Great article. I found it weird/desperate that Gorog never specified how it was exactly that Microsoft had apparently failed them. In every way when you look at what Microsoft brings to the table, Janus is better than FairPlay (from a tech/bizdev perspective, not necessarily a consumer perspective)...if nothing else, it's the same only with more options.

I can't imagine that if the iTMS was its own company and run by Gorog that it would be anywhere near profitable. Instead it would be just where Napster is today.

Vern - thank you for the most cogent explaination of the Microsoft DRM I've ever seen. The first set of bullets drives home the different focus between Windows DRM and Fairplay. The Windows DRM is designed to please the content provider - it's all about how many ways you can limit the usage and portability of content. Apple's DRM is how to best satisfy the listeners' requirements, how expansive usage can be while satisfying the content owner's security requirements.

This different focus may explain the lack of success that Microsoft's system has had. In the rush to ensure that the content provider (and the licensor of the DRM scheme) is satisfied for every possible permutation of usage, MS has forgotten that unless the consumer has a satisfactory experience, he/she is simply not going to "consume".

To Microsoft, the entity licensing the DRM is the consumer - that's where the revenue stream is, which is a typical MS business model, one that has been successful for MS in other arenas.

Apple has basically said "we aren't interested in a revenue stream from Fairplay, the end user is our focus. We want to sell iPods, and make using and owning those iPods as easy as possible." It's a different business model - and also one typical for Apple. Since you can't get more consumer oriented than a personal music player, this model works very well.

"better" DRM comes from completely the wrong perspective - "Look, with this method the worms can't steal your stuff, and they'll be forced to fork over their dough to you!"
Nothing about customer satisfaction or making something people want to buy. That sort of situation can't last until forever, and forever is here. It's a battle they can't win, but one they can prolong and make everyone a little more miserable in the process.
The old business model is broken, and some new one has to emerge to take its place. I don't know exactly what that is, nobody does, but no doubt it will mean a more balanced market. Fewer absurdly successful superstars, and a lot more people making a reasonable living.

The item that Vern neglected to mention is that Microsoft's DRM scheme is tied to their own proprietary file format. Apple has chosen to use a file format developed by an engineering organization that is in the public domain. Microsoft is using their own proprietary file format. Writing a DRM based on the work of an engineering committee and not violating their use laws is inherently more difficult than going the Microsoft route. on the other hand, Microsoft is seeing resistance to adoption of their format because noone wants to get locked into a proprietary format owned by a single company.

That iRiver model you ponted out, the battery life is only for the 1gb model, the 512mb claims approximately 17 hours, close enought to the Nano in real usage, I'd think. What's the point of having 2.2" screen on a 512mb unit? That's only enough room for a couple of TV shows, at most, and nowhere near big enough for a full length movie. Even the 1GB is barely big enough for one movie. Apple knew that putting a big screen on a small capacity unit is really pointless. The physical size is too big for it's capacity. Although, to critique the Nano, I would have appreciated video output so that I could use it for presentations.

I'm not sure it IS what consumers want. Subscription models HAVE to be more restrictive (i.e. no burning to CD, more tied to a person).
I think it's certainly what some consumers want - it would be particularly useful for parents - but I'm not sure it's what all consumers want.

You say "Microsoft's DRM is better than Apple's" and go to great lengths to explain why. It is only better for the content provider. For the content consumer, it is worse. Much, much worse.
And I think that may be part of the equation...

<i>There's more, but the biggest thing Windows DRM has over Apple's is that Windows' system is more open.</i>

If PlaysForSure was somehow 'OPEN", then Napster and other me 2s would be offering their products and services on both Windows and Mac. But the fact remains that Microsoft's DRM is a Windows-only affair making it just as closed as Apple's DRM (hence FairPlay)!

It's not that the model is broken. It's simply the wrong one. MS and these other vendors used the same model for digital music/hardware distribution as they did with with PC's and software. They were successful with that model in corporations because corporations like homogenous environments. This trickled down eventually. Consumers and music are different requiring a different model. Jobs found a place where the "all in one" seamless integration strategy works. Gorog and the others are upset because they can't impose their structure onto this market like they could with corporations and PC's.

Napster is NOT a subscription, it's a rental.

When you have a subscription to a magazine, you get to KEEP the magazines you've already received even if you cancel the subscription. Napster has a rental service - you get to use the content while you're paying. Stop paying, you lose the content. That is not s subscription, at least not from the consumer's point of view.