Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes

from the stop-complaining dept

We've mentioned in the past how silly it is that Apple blocks the Palm Pre and other devices from accessing iTunes. Plenty of people responded, pointing out that Apple really makes its money on the hardware, and thus it makes no sense to allow other hardware products to connect to iTunes. While I agree that Apple makes its money off the hardware, I still disagree that Apple should block others out. In doing so, it makes me and many others less likely to purchase an Apple product, because I don't want to get trapped into Apple hardware. I'd much rather a more open solution.

Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo has written up a wonderful explanation of why Apple should not just allow the Palm Pre and others to connect to iTunes, but it should encourage it. The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a snippet:

I hope the company continues to search for ways to sync with iTunes, because the fight--silly as it seems--is important, and Palm is clearly in the right. Apple may have the USB-IF on its side, and it may also be protected by copyright law. But by blocking non-Apple devices from its music app, Apple is violating a more fundamental principle of computing--that unalike devices should be able to connect to one another freely. The principle underlies everything we take for granted in tech today: It's why the Internet, your home network, and the PC function at all. And it's why Palm should keep storming the iTunes fortress.

I am not claiming that Palm has the legal right to hack into Apple's software, nor am I calling on any authorities to compel Apple to let Palm in; if the cat-and-mouse game turns into a courtroom brawl, it's very likely that Apple would win the fight. Instead, I'm calling on Apple to stand down. Even better: It should create a legal pathway for Palm and every other company to sync with iTunes. Why? The most obvious reason is that it's good for iTunes users. Nobody other than Apple benefits from locked-down software. Apple frequently extols the wonders of digital music--the convenience, the flexibility, the environmental friendliness. But how flexible can it be if you're allowed to sync your tunes only with devices made by a single company?

What's more, the iTunes block is hypocritical. Like every other tech company, Apple has benefited enormously from the spirit of interconnectedness that pervades the tech industry. The iPod would have fizzled if Microsoft had blocked it from hooking up to Windows PCs. Or look at the iPhone--Apple is proud that it can sync with Outlook, Microsoft Exchange, Gmail, Yahoo, and just about everything else. Indeed, you could argue that Apple, once left for dead on the periphery of the tech industry, managed to come back only because it skillfully marketed Macs as the most promiscuous computers you could buy.

Indeed. While it's unlikely that Apple will actually do this, it would be a smart move. No one's buying Apple hardware because it syncs with iTunes. They're buying it for many other reasons, and Apple can continue to compete on those. Blocking the Pre and other devices from accessing iTunes is petty and unnecessary.

109 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Eminem's Misguided Lawsuit Against Apple Over iTunes Set To Start

from the apparently-not-yet-settled dept

Back in 2007, we noted that Eminem's publisher was suing Apple for offering Eminem tracks on iTunes. Apple pointed out that it had an agreement with Eminem's record label, and we wondered why Eminem wasn't suing Universal Music, rather than Apple. So, earlier this year, when Eminem and Universal Music went to court we assumed that the lawsuit had been refocused on the proper party. Apparently, we were wrong. The lawsuit against Apple is scheduled to begin Thursday if no agreement is reached today. However, remember that lawsuit against Universal earlier this year? Well, Universal won, with the court saying that Universal had the right to distribute digital offerings. So... why is the lawsuit against Apple still going forward? Am I missing something...?

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Refuses To Dismiss Allman Bros. Lawsuit Against UMG; iTunes Royalties At Stake

from the a-license-or-a-sale? dept

There have been a number of lawsuits over the past few years from artists who are complaining about how the major record labels account for iTunes sales. The question is whether or not a song sold on iTunes is the same as a CD sale (a tiny tiny royalty) or more like licensing a song for a commercial (more like a 50% royalty). Obviously, the record labels want iTunes treated like a CD. But musicians have a reasonable argument that an iTunes sale may be a lot more like a typical license, as a big part of the reason in the discrepancy in the royalty rates is that there's no (expensive) physical packaging and distribution to handle. The Allman Brothers were one of the first to file lawsuits on this issue suing both Sony Music, and then a couple years later, Universal Music Group (I'm still not clear why they sued the two separately, years apart). Eminem also had sued UMG over this issue and lost, as a jury said iTunes was more like a CD sale.

