Andrew Leonard makes some relevant statements about what's wrong with all the different "legal" music services developing, and how, by not embracing the universal MP3 format that made Napster so damn great, they all kind of suck.
Musical snares
Is Apple's iTunes service nirvana for music fans -- or just the start of a file-format nightmare that will drive us all nuts?
By Andrew Leonard for Salon.
The quality of my life has improved. But iTunes for Windows is not perfect, and my music consumer utopia is still an unrealized dream. Despite its vaunted half a million songs, I want plenty of albums and acts that are not yet available. I am greedy. I want everything. Let me buy it now. I'm also not crazy about the iTunes library organizing software. But what alarms me the most is the flip side of Apple's success -- a looming battle over file formats that, at least in the short term, is going to force consumers to make hard choices.Because iTunes won't play my Windows Media music files. And the Windows Media Player won't play songs purchased from the iTunes store.
That's not the future I want to pay for. In the 21st century era of late capitalism, the consumer is supposed to be king -- my every desire is supposed to be reflected by marketplace offerings. Instead, the market is ordering me to get Steve Jobs' smirking grin tattooed on my butt, and while that may be an improvement on being branded with a Microsoft iron, I'd still rather keep my skin as it started, unblemished.
Right now, there are several options for compressing music files into sizes where it becomes feasible to download them online. Tunes purchased from the iTunes Music Store come in the AAC format. Tunes bought from most other commercial services have aligned themselves with Microsoft's WMA format. Then there's the original MP3 standard, which is aligned with no single company, and there's even a free software alternative called Ogg Vorbis.
This is not the place to engage in a detailed discussion of the relative merits of the different formats. Suffice it to say that about a year ago I committed an egregious error. When I finally purchased my first computer with a CD burner, I was so excited about being able to make my own CD mixes that I unthinkingly went ahead and used the Windows Media Player to rip all my favorite CDs to my hard drive. The Windows Media Player allows users to encode their songs only in the WMA format, which (like iTunes' AAC format) comes with various digital rights management capabilities built in.
Now I have all this music that iTunes won't play, and a bunch of songs purchased from iTunes that the Media Player won't play. So, at the moment, I am prevented from burning a CD that has songs from both libraries. There are converters available that will transform WMA files into AACs and eventually there will no doubt be converters that perform the reverse service, but the process is a hassle that may end up downgrading the overall sound quality. I would have been far better off if I had ripped all my CDs to MP3s to begin with, because iTunes and the iPod will play MP3s. (And even, better, the iTunes software will allow me to rip my CDs into MP3s.)
I should have known better, because now I'm sitting exactly where Microsoft wants me, facing a significant "switching cost" if I want to adopt iTunes as my music-management software of choice. It takes time to rip CDs -- and I have a lot of 'em...
I have a friend who has about 30,000 songs on a hard drive. There's nothing to stop me from hooking his computer to mine with a USB cable and slurping all that music at once. Sure it's illegal, and I'm not going to do it, but the RIAA would never know if I did, unless I did something stupid and put that server online for everybody on the Net to grab.
All over the world, even as Hollywood tries to push copy-protection legislation and sue individual file traders, music lovers are accumulating larger and larger collections of songs on their hard drives. Eventually, we'll be able to go to our local flea market, and the guy who right now is selling freshly burned copies of Eminem is going to be selling us DVDs with 4.8 gigabytes of music, also for a few bucks. Even worse, the swap meets will soon be featuring swappable drives that will contain everything the Beatles ever recorded, or all the pop music from the '60s, or the entire Warner Bros. catalog. Cheap.
I don't know how the record companies are going to stop it. I do know that if one day I'm staring at hundreds of gigabytes of music files on my own computer that I paid for that aren't playable on the newest piece of hardware or best available piece of music software, I'm going to be sorely tempted to head down to the flea market. And even if I refrain, that doesn't mean everybody else will.
Wouldn't it just be better to give me what I want, right now? Please don't make the consumer angry! Or he'll bite.
Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/leon/2003/10/28/itunes/index.html
Musical snares
Is Apple's iTunes service nirvana for music fans -- or just the start of a file-format nightmare that will drive us all nuts?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Andrew Leonard
Oct. 28, 2003 | I downloaded my first MP3 file in February 1998. The process was convoluted to the point of absurdity. I used one program to rip a song from a CD I owned, another program to convert that into a compressed MP3 file, and a third program to upload it to an FTP site that required visitors to donate their own MP3s first before any downloading would be permitted. To complicate matters further, just finding that FTP site required lurking in seedy chat rooms where file traders exchanged passwords to sites that might be open only for a few hours in the dead of night.
