might”) mark it as required at that point.  This how Windows users expect software updates to work.

Apple, on the other hand, views software updates in much the same way a drug dealer views the handing out of a “free sample” to a prospective junkie.  If you download and use iTunes, they seem to think this gives them carte blanche to automatically install Safari or MobileMe on your Windows machine, as if finding unexpected software on your system is a “bonus” and this “free hit” of the “Apple drug” will leave you wanting more Apple products.

Apple needs to learn that if I download and install iTunes, it means I want iTunes. I don’t want Safari.  I don’t want MobileMe.  I don’t want the latest QuickTime.  (Maybe I would want those things, but what I really want is the option to choose which ones I get and when.)  Yes, I’ve used the Apple updater and I know that it’s possible to pick and choose your updates.  But if you’ve gotten used to dealing with the Windows Update process and the way updates on Windows generally work, you expect applications (even those from Apple) to follow that same philosophy.  Just as I wouldn’t expect a former Windows application ported to the Mac to begin using “control-C” for copy on OS X like it does on Windows, I wouldn’t expect a software updater to throw new products at me by default.

I know Apple likes to do this on OS X, too.  I had a real mess at work in my Mac Administration after implementing a script to download and install all the recommended security updates each night.  Apple marked new version of QuickTime, which required the payment of an additional license upgrade fee, as required. My script, not knowing better, downloaded and installed that upgrade on our designers’ systems.  A week or three later, it applied an update to that new version.  Then the designers realized they’d been upgraded and, during a critical business time, couldn’t use the software as needed.  It would take 2-3 weeks to get payment processed for the new license, so we needed to remove the new QuickTime versions.  Apple provided an uninstaller, but only for the original upgrade and the subsequent patched version.  I ended up having to muck around with the code for the uninstaller to make it recognize “1.1.1″ in addition to “1.1.0″ (hypothetical version numbers).  Fortunately, that worked and the crisis was averted.  I then had to go back to my script and have it filter out automatic updates to QuickTime in the future.  All this because Apple felt that anyone who had licensed QuickTime in the past would “automatically” want to license a new release.

Clearly, for a number of people, Apple’s products appear to be addictive.  They buy a Mac, then get an iPod, use iTunes, run Safari, buy an iPhone, sign up for MobileMe, etc.  For them, perhaps these “gently forced upgrades” are more a bonus than an unpleasant surprise. For the rest of us, they’re a nasty shock.  Apple needs to learn how to approach customers differently, at least those who aren’t among the Apple-addicted Mac Faithful.

An Apple executive has reportedly warned that if music royalties are increased that Apple might have to shut down iTunes.  The following image immediately leaped to mind…

According to ChannelWeb, a flaw in QuickTime and iTunes paves the way for a malicious attack on the Windows platform. The new vulnerability was discovered a week after Apple updated QuickTime and iTunes. Security firm Intego says that the QuickTime tag fails to properly handle long strings of data, resulting in a heap overflow flaw in both QuickTime Player and iTunes, as well as other Mac OS X programs that stream media via the QuickTime plug-in. The error also affects the web browsers on both Windows and Mac OS X.

Reportedly, an attacker could add a QuickTime media file to a web page that executes arbitrary code and launches a malicious attack on affected systems. Blogger “securefrog” published a proof-of-concept exploit on the website Milw0rm. ChannelWeb reports that “the most recent QuickTime vulnerability is one in a long line of serious errors, particularly in its real time streaming protocol, that have left users susceptible to remote code execution attacks.”

Again, we remind Mac users that just because no one has exploited a vulnerability on the Mac in the wild doesn’t mean the system is secure… only that it’s been lucky.

The media made a big deal recently out of the knowledge that Apple’s iTunes music store has become one of the biggest, if not the biggest, retail music outlets. However, as The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, “a growing number of record companies are trying to steer clear of Apple Inc.’s behemoth music store, because they say selling single songs on iTunes in some cases is crimping overall music sales.”

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if people are buying more individual tracks than entire albums, that should be telling the record companies and the artists something. Specifically, it should be telling them that people won’t buy crappy tracks in order to get the one or two “good” tracks on an album. That’s hardly the fault of iTunes. On the other hand, seeing the iPod-centric iTunes Music Store become less appealing is a good thing for the consumer, because it weakens Apple’s near-monopoly on media players.

If you’re a believer that Apple is doing a good thing for the music industry as a whole with iTunes, consider the following statement from the WSJ article: “Irving Azoff, the manager of numerous high-profile acts including the Eagles, says that a few years ago he presented the band with a financial analysis showing that their royalties to date from iTunes sales were far lower than anyone expected…That sentiment was a factor in the Eagles’ decision to sell their latest album, ‘Long Road Out of Eden,’ only through Wal-Mart.”

It’s an interesting read, and food for thought.

As CNet points out in its Digital Media blog, Microsoft’s now-defunct MSN Music service stopped issuing DRM keys for the music it sold to customers. Yahoo Music made the same announcement last week. As a result, customers of either of those services may no longer be able to access music they paid for. As CNet’s Greg Sandoval suggests:

“If Apple ever stopped issuing keys for its FairPlay digital rights management then, just like at Yahoo and MSN, iTunes users would be prevented from moving their music to different machines or devices. That would affect most of the 5 billion songs the company has sold.
(Following much public criticism, Microsoft said it would continue issuing keys for another three years and Yahoo is offering refunds.)