UMG tried to get the case from the Allmans dismissed, but davebarnes alerts us to the news that the court has refused to dismiss the case, and it will proceed to a full trial. Of course, like Eminem, the Allmans may lose the trial, but it's better than having the case dismissed outright. Of course, if the Allmans win, it will create a bunch of similar lawsuits in short order, as pretty much every artist will be demanding a lot more iTunes revenue.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Approves Spotify App... Spotify Should Thank Google

from the good-timing dept

Just before the whole mess -- including an FCC inquiry -- of why Apple rejected Google voice on the iPhone, we were among those who wondered if Apple would approve Spotify, the well-hyped (perhaps over-hyped) music app that in many ways competes directly with iTunes. Well, it looks like Apple has approved the software, though Spotify is still only available in certain European countries (though there are promises of a North American launch later this year). You really have to wonder, though, how much of the approval was due to the mess and attention that Apple received following the rejection of Google Voice. It seems likely that the company is now (finally) a bit more sensitive to this issue, and may have decided that it didn't need another PR headache... or to give any more fodder to the FCC. Spotify probably owes Google a nice bouquet of flowers.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Apple Allow Spotify On The iPhone?

from the one-to-watch dept

Having used Spotify a bit, I can definitely see how some people think it could potentially replace iTunes completely. It basically acts like an iTunes that has access to millions of songs at no additional cost (and, yes, it's all licensed and legal). The songs are streamed, but you almost never notice it. It really does feel just like iTunes, while also having "Pandora-like" features for creating specialized stations or sharing others' playlists. Unfortunately, it's only available in the UK for now, though the rumor is it will be available in the US before the end of the year. However, where things could get really impressive is with Spotify's mobile app. For a few months, there's been a YouTube video of Spotify Mobile on Android:

The demo highlights the fact that you can sync any playlist for "offline" play, solving the biggest question about weak mobile signals on the go, or how you use it on a plane or somewhere without wireless access. With offline syncing, it's basically everything that an iPod can do -- with access to 6 million songs without having to pay for each individual song. But, of course, Android is still a limited platform. The big fish these days is the iPhone App Store, and Spotify has now submitted an iPhone app for approval, which raises all sorts of questions. With Apple's history of rather arbitrary rejections -- including ones for things Apple has deemed "competitive" -- will it block Spotify as a rather direct competitor to iTunes? That would be very unfortunate, and again demonstrate the risk of a closed platform.

That said, the initial reviews of the iPhone app seem quite strong. Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired loves the syncing feature, and warns that "you'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead iPhone before I'll delete it from my phone." Meanwhile Music Ally points out that Spotify has uploaded a video of the iPhone app as well: It really does look pretty slick. So now the ball's in Apple's court. I have no idea if Spotify can survive as a business (and I suspect that the royalty rates the music industry wants will make that difficult), but it is great to see more innovation in the space. Now we get to see how Apple feels about that sort of innovation.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Withdraws Lawsuit Against Wiki Site Owner Over iPhone/iPod Interoperability Hack Discussion

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

Last November, the EFF took Apple to task for threatening the owner of a wiki site. Apple claimed that an ongoing discussion on the site about how to build interoperability between iPods and iPhones and alternative software other than iTunes violated the DMCA -- which requires quite a novel interpretation of the DMCA. After Apple refused to back down, EFF sued in April. Somewhere along the way, it looks like Apple's lawyers started to realize that it had pretty close to no chance whatsoever and has now withdrawn this particular threat. The EFF is dropping the lawsuit, but isn't pleased that the whole thing had to happen in the first place:

"While we are glad that Apple retracted its baseless legal threats, we are disappointed that it only came after 7 months of censorship and a lawsuit," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "Because Apple continues to use technical measures to lock iPod Touch and iPhone owners into -- and Palm Pre owners out of -- using Apple's iTunes software, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more discussions among frustrated customers about reverse engineering Apple products. We hope Apple has learned its lesson here and will give those online discussions a wide berth in the future."

