How will DRM affect us???

Most of us rip our own music or download from online record pools or itunes. Will vista allow us to do this anymore???

If not, Mac, here I come....honestly..A computer shouldn't dictate what we can and can't do, it should be the other way around

Good read, but the references therein are more interesting than the text itself to me.

BOYCOTT VISTA!!! Until they remove DRM!

^^^^ This is essentially the same as saying "Don't ever use Vista." The only thing I can imagine changing Microsoft's stance is if Apple somehow manages to convince the labels and studios to drop DRM for the iTunes store.

If Microsoft starts losing serious money to an unprotected product, then you *might* see them loosen up a bit. But I seriously doubt it.

As far as whether or not you can use your own ripped music in Vista, the answer is "probably" assuming you're ripping from a CD. If other formats take hold in the music space (e.g. Blu-Ray, etc.), then it's up in the air.

Sounds good.

SSL on Linux anyone ???

I've been pushing for SOMEONE to come up with a bootable CD (like knoppix) and a TCV solution on Linux. I'd go for it...

I'd love to see it happen...but I imagine the support issues alone would make it difficult to justify doing.

If you want SSL to run on a stable Unix based platform go for OSX :)

....and say goodbye to your manliness

(joking)

Hasn't anyone caught on yet? Microsoft constantly "churns" their product line. They come out with some supposed "killer app" operating system they steer you to buy and if you don't they abruptly decrease support and upgrades with your current older OS that you are familiar with and runs fine for all that you need to do, doesn't work anymore.
Their business model seems to revolve around their consumers buying a new OS every 3 years or so.
In about 6 months I am going to break this cycle and go MAC. I am not buying Vista especially with this DRM nonsense.
There's never been a better time to break this cycle!

Good intentions, but...
Are you sure that going to a Mac with solve the DRM crap?

^^^ My thoughts exactly .... from the frying pan into the fire. The only long term solution would be to go to an OS you can somewhat control ie opensource.

I wish Serato could pick one of the many linuxes out there and develop SSL for it .... but just a wish.

How does DRM slow piracy on music?

DRM is not about stopping piracy as much as it is taking your rights aways and selling them back to you. The simple fact is that the music is still available for purchase without DRM if you buy the CD. On the subject of DVD's CSS has been cracked years ago and no amount new DRM will go undefeated because there is a community of hackers for cracking DRM technologies. DRM is about selling you music and movies and making sure you can have 1-3 devices. DRM is about selling you the same content over again when your computer crashes. The movie industry hates the fact a DVD last forever and can be lent to your friends to watch. DRM allows them limit that. Lending your friend your new Sean Paul CD is not a crime. It's your CD you should do as you wish with it.

arstechnica.com

well its a good thing humans are actually sheep

Warning: My fingers were definitely warmed up when I started typing. Long post ahead...



I'm admittedly a bit biased, but I would characterize this more as "out of the frying pan into a somewhat smaller frying pan."

The point of the original post was to highlight how many deep copy protection hooks are now part of the Windows API. If you want a better idea of Microsoft's attitude toward its customers, look up the Trustworthy Computing Initiative. This was unveiled when Microsoft was taking a lot of flack for all the security holes in Windows.

Once you really read what they had planned, though, it becomes apparent that the initiative wasn't designed to make the user experience more secure, it was designed to make Microsoft (and its partners) more secure, and did so by locking the user out of certain parts of his or her own computer.

Thankfully, Microsoft decided to kill off the Palladium initiative, though I think it lives on in spirit.

Another euphemistically named feature is "Windows Genuine Advantage." As with all copy protection mechanisms, the advantage isn't to the paying customer. Finally, when you install Windows, you have to activate within 30 days or your computer turns into a brick.

In contrast, Mac OS performs none of these authentication checks, doesn't have the deep DRM hooks, and in general doesn't behave as if end-users are assumed criminals unless they can prove otherwise.

Now you can say that it's because the Mac's marketshare is so small, and there might be some applicability to that, but it's not really the reason. The real reason is much more fundamental and I'm going to put it in its own paragraph so that it's easier for people to find.

The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft is a software company and Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft's entire livelihood relies on selling software, primarily the Windows OS and the Office productivity suite. Unauthorized copying of software constitutes a much greater threat to Microsoft than to Apple.