And yet, there was something so obvious and right about playing music on my computer, on simply desiring a particular track and then going and getting it, that I knew that something fundamental had changed about my relationship to recorded music. When my Rage Against the Machine track blasted out of my computer speakers, I was transfixed by a vision of music-consuming utopia: Some day, everything ever recorded would be one or two clicks away. Every bootleg, every B side, every studio outtake. This is what the Internet was good at: connecting me with the objects of my desire. I want; therefore I get to have.
Questions of cost were not meaningful to me. I am no fan of record companies or overpriced CDs, but I am also not one who believes that all intellectual property should be free. I was, and am, plenty willing to pay a fee for a desired service. Indeed, when Napster ushered in the era of instant music gratification in 1999, I always felt a little uneasy with the justifications that file traders made for the morality of their copyright violations. To me, the success of Napster and then Kazaa demonstrated that there was a gaping market opportunity, and the longer the record companies took to get their act together, the longer they would stoke the flames of piracy.
So while waiting for an online music service that was right for me, I contented myself with ripping my own CDs to my hard drive and burning compilation mixes for my own amusement and as gifts for friends. And then came iTunes.
Like millions of other Windows users, I was excited when iTunes was finally made available to the non-Macintosh world two weeks ago. At the original debut of iTunes' online music store, it seemed clear that this was best legally sanctified option so far -- and not just because I lusted after an iPod. Steve Jobs and Apple ("Rip. Mix. Burn.") understood that instead of resisting music consumers, it was time to aid and abet them. I downloaded the software within hours of its being made available and bought my first songs within minutes of installation.
The quality of my life has improved. But iTunes for Windows is not perfect, and my music consumer utopia is still an unrealized dream. Despite its vaunted half a million songs, I want plenty of albums and acts that are not yet available. I am greedy. I want everything. Let me buy it now. I'm also not crazy about the iTunes library organizing software. But what alarms me the most is the flip side of Apple's success -- a looming battle over file formats that, at least in the short term, is going to force consumers to make hard choices.
Because iTunes won't play my Windows Media music files. And the Windows Media Player won't play songs purchased from the iTunes store.
That's not the future I want to pay for. In the 21st century era of late capitalism, the consumer is supposed to be king -- my every desire is supposed to be reflected by marketplace offerings. Instead, the market is ordering me to get Steve Jobs' smirking grin tattooed on my butt, and while that may be an improvement on being branded with a Microsoft iron, I'd still rather keep my skin as it started, unblemished.
Right now, there are several options for compressing music files into sizes where it becomes feasible to download them online. Tunes purchased from the iTunes Music Store come in the AAC format. Tunes bought from most other commercial services have aligned themselves with Microsoft's WMA format. Then there's the original MP3 standard, which is aligned with no single company, and there's even a free software alternative called Ogg Vorbis.
This is not the place to engage in a detailed discussion of the relative merits of the different formats. Suffice it to say that about a year ago I committed an egregious error. When I finally purchased my first computer with a CD burner, I was so excited about being able to make my own CD mixes that I unthinkingly went ahead and used the Windows Media Player to rip all my favorite CDs to my hard drive. The Windows Media Player allows users to encode their songs only in the WMA format, which (like iTunes' AAC format) comes with various digital rights management capabilities built in.
Now I have all this music that iTunes won't play, and a bunch of songs purchased from iTunes that the Media Player won't play. So, at the moment, I am prevented from burning a CD that has songs from both libraries. There are converters available that will transform WMA files into AACs and eventually there will no doubt be converters that perform the reverse service, but the process is a hassle that may end up downgrading the overall sound quality. I would have been far better off if I had ripped all my CDs to MP3s to begin with, because iTunes and the iPod will play MP3s. (And even, better, the iTunes software will allow me to rip my CDs into MP3s.)
I should have known better, because now I'm sitting exactly where Microsoft wants me, facing a significant "switching cost" if I want to adopt iTunes as my music-management software of choice. It takes time to rip CDs -- and I have a lot of 'em.