Indeed. While the Palm Pre situation is in the other direction (interop between alternative hardware and iTunes software, rather than alternative software with Apple hardware), it shows again that Apple will do whatever possible to stop people from making legal use of products they purchased.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Does As Many Expected: Kills Palm Pre iTunes Syncing

from the iPetty dept

The pettiness of Apple continues... Last month, Apple warned potential buyers of the Palm Pre that it might break that phone's ability to sync with iTunes. It didn't take long for Apple to follow through. In an upgrade to iTunes, which Apple claims was for "bug fix" but also to handle "verification" issues, it has blocked the Palm Pre from accessing iTunes. This is pure petty behavior on the part of Apple. When the original statement was made, some assumed that Apple was really just saying that it couldn't be responsible if an update broke the syncing, not that it would purposely break that ability. But Apple's comments suggest they cut off the Pre on purpose, noting that it wanted to stop devices that "falsely pretend" to be iPods or iPhones.

The Palm Pre is a nice phone according to many people, but it's not making any serious dent in iPhone sales. Blocking it out of iTunes is just silly. I don't have a Palm Pre or an iPhone... but I do use iTunes. But now that I know Apple is breaking software and removing features, I guess it's time to look elsewhere. How's Songbird these days? Other suggestions?

121 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Sued Over Gift Cards That Claim $0.99 Per Song

from the do-they-want-to-get-paid-in-gift-cards? dept

As we all know, back in April, Apple changed its iTunes pricing policy so that not all songs are $0.99. Now, some are $1.29 (and somewhere, we're told, there are a few that are $0.69). However, Apple has now been sued by a couple who claims iTunes gift cards are misleading, because they were sold claiming that iTunes songs are $0.99. The lawsuit claims that this is fraud on Apple's part, but I have a pretty difficult time believing this case gets very far.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Warns Palm Pre Users: We're Going To Break Your iTunes Syncing

from the shot-across-the-bow dept

I have to admit that I've never really understood Apple's ongoing efforts to block any sort of compatibility with both iPod devices and iTunes. You may recall a few years back the big fight between Apple and RealNetworks when Real tried to let its software connect to iPods, which Apple treated as a gross injustice. Now Palm is doing the opposite, by letting the Pre connect and sync with iTunes software by making the device pretend it's an iPod when connected to a computer. Apple, however, has responded with a neat little message that never actually mentions Palm, even if it's entirely transparent who it's about, warning people that Apple can easily break syncing when it updates its software. Of course, Apple did it in a way that it can claim wasn't meant nefariously at all. All the company really meant was to make people understand that it has no control over how the Pre syncs with iTunes, and it's possible that an update could break that syncing. Sure. Right. Except most people assume this means Apple intends to break it.

But I don't understand why. For people who bought the Palm Pre, that's only going to piss them off and drive them to use other software, taking them away from Apple's products. Why does that help Apple? Having Palm Pre syncing with iTunes increases the value of iTunes. What's wrong with that, other than being the latest example of Apple's dislike of anyone doing anything not invented in Cupertino?

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is It So Hard To Set Up A Pan-European Music License?

from the head-scratching dept

We'd been looking at reports about the ongoing discussions about pan-European music licenses without too much interest, given that licensing bodies only ever seem to do things in their own interests. But one aspect of the talks is a little bit interesting. It's often claimed by these bodies and their supporters that they're these little non-profits working tirelessly on the behalf of musicians and songwriters, ensuring they get paid for their work. It's a convenient appearance behind which these groups hide, using it as an excuse to justify plenty of ridiculous behavior. After all, if you object to anything these groups do (supposedly) on behalf of musicians, you're trying to take away the musicians' "right to get paid", so your opinion can be marginalized and ignored.