Any software that Apple creates exists primarily to sell Apple hardware. The iTunes music store isn't a profit center for Apple; it exists solely to sell iPods. That's why I don't think you'll see Apple licensing FairPlay anytime soon. This is also why you can run Windows on a Mac, but not Mac OS on a generic PC. You have more options for your OS if you buy a Mac and people buying Macintosh hardware makes Apple happy.

As a result, the only time Apple resorts to incorporating DRM on a product is when they are more or less forced to by a partner, as with the iTunes Music Store, or for certain high-end applications like Logic or Final Cut Pro. And with those products, the protection mechanism (normally entering a serial number on install) is relatively light and unobtrusive, especially compared to having to authenticate your copy of Windows every time you need to install a patch.

The least restrictive mainstream DRM license you can get for music comes from Apple. Meanwhile, Microsoft crippled the one killer feature of the Zune, even for music to which the user owns the copyright! It's a corporate culture thing, and corporate culture is incredibly hard to change.

This is changing a bit - Apple is obviously trying to make inroads into the entertainment space, though I believe this will ultimately still be a mechanism to sell Apple hardware.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has recently started getting into the hardware game (X-Box, Zune), though they're not very good at it yet. They have a lot of money, though, and I have no doubt that they'll get it right if they can stop tripping over their own feet. Ironically, Microsoft may have to emulate Apple to achieve this - I wouldn't be surprised to see the hardware division (triumphantly led by J Allard) try to break off and gain independence in much the same way the Macintosh group did back in the days of the Apple ][.

I'd like to stress that this is not a Mac vs. PC rant - I use both Mac OS and Windows XP and they both have their place. I was thrilled when Macs started dual-booting because it meant that I didn't have to maintain as many computers as before. I only want to point out that there is a reason why Microsoft is a bit more DRM happy than Apple.

That said, I won't be moving to Vista until I am forced to. Microsoft gutted all of Longhorn's truly innovative features in order to get it out the door, and there's nothing compelling in Vista that I don't already have in the Mac OS. XP, on the other hand, is pretty stable if you take care of it and don't surf with IE.

Regarding Linux... I like the concept of Open Source, I really do. I have an Ubuntu box and a Debian box around here somewhere, though I don't use them except as hobby boxes and when I'm feeling masochistic and want to try setting up my own email or DNS server.

Linux's biggest strength, an organic worldwide army of passionate developers, is also it's biggest weakness. With no real design guidance, there's no consistency. I know this has gotten better over the years, but I can now paraphrase a line I used to see all the time in the Mac vs. PC wars: "If you want to work on a computer, use Linux. If you want to get work done on a computer, use Windows or Mac."

No it's not entirely fair or accurate, but there's a grain of truth to it. For someone who has a critical need to accomplish some task (and being a DJ in front of a bunch of people definitely falls into that category), consistency and stability is everything. Unless the Linux scene can somehow agree to let there be a guiding vision, I suspect it will never see mainstream success beyond being an absolutely fantastic base platform for vertical, pre-packaged applications like TiVos, car stereos, or other integrated systems that don't require the user to screw around with the innards.

My larger fear for Linux (and in a larger sense all of Open Source) is that the current IP environment makes it riskier and riskier to put your eggs in that basket. Just because something is open source and developed independently doesn't mean it won't violate a patent and get injunctioned into oblivion. The fractured structure of the community makes this more difficult to achieve, certainly, but all you need to do is look at how many patents Microsoft has been buying up and filing for and it's not hard to see the future.

If you read this far, congratulations - you've got a lot of stamina! =-)

Right...and jump into this frying pan?:

www.scratchlive.net

No thanks.

Although I must say that if Windows locks down my media content, I will seriously consider switching.

I have to admit I didn't read that big post by Releaux (sorry--kind of hypocritical--I write long posts all the time, but I'm in a hurry at the moment), so maybe this has already been mentioned, but isn't the DRM focusing on video content and not audio? I mean, even if it's still just video, that's a bunch of bullshit, but at least our mp3s would be safe...for now...