Sometime soon, I will start the laborious process of re-ripping all my CDs into MP3 files so they will play nice with iTunes. But the more I think about it, the more antsy I get about my decision to back the iTunes camp. What if, after I spend thousands of dollars on iTunes, Rhapsody or Buymusic.com or the new Napster rolls out a new version of a service that offers access to 5 million songs instead of just five hundred thousand? What if some new programming genius comes up with a compression format that uses even fewer bits but delivers better sound? Then won't I have achieved little more than exchanging one digital music tyrant for another?
I am confident that the marketplace is going to steadily deliver a progression of options that benefit me in some way: a wider selection of songs, lower prices, easier-to-use software. But I'm not confident that I won't be endlessly posed with a series of ever more onerous switching costs. Perhaps, once hard drives and bandwidth get big enough, we'll be able to do away with compression formats altogether, but companies like Microsoft and Apple are still going to strive to lock users in to their software/hardware platforms as long as they can. And that is decidedly not an example of the marketplace serving my consumer desires.
Then again, the music industry had its hands forced once, when widespread piracy made it clear that the studios faced the prospect of losing their customers entirely if they didn't offer customers a way to get what they wanted. The whole dynamic could easily repeat itself, should consumers ever get too frustrated with the available offerings.
I have a friend who has about 30,000 songs on a hard drive. There's nothing to stop me from hooking his computer to mine with a USB cable and slurping all that music at once. Sure it's illegal, and I'm not going to do it, but the RIAA would never know if I did, unless I did something stupid and put that server online for everybody on the Net to grab.
All over the world, even as Hollywood tries to push copy-protection legislation and sue individual file traders, music lovers are accumulating larger and larger collections of songs on their hard drives. Eventually, we'll be able to go to our local flea market, and the guy who right now is selling freshly burned copies of Eminem is going to be selling us DVDs with 4.8 gigabytes of music, also for a few bucks. Even worse, the swap meets will soon be featuring swappable drives that will contain everything the Beatles ever recorded, or all the pop music from the '60s, or the entire Warner Bros. catalog. Cheap.
I don't know how the record companies are going to stop it. I do know that if one day I'm staring at hundreds of gigabytes of music files on my own computer that I paid for that aren't playable on the newest piece of hardware or best available piece of music software, I'm going to be sorely tempted to head down to the flea market. And even if I refrain, that doesn't mean everybody else will.
Wouldn't it just be better to give me what I want, right now? Please don't make the consumer angry! Or he'll bite.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Andrew Leonard is the editor of Salon's Technology & Business department.
The "AAC" format is not aligned with Apple or iTunes. It is MPEG-4, which, just like MPEG-1 Layer 3 (.mp3), was developed by the Motion Picture Experts Group.
WMA is purely Microsoft derived.
Overall AAC is more of a "standard" than WMA, in my humble opinion.
Indeed though, we are all suffering from both Apple and Microsoft's stubborn little war and their refusal to support each others standards, even though it would be so very easy for them to do so.
Posted by: Brett on November 7, 2003 10:42 AMYes, I would imagine Microsoft has been pressing manufacturers to make players that support the closed WMA format rather the open AAC format.
I do not see a good reason why those WMA playes do not support the open AAC, other than Microsoft telling them not to. But there are many good reasons for players not to support WMA. WMA being a closed codec is one, they have to pay for the license is another.
Posted by: Kai on November 7, 2003 06:35 PM As stated in a comment above, the AAC format is MPEG-4 audio, an industry standard. Songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store are in a "protected" version of that format, incorporating Apple's "fairplay" intellectual property protection. Fairplay is THE most liberal end user format in use today.
What we are seeing is an unrepentant Microsoft trying to wedge everyone into their proprietary WMA format, while Apple is supporting the accepted MPEG-4 standard open to all. BTW- The entire industry EXCEPT Microsoft supports this standard. The Bush DoJ let Microsoft off the hook and they are revering to form with their attempt to "own" the digital world. The European Union has seen this and is still holding Microsoft's feet to the fire. Even here, the issue is not settled, and the Justice Department's misconduct will come to light.
This is not some petty Apple vs Microsoft thing, this is about Microsoft "owning" the means by which A-V is distributed. They are out to destroy Quicktime and Real Media in the marketplace by using their monopoly position on the desktop. This is exactly what they did to Corel in Office Software, Netscape in Browsers, Apple in Desktop Operating Systems, etc. It's not about compatibility, it's about owning closed proprietary standards. They want it all.