But the reality is that many of these licensing groups are nowhere near as innocent as they'd have you believe. Their licensing schemes often do little to actually help musicians make money, and in fact, they can even make it harder for musicians to succeed. Then there are examples like that of SoundExchange, which is sitting on more than $100 million in royalties it's collected, but claims it can't pay out because it can't find the musicians to which it's owed. In addition, where do unclaimed funds end up? The RIAA.

Just for a second, let's ignore the above paragraph and assume the licensing bodies really are working in the artists' best interests. If that's the case, and the artists' best interest constitutes them getting paid, why is it so difficult to set up a pan-European license? Why does it matter who collects the money, as long as it ends up in the artists' pockets? Apple has talked before about how having to set up licensing deals in each EU country before allowing iTunes Music Store sales there means that it's simply not worth the effort in some places, and that having a pan-European license would let it open up iTMS in new places. That would be good for artists, right? More outlets for online sales means more money for them. So why hasn't the pan-European license been done? Infighting over which licensing body gets to collect the fee -- and take a cut? If these licensing bodies are all about the musicians, surely that can't be the reason, since they just want to funnel as much money as possible to the artists.

So maybe, just maybe, the licensing bodies aren't solely interested in artists' welfare and have other motives?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Labels Losing Money With iTunes Variable Pricing

from the shot-yourself-in-the-foot-again,-did-ya? dept

Right before Apple finally implemented variable pricing in iTunes it wasn't hard for many to predict that it would backfire badly on the major record labels as they tried to jack up prices. So, it should come as little surprise to find out those predictions appear to be entirely accurate. New reports say that the major record labels are losing revenue from variable pricing. Unit sales are dropping to the point that revenue is less as well. That's just bad business no matter how you look at it -- and totally preventable if they knew their own business. Plenty of people made it clear that sales would drop with higher prices, and it's amazing that the execs were unable to accurately predict how much.

Sometimes when we question the motives of entertainment industry execs, people say that we're being unfair in questioning the "intelligence" behind those moves. We're told over and over again that industry execs are much smarter than we are, and they know better than we do. And yet, almost everything that has been predicted has come true... over and over again. The industry keeps doing things that at least make it appear that it has trouble understanding the long-term implications of almost every move it makes. Perhaps they are smart. And perhaps it's all part of some grand plan. But, to date, the only evidence we've seen is that nearly every move made by the industry has backfired, and resulted in less revenue coming in, while those who predicted alternative and embraced alternative business models are finding tremendous success. At what point do we stop assuming that the legacy industry execs "are smarter" and recognize that they seem too focused on the old way of doing business to recognize how to competently change course?

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does Apple Own The Copyright On A File You Create Via iTunes?

from the discussion-should-be-legal dept

Last last year, the EFF publicly blasted Apple for threatening a wiki site, called BluWiki, that had been set up by a firm OdioWorks to reverse engineer interoperability with iPods and iPhones so that those devices could work with other software apps (such as Songbird), rather than being locked into iTunes. Apple had threatened the wiki site with a DMCA violation claim, and the EFF pointed out numerous problems with the DMCA claim. Now things have been kicked up a notch, as the site, along with help from the EFF have sued Apple to have the site declared legal. The EFF argument points out that an open discussion site alone is hardly violating the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, but perhaps the more interesting argument is the fact that the iTunes DB file, which is at the heart of this matter, is created by each user independently and is not encrypted. There are two interesting arguments here. First, since the file is not encrypted, there is no encryption to circumvent, thus no violation of the anti-circumvention clauses. Second, since the file is created by the user and his or her own interaction with the software, Apple has no claim on the copyright of the file. If there's any copyright at all, the argument goes, it belongs to the user, and thus they should have every right to do whatever they want with it. This should be a lawsuit worth watching.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Early Results On iTunes Price Increase: Sales Down... But Revenue Up

