eWeek: Apple's iPod Could Be Its Own Platform

by , 9:00 AM EST, December 29th, 2003

If you've been especially good this year, then you are likely the proud owner of a spanking new iPod. In your hands you hold the epitome of current cool, in your ears you hear what you want, when you want to hear it. Now that you have your new iPod, however, are you wondering if playing tunes, no matter how cool that might be, is the be-all and end-all of the 'iPod Experience'?

This very question is pondered openly in a recent eWeek article titled "iPod, Therefore I Am," by Steve Gilmor. In the article, Mr. Gilmor examines digital rights issues that are a backdrop to the plethora of music download services that are popping up like so many dandelions after a Spring rain. In particular, the article looks at the differences between Apple's iTunes Music Store (iTMS) approach to music ownership, and the model being offered by Microsoft. Here's an excerpt:

The phenomenon known as the iPod is emerging from the shadows of Napster and the Mac to become a force unto its own. As a designer toy, it offers the promise of mobility, the allure of 21st Century Art Deco and the gratification of impulse buying.

But behind the scenes, Apple Computer's MP3 device is the bulwark of an increasingly serious battle for digital rights versus the virtual law firm of Achcroft, Valenti and Gates. With the help of an increasingly pliable Congress, Microsoft has moved rapidly to encapsulate digital content in a digital-rights-management layer of protection.

Opponents on both the left and the right have charged that Attorney General Ashcroft has wrapped an assault on personal privacy and constitutional rights in a blanket of paranoia surrounding the War on Terrorism. Riding this favorable tide, Microsoft and the content industry have turned our fair-use freedoms into an attack on private property. With laws on the books now constraining our ability to obtain hardware devices that allow the same type of copying we've enjoyed for decades, Microsoft is refreshing its product lines to embed the DRM bits in Office, Windows and its suite of servers.

The article goes on to discuss the differences between Microsoft's DRM strategy and the less confining model adopted by Apple. It also discusses how the iPod could become a bigger spoke in Apple's Digital Hub.

Read the full article at eWeek's Web site.

The Mac Observer Spin:

There is lots of goodness in this article, the most fundamental of which is that it discusses key differences in how Apple and Microsoft look at how you use technology, and how each company can affect that use.

Microsoft has gone on record as saying that the iPod/iTMS model of music buying is too restrictive, that their model allows choice. When examined a bit closer, however, it seems that the opposite is true.

Microsoft's DRM strategy relies on subversion and its market dominance to coerce or bludgeon users into a DRM model that is ultimately limiting to the users who would have little control over the tunes they buy. That control would rest with Big Redmond and the music companies. While it is true that there are more types of players available that understand Microsoft's WMA music format, it would appear that the format itself is the problem. This, according to Mr. Gilmor (and we agree), negates the argument about having more choice if used.

Strictly speaking, Microsoft's WMA DRM offers options that allow music companies to time limit the music they offer, among other limitations. This option is similar to how some software is offered as demos; it allows the user to use the music for a specific period of time, then restricts or denies use after the period has ended. In a worse case scenario, music buyers would not own the tunes they purchase but merely rent them. They must then pay again to enjoy the tune after the initial lease has ended. In some situations, this scheme has merit, but no matter how you look at it, the choice of whether to use this scheme, in Microsoft's strategy, is not yours to make. It's also emblematic of Microsoft's business strategy in general, and typifies the company's desire to align itself with media-interests, instead of the user's interests.

While we aren't happy with any sort of DRM, Apple's strategy does more to balance the rights and control of purchased music more evenly between the music providers and the music buyers. In Apple's model, music buyers can still move the tunes they've bought around from computer to computer, they can share the music via CDs or over a local network via a playlist stream. Apple's scheme is still restrictive, as tunes can only be played on up to 3 computers at any one time (though unlimited iPods), but most end users will seldom run into this limitation.

Apple's iPod plays MP3s and several other music formats, and it shares this ability with other music players, so Mac or iPod owners are not limited to where and how they get their music. Rip your tunes from a CD, use another download service, or buy from iTMS, it's all good with an iPod.

What is limiting about Apple's music model is that, to get the most out of your iPod you must use iTunes and currently the only music player that users the AAC format of iTMS is the iPod. For iPod owners, that's not a problem, but for people thinking of buying a portable music player, the concept does look a bit confining, especially to those wishing to buy players that are not hard drive based. It could be that Apple is looking to fill that niche too, but we'll have to wait and see.

iPod, Therefore I Am