If Microsoft gets it's way, the Windows Media format will be THE way you handle Audio & Video in your computer and how it is distributed on disk and online. That way they get a fee on everybody's software and everybody's intellectual property. This battle is not about online music stores, it's about the open MPEG-4 standard and the closed WMA standard.
I could give you a bunch of hotlinks showing you what Microsoft has planned for the future with "Longhorn" but this is not the place. Do a Google search on Longhorn, the next version of Windows and check out how Microsoft is planning on locking out everybody. This is the very thing that caused the Federal Anti-Trust Lawsuit in the first place.
The difference now is that Microsoft has learned how to play the politicial/legal game. They know that most states are short of revenue and will settle cheap, while Microsoft has a $50+ Billion cash reserve. This will also write a lot of $2000 contributions to both parties candidates during an election cycle.
Have you noticed how the online "tech" media and TV business media always handle Microsoft with kid gloves? You don't think it has something to do with the fact that they consistently buy more online and TV ads in that market than anyone else, do you? If you had a 90% market share would you spend so much on advertising? Only if it buys you favorable coverage.
Your digital future is for sale and Micro$oftopoly has more money than anyone else by far. They do not want to compete on a level field, they want to own the field and make you pay to play on it.
I've gone a little long, but this is very important. The mainstream media and tech media are largely bought and paid for on this issue. It is on forums like this where the truth will be found. Thanks for reading.
As stated in a comment above, the AAC format is MPEG-4 audio, an industry standard. Songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store are in a "protected" version of that format, incorporating Apple's "fairplay" intellectual property protection. Fairplay is THE most liberal end user format in use today.
What we are seeing is an unrepentant Microsoft trying to wedge everyone into their proprietary WMA format, while Apple is supporting the accepted MPEG-4 standard open to all. BTW- The entire industry EXCEPT Microsoft supports this standard. The Bush DoJ let Microsoft off the hook and they are revering to form with their attempt to "own" the digital world. The European Union has seen this and is still holding Microsoft's feet to the fire. Even here, the issue is not settled, and the Justice Department's misconduct will come to light.
This is not some petty Apple vs Microsoft thing, this is about Microsoft "owning" the means by which A-V is distributed. They are out to destroy Quicktime and Real Media in the marketplace by using their monopoly position on the desktop. This is exactly what they did to Corel in Office Software, Netscape in Browsers, Apple in Desktop Operating Systems, etc. It's not about compatibility, it's about owning closed proprietary standards. They want it all.
If Microsoft gets it's way, the Windows Media format will be THE way you handle Audio & Video in your computer and how it is distributed on disk and online. That way they get a fee on everybody's software and everybody's intellectual property. This battle is not about online music stores, it's about the open MPEG-4 standard and the closed WMA standard.
I could give you a bunch of hotlinks showing you what Microsoft has planned for the future with "Longhorn" but this is not the place. Do a Google search on Longhorn, the next version of Windows and check out how Microsoft is planning on locking out everybody. This is the very thing that caused the Federal Anti-Trust Lawsuit in the first place.
The difference now is that Microsoft has learned how to play the politicial/legal game. They know that most states are short of revenue and will settle cheap, while Microsoft has a $50+ Billion cash reserve. This will also write a lot of $2000 contributions to both parties candidates during an election cycle.
Have you noticed how the online "tech" media and TV business media always handle Microsoft with kid gloves? You don't think it has something to do with the fact that they consistently buy more online and TV ads in that market than anyone else, do you? If you had a 90% market share would you spend so much on advertising? Only if it buys you favorable coverage.
Your digital future is for sale and Micro$oftopoly has more money than anyone else by far. They do not want to compete on a level field, they want to own the field and make you pay to play on it.
I've gone a little long, but this is very important. The mainstream media and tech media are largely bought and paid for on this issue. It is on forums like this where the truth will be found. Thanks for reading.
As stated in a comment above, the AAC format is MPEG-4 audio, an industry standard. Songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store are in a "protected" version of that format, incorporating Apple's "fairplay" intellectual property protection. Fairplay is THE most liberal end user format in use today.
What we are seeing is an unrepentant Microsoft trying to wedge everyone into their proprietary WMA format, while Apple is supporting the accepted MPEG-4 standard open to all. BTW- The entire industry EXCEPT Microsoft supports this standard. The Bush DoJ let Microsoft off the hook and they are revering to form with their attempt to "own" the digital world. The European Union has seen this and is still holding Microsoft's feet to the fire. Even here, the issue is not settled, and the Justice Department's misconduct will come to light.