from the interesting... dept

It's still early, but the initial estimates on the impact on iTunes of higher priced songs on iTunes is that songs that got tagged with the $1.29 price saw their overall sales rankings drop. However, the indications were that the sales drop didn't outweigh the higher price. In other words, fewer units, but more overall revenue. It'll certainly be worth watching to see if the trend continues. Of course, the report only looked at the top 100 songs, doesn't factor in other things that may have caused sales to change, and seems to be lacking certain important data. But... still... as an early snapshot of what's happening, it's good to know. In the meantime, if you're a smart up-and-coming musician who recognizes that digital music sales are a tiny fraction of what you can be earning overall in the business, you should be doing everything possible to get your songs out there at the lower price, knowing that it'll help you stand out against the higher priced options, and you'll be able to recoup the difference through the other parts of your business model.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Looking For The $0.69 Songs On iTunes

from the gotta-dig dept

Last month, we pointed out that some of the music industry folks who actually "get it" were getting worried that when iTunes launched its variable pricing offering, labels would focus much more on jacking up prices to $1.29, rather than finding songs to offer at $0.69. Aaron Martin-Colby points out that this appears to have been quite an accurate fear. Gizmodo went looking for $0.69 songs and had a lot of trouble finding any. $1.29 songs, however, were quite easy to find. Once again, looks like the record labels are more focused on squeezing fans rather than giving them a real reason to buy.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Industry Folks Worried About iTunes Variable Pricing

from the it's-going-to-annoy-people dept

Aaron Martin-Colby alerts us to an LA Times report saying that Apple's variable pricing for iTunes is set to launch on April 7th (a week later than initially planned). More interesting, however, are the reports that many music industry veterans are quite worried about this, and believe that Apple and the major record labels are making a big mistake in that it's going to piss off and annoy fans, just at a time when they should be embracing fans and giving them more of a reason to buy. The fear is that adding that extra $0.30 to many tracks will add in enough of a mental transaction cost ("is this song really worth that extra $0.30?") that it may harm sales. Some, like Ted Cohen (former EMI exec, who's now been pushing his former colleagues to finally enter the 21st century) worries that it's going to backfire in a big way:

"This will be a PR nightmare. It is for the music industry what the AIG bonuses are for the insurance industry."

And the manager of Nine Inch Nails noted something similar:

"Wouldn't it make sense to try to price it cheaper instead of squeezing the handful of people who are still willing to pay for music?"

Oddly, the LA Times article claims that the new pricing scheme is "true to supply-and-demand economics," but, as Gizmodo notes, that's not true at all. The supply is infinite. So if it were true to supply-and-demand economics, the price would be free. The actual price is based on an artificially limited supply and a made up demand.

60 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iTunes Gets One Step Closer To Letting You Subscribe To A Band

from the sorta-maybe-possibly dept

One of the early business models we had suggested for the recording industry way back in 2003 was the idea of letting fans "subscribe" to a band -- giving them all sorts of benefits, while still making the music itself free. The idea was that you would effectively join an exclusive club, that would get you access in one way or another. It's been surprising that we haven't seen this sort of business model take off all that much, with most of the success stories so far focusing on tiered album release plans. However, it looks like Apple is moving just a little bit towards such a "subscription" offering, with its experimental "iTunes Pass" solution for the latest Depeche Mode release.

It is, as always, great to see new experiments in terms of music business models -- but, again, this one seems to get the business model backwards. Effectively, Apple and the band (or, rather, its label) are asking Depeche Mode fans to pay $9 extra for some vague promises of future benefits that aren't at all defined. And, all of it seems to be focused around the digital content (the stuff that people are a lot less interested in paying for, and which can be used -- for free -- to promote more scarce parts of a business model). Also, the "pass" isn't much of a subscription, since it only lasts for a few months. I'm sure some diehard fans will pony up, but it's not exactly a compelling reason to buy at all.