To be sure, the likelihood of Apple shutting off DRM keys anytime in the foreseeable future seems remote at best. Apple is the Internet’s largest music retailer and may be the largest music retailer overall. The company is riding a wave of excitement over the new iPhone 3G, which besides being a phone and Internet-enabled device, is an excellent music player. Apple appears to be on track to dominate retail music sales for a long time to come. Still, things do change. Who can say what will happen at Apple in 5 or 10 years? That’s a long time from now. But the truth is, DRM’s threat to iTunes users’ music libraries is real.”

There are a number of reasons I don’t own an iPod or iPhone. Apple’s iTunes FairPlay DRM is one of those reasons. DRM is a technology that unfairly burdens those who pay for content while providing little (if any) real deterrence to those would illegally copy and distribute that content. I know Apple (now) offers content that is DRM-free. However, they’re still offering the bulk of the content they provide with DRM attached. Until, like Amazon.com and some other services, they offer only DRM-free content, I’m not interested in iTunes and by extension the iPod or iPhone.

I realize that what I’m about to say somewhat contradicts the above, so I will need to explain it afterward… While I don’t like the concept of “purchasing” content that is saddled with DRM, I don’t have a problem “renting” content with DRM attached. For example, the Rhapsody and Zune services allow you to (in essence) download as much content as your device (be it a PC or a portable media player) will hold as part of a subscription-based service. That content is DRM protected and can only be played on a specific device or devices. I am accepting of DRM in this circumstance because it is serving a purpose for me. It’s allowing me to load my media player full of content that I can listen to at my leisure, more content than I can probably afford to actually “own”. If I decide that my collection wouldn’t be complete without this or that album, I can buy it free of DRM from the same service and not have to worry if my player dies or my subscription lapses. Would I prefer to be able to “rent” content without DRM? Sure. Do I expect that to ever be an option? No, since it would eliminate pretty much any reason to “buy” the content.

So, as I said, it’s something of a contradiction. I don’t want an iPod or iPhone, because the default situation is that my “purchased” content will be saddled with the FairPlay DRM. At the same time, I do own a Zune because Microsoft’s DRM allows me to “rent” content I might otherwise be unable (or unwilling) to buy and try it out for a while. I presume Apple’s FairPlay DRM allows for this “renting” concept as well, though as I understand it this isn’t the way iTunes operates presently.

Another reason I don’t want an iPod or iPhone is the iTunes software itself. For Windows users, Apple has developed a nasty habit of including “non-iTunes” software with iTunes updates by default. I don’t like Safari, and don’t want it on my PC. I have no interest in the troubled MobileMe service, and don’t want that on my PC either. The fact that Apple tries to add these things to my system without my asking for them is unacceptable and, quite frankly, arrogant.

According to Crave, CNet’s gadget blog, it’s time for Apple to “fix” its iTunes software.  They describe iTunes as bloated, comparing it to “a kitchen sink full of crud”.  They go on to say that “iTunes is a program that a lot of people use, and it’s turning into a bit of a national nightmare” because it’s trying to do too many things at once.  Author Molly Wood says it best in the following excerpt:

Yes, you can get by without iTunes if you just want media playback. I use VLC and I won’t load iTunes unless I absolutely have to. (I’ve had the laptop I just installed it on for almost six months, and I only downloaded the darned thing so I could get at Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog.) And I know there are plenty of alternative apps I can use to manage my iPod. That’s not the point.

The seamless iTunes integration used to be the best thing about the iPod. And until people (bless you, Joss Whedon, but you’re one of them) stop doing “iTunes exclusives,” I’m going to need it or some other program for downloading those videos. I shouldn’t have to live in fear of loading it, because it takes so long to launch, it’s so bloated, and it’s almost certain to drop an update grenade in my lap. iTunes has become anathema to Apple’s simple and elegant persona, and it’s time for a fix.

She closes with the following plea:

I know Apple thinks it’s keeping things simple by offering one program with one-stop shopping. But instead, they’re creating bloatware that, increasingly, people don’t want to use for any shopping. Apple, get out your scrubbing bubbles. It’s time to save iTunes.

Again, I’m forced to wonder if this is another symptom of Apple’s development staff having too much on their plate.

According to Engadget’s September 25th article the Amazon.com
MP3 service,  “two million songs from 180,000 artists and
20,000 labels, all without the painful and annoying restrictions of
DRM”are available on the service.  On October 17, Ars Technica
reports that “Apple has just acknowledged the expansion
of its iTunes Plus catalog and price drops. According to the
company, there are now over 2 million DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks,
making the iTunes Plus catalog the ‘largest DRM-free catalog in the
world.’”

I haven’t counted the DRM-free tracks on
iTunes and Amazon MP3.  I’d be surprised if Apple has done so,
either.  So doesn’t it strike you as at least a little odd that
these two services have approximately the same number of DRM-free tunes,
yet Apple is bragging that it has “the largest DRM-free catalog in
the world”?   How can they be so sure?
 