This is not some petty Apple vs Microsoft thing, this is about Microsoft "owning" the means by which A-V is distributed. They are out to destroy Quicktime and Real Media in the marketplace by using their monopoly position on the desktop. This is exactly what they did to Corel in Office Software, Netscape in Browsers, Apple in Desktop Operating Systems, etc. It's not about compatibility, it's about owning closed proprietary standards. They want it all.
If Microsoft gets it's way, the Windows Media format will be THE way you handle Audio & Video in your computer and how it is distributed on disk and online. That way they get a fee on everybody's software and everybody's intellectual property. This battle is not about online music stores, it's about the open MPEG-4 standard and the closed WMA standard.
I could give you a bunch of hotlinks showing you what Microsoft has planned for the future with "Longhorn" but this is not the place. Do a Google search on Longhorn, the next version of Windows and check out how Microsoft is planning on locking out everybody. This is the very thing that caused the Federal Anti-Trust Lawsuit in the first place.
The difference now is that Microsoft has learned how to play the politicial/legal game. They know that most states are short of revenue and will settle cheap, while Microsoft has a $50+ Billion cash reserve. This will also write a lot of $2000 contributions to both parties candidates during an election cycle.
Have you noticed how the online "tech" media and TV business media always handle Microsoft with kid gloves? You don't think it has something to do with the fact that they consistently buy more online and TV ads in that market than anyone else, do you? If you had a 90% market share would you spend so much on advertising? Only if it buys you favorable coverage.
Your digital future is for sale and Micro$oftopoly has more money than anyone else by far. They do not want to compete on a level field, they want to own the field and make you pay to play on it.
I've gone a little long, but this is very important. The mainstream media and tech media are largely bought and paid for on this issue. It is on forums like this where the truth will be found. Thanks for reading.
As stated in a comment above, the AAC format is MPEG-4 audio, an industry standard. Songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store are in a "protected" version of that format, incorporating Apple's "fairplay" intellectual property protection. Fairplay is THE most liberal end user format in use today.
What we are seeing is an unrepentant Microsoft trying to wedge everyone into their proprietary WMA format, while Apple is supporting the accepted MPEG-4 standard open to all. BTW- The entire industry EXCEPT Microsoft supports this standard. The Bush DoJ let Microsoft off the hook and they are revering to form with their attempt to "own" the digital world. The European Union has seen this and is still holding Microsoft's feet to the fire. Even here, the issue is not settled, and the Justice Department's misconduct will come to light.
This is not some petty Apple vs Microsoft thing, this is about Microsoft "owning" the means by which A-V is distributed. They are out to destroy Quicktime and Real Media in the marketplace by using their monopoly position on the desktop. This is exactly what they did to Corel in Office Software, Netscape in Browsers, Apple in Desktop Operating Systems, etc. It's not about compatibility, it's about owning closed proprietary standards. They want it all.
If Microsoft gets it's way, the Windows Media format will be THE way you handle Audio & Video in your computer and how it is distributed on disk and online. That way they get a fee on everybody's software and everybody's intellectual property. This battle is not about online music stores, it's about the open MPEG-4 standard and the closed WMA standard.
I could give you a bunch of hotlinks showing you what Microsoft has planned for the future with "Longhorn" but this is not the place. Do a Google search on Longhorn, the next version of Windows and check out how Microsoft is planning on locking out everybody. This is the very thing that caused the Federal Anti-Trust Lawsuit in the first place.
The difference now is that Microsoft has learned how to play the politicial/legal game. They know that most states are short of revenue and will settle cheap, while Microsoft has a $50+ Billion cash reserve. This will also write a lot of $2000 contributions to both parties candidates during an election cycle.
Have you noticed how the online "tech" media and TV business media always handle Microsoft with kid gloves? You don't think it has something to do with the fact that they consistently buy more online and TV ads in that market than anyone else, do you? If you had a 90% market share would you spend so much on advertising? Only if it buys you favorable coverage.
Your digital future is for sale and Micro$oftopoly has more money than anyone else by far. They do not want to compete on a level field, they want to own the field and make you pay to play on it.
I've gone a little long, but this is very important. The mainstream media and tech media are largely bought and paid for on this issue. It is on forums like this where the truth will be found. Thanks for reading.