To design a good subscription plan, you could simply let anyone get the pure music for free, but offer tiered yearly plans that provide extra benefits: earlier access to the content (get the latest single before your friends!), access to a private chat room that the band actually hangs out in, opportunities to buy tickets to shows before anyone else, a chance to win backstage passes to meet the band, and (my personal favorite) an opportunity to win a private show or a "backyard" concert. Then, the more the music is out there and enjoyed, the more worthwhile it is for fans to sign up to this program. Will there be free riders? Absolutely. Will there be more free riders than members? Probably. Does it matter? Not at all. Because you'll have a situation where everyone is happy. The band is making more money than before, the band has more fans than before with more people listening to their music, and the band's true fans are more closely connected to the band. And, oh yeah, no one's suing anyone or demanding payment. It's really not that difficult.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Norway Drops Complaint Against Apple Now That Apple Dropped DRM In iTunes

from the no-problem-with-movies-then? dept

We never quite understood Norway's legal attack on Apple for its use of DRM in iTunes. Sure, using DRM was annoying and bad, but users had the choice to buy from iTunes or not, and it didn't make any sense for a government to get involved. That said, it's nice to see the government now drop the complaints after Apple announced it was dropping DRM on music files in iTunes. Still, if Norway is so upset about DRM, why isn't it still pissed off about Apple using DRM in many other areas?

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another Reason For Record Labels' Interest In A Music Tax: To Screw Apple

from the don't-think-it's-not-in-their-minds... dept

Despite early resistance, in the past few years, the record labels have warmed to the idea of a "music tax" put on ISPs. There are numerous reasons why this is a terrible idea, but you can bet there's one big reason why the record labels love it that they won't talk about: it would (they think, incorrectly) harm Apple. The recording industry has been amazingly jealous of Apple's success over the past few years -- even though its own demands for DRM caused much of the problem. It locked Apple in as the dominant provider and gave it tremendous market leverage -- such that no big record label risks rocking the boat and getting thrown out of iTunes.

And, despite the recent agreement to dump DRM and allow some form of variable pricing, the NY Times notes that the big record labels still have a strong hatred for Apple. While the article doesn't discuss it at all, you can bet that a big part of the desire to come up with a music tax/collective license/whatever they want to call it these days to make it sound palatable is that it will harm the iTunes lock on the market. That might be true, but the record labels may find it's more difficult to get rid of Apple than they believe. Apple's real profits are in the iPod, not the music -- so if they can suddenly offer music for "free" via iTunes as well, that would likely help sell more iPods, which would actually increase the use of iTunes as the dominant interface for interacting with the iPod.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iTunes Songs Don't Have DRM, But They Contain Your Email Address

from the two-steps-forward-one-step-back dept

Apple got a lot of press last week when it announced that it was going to remove the DRM from songs it sold through the iTunes Music Store. That's a great thing in itself, since it removes the barriers legitimate customers faced in playing back music they purchased on the device of their choice. But details are coming out, and it's not all good news: the songs are watermarked (via Slashdot) with the email address of the iTunes account used to purchase them. This is certainly better than DRM, but it's still not great. The biggest issue is that it links files to a particular consumer -- which will likely lead to the RIAA using the watermarks to attempt to "prove" that people actively shared songs and sue them. It seems inevitable that the label cartel will attempt to use the marks to inflict liability on users if music bearing their email address appears online. Which is great, until a person's iPod gets stolen and the music ripped from it, or a friend grabs music off of somebody's hard drive without their knowledge. The RIAA's legal strategy has been based on flimsy evidence; removing the DRM but adding watermarks simply gives them another way to "prove" people shared music they purchased online, even though the marks won't actually prove anything.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lame: Apple Charging $0.30 Per Song To Ditch DRM

from the do-it-yourself dept

In the initial news about Apple going DRM-free, I saw it reported that Apple would let you convert your existing files to DRM-free. However, what was left out of the reports I saw (though, people in our comments pointed it out) was that Apple wants to charge you $0.30 for the privilege of getting rid of the DRM. Of course, you can just get rid of the DRM yourself if you don't mind going through the conversion process (though, even that's a bit of a pain). Either way, it's pretty lame to charge people to get rid of DRM. Why even offer that as an option? Are people really going to pay more?

101 Comments | Leave a Comment..