While The Register in the UK is reporting that stores like iTunes have been
eroding the revenues of the music industry , Apple has begun dropping the price of all of its iTunes
Plus tracks (the songs without the DRM) to 99 cents each.  It
will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has on the
recording industry.

The UK publication The Register says that a new report from Capgemini for the Value
Recognition Strategy working group shows that there are two reasons the
British music industry has seen a decrease in revenue since 2004. 
While the report is confidential, some details have been
leaked.

The Capgemini report cites two causes for the substantial
decline in British music industry revenue.  First is discounted CD
prices.  As supermarkets and other retailers push for lower CD
prices, the overall revenue for the music industry has decreased. 
The second factor reducing revenues for the music industry is the
availability of “a la carte” music, through iTunes and similar
electronic venues.

Capgemini calculated that 480 million British
pounds were lost to the industry since 2004.  368 million (~77%)
was the result of format changes, specifically the unbundling of a CD
into an “a la carte” selection of digital songs.  18% as
lost to piracy.  

According to The Register, “The
growth of MP3 has seen large hardware manufacturers such as Apple and
media companies such as News Corp’s MySpace prosper from music, but
returning little or nothing to composers, songwriters, and sound
recordings owners.  The conclusion that unbundling is the chief
factor is richly ironic. When Apple launched the (then) iTunes Music
Store in 2003, it did so with the backing of all four major labels. The
labels had failed to see digital music as an opportunity, and launched
only small scale and piecemeal commercial offerings. At iTunes,
consumers chose one or two songs from a performer’s repetoire for 99
cents a song, rather than pay $9.99 for the CD.”

The article
concludes with the statement “Paying $9.99 for an album for which
you only want a couple of tracks is rotten value.  But so is paying
$0.99 20 times for the contents of a greatest hits album. And a
flat-rate, all-you-can-eat bundle is the best value of
all.”

While you and I reading this probably see this as a
“duh!” moment, wondering why the record industry hasn’t
figured this out a long time ago, it’s interesting that a group
hired by the industry to explain its lost revenues has made the
connection the industry hasn’t.  What will be more interesting
is whether the record industry will believe the truth in the report and
find a way to sort out its problems.

No, iTunes isn’t
responsible for the losses in the record industry, at least not
single-handedly.  But it does have a part in those losses.  By
allowing us to avoid having to pay for an entire crappy album to get a
couple of good tracks, it’s managed to hurt the music industry.
 

According
to PC World, “In an aggressive twist on Apple’s model of making
their bucks off iPods rather than 99-cent iTunes tracks, Universal Music
will launch a new music subscription service, dubbed Total Music, which
could be ‘free’.” Their plan appears to be to get media player
manufacturers to absorb the cost of a $5 monthly subscription so that
consumers would get the music for their player for free with the player,
with the hardware industry making money by selling more devices.

The article reports that “While Universal is currently running
DRM-free music trials on iTunes rivals, it is not said if Total Music
would be DRM-free. But removing DRM from the digital music landscape
could be the next big cause, giving a competitive advantage to its
champion.”

The comments below the PC World article are
enlightening, and we recommend reading through those as well. There are
the usual combination of pro-Apple, anti-Apple, and “Apple who?” type
comments.

The Economist makes an interesting point in its essentially pro-Apple
article entitled “
Lessons from Apple” dated June 7, 2007:

“Apple is
widely assumed to be an innovator in the tradition of Thomas Edison or
Bell Laboratories, locking its engineers away to cook up new ideas and
basing products on their moments of inspiration. In fact, its real skill
lies in stitching together its own ideas with technologies from outside
and then wrapping the results in elegant software and stylish design.
The idea for the iPod, for example, was originally dreamt up by a
consultant whom Apple hired to run the project. It was assembled by
combining off-the-shelf parts with in-house ingredients such as its
distinctive, easily used system of controls. And it was designed to work
closely with Apple’s iTunes jukebox software, which was also brought in
[from outside the company] and then overhauled and improved.”

Check out the article for the rest of the story. The important point
is to note that the iPod and iTunes did not start out as Apple products
or the ideas of “Apple” revolutionaries but outsiders whose products or
services Apple purchased.

According to infosyncworld.com, Amazon.com will be
launching a public beta of “Amazon MP3″ today, a service that
will go head-to-head with Apple’s iTunes. No, we take that back,
it’s actually ahead of iTunes since it’s offering DRM-free music
and not DRM-crippled tracks. It’s also offering them at 89-99 cents
versus Apple’s flat 99, and entire albums at $5.99 to $8.99.

This means that Amazon’s service, unlike Apple’s, will
allow you to use your downloaded music on an iPod, a PC, a Mac, a Zune,
a Creative Zen, an iPhone, a Nokia Internet Tablet, a RAZR, or
…well… anything else that plays MP3s.

All the songs
are encoded at 256kbps.

There are over 2 million songs
from over 180,000 artists on the service.

Sounds to me
like iTunes has some serious competition.