One month ago I bought a computer with vista. Since then all the software I use works perfectly, even better. I've had no problem with my music or videos. Only Serato doesn't work but it will, just wait.

I don't like microsoft but if you remember xp's beggining anything worked and it crashed easily.

I'll correct you on this :OSX is being run on regular PCs. I will not get into the specifics, but rest assured it'd being done albeit a little diffculty in getting OSX updates on time.

Just to add on this .. you do not even need to get to Vista WMP11 is already doing this crap !

@Society: Sorry for the novel. Here's my synopsis:

Microsoft: Software company that's a little DRM happy because it relies on software for nearly all revenues.

Apple: Hardware company that's a little less DRM happy because it relies on hardware for nearly all revenues.

Windows XP: Nice OS that is stable if you feed it.

Mac OS: Nice OS that is stable if you feed it.

Windows Vista: Pretty OS with no compelling interest to me because they gutted all the cool stuff to get it out the door and I already have Mac OS X and Windows XP.

Linux: Cool OS that is stable if you feed -aux | grep s/feed/sustenance\& /usr/bin/gcc -a --optimize i686


@s42000: You are correct... it is possible to run Mac OS X on generic hardware in the same way that it is possible to run a cracked Russian copy of Windows that doesn't do an authentication check. I wouldn't rely on either method to run my business. ;-)

@Thread
I don't think that Microsoft is going to retroactively try to put some sort of DRM in anyone's MP3s and people shouldn't be getting all Chicken Little about it.

What Microsoft is doing is putting hooks into the OS that will make it much easier for media companies to put DRM into content. Sony won't have to put a rootkit on a CD because Microsoft will have already put it in the OS.

OK ....

Now what do WE do ?

Well-reasoned response
Society, this is actually a pretty minor issue and one that has a very easy work-around: plug the USB cable into the other port. That thread just looks scary because it's some people enjoying the troubleshooting process.

The more important consideration for whether or not to switch over to Mac is how much you have invested on the PC side of things. How much software are you going to have to repurchase? If you're going to have to upgrade anything anyway because of Vista, this may not be as big of an issue. You can also run XP on the Mac, so the transition may not be quite as painful.

I'm obviously a Mac fan, but it's not right for everyone. I will say, however, that most people I've introduced to the Mac have loved it after using it full-time for a month. Not all, but most. The DRM issue is something to be aware of, but I don't know that I'd let it push me to another platform just yet.


Mac-Fanboi response (in Flava-Flav voice): Yo, boyeeeee! See - that's why Macz rule, G! When Vista tries bein' a DJ, da whole SYSTEM goes down. When Macs have a problem with SSL, you just have to switch the port. Don't... don't.... don't believe the hype!

Keep rockin' the house. Seriously, I don't think this is a huge issue. It has the potential to become one but, as Windows fans are quick to point out, there's a HUGE amount of software out there for the OS. I'm sure that if there's a need to be able to get tracks into a format SSL can play, there will be a software solution available.

And if not, you can always take your CD over to your Mac-owning friend's house. ;-)

^^^ ... I meant what do we do in the long run with our computers seeing that each company is out to protect their interests.

It's just a matter of time (on both platforms) before your computer is owned by 'the man'. I forsee a future where you will have to swipe your credit card per every mouse click on your own computer if things continue in this direction.

Yeah, I kind of figured that someone would mention that the USB port thing is not a big issue--I know, it's not, but come on, it's not that often us PC users get to stand on the outside of an OS issue at watch all the Mac users squirm! ;) (That is, assuming that it's an OS issue, which, according to that thread it seems to be.)

As for switching, I probably won't, as long as this DRM thing doesn't prevent me from authoring any media the way I do now. I'm not into pirating movies/music (not in any big way, anyways...) so if it won't affect me, than I don't care. Plus, I'm hoping all these bugs/problems with Vista will work themselves out or whatever. I remember the same thing when XP came out. In fact, I didn't install XP on my system until last year when the new versions of software I was using forced me to!

I've used Macs enough to know that, for me anyway, there's no real need to switch. A computer is a computer--I need to get the job done, not become a cheerleader for some giant corporation (nice fan-boyeeee big-up, btw :). I'd list some reasons as to why I'll stick with PCs, but I think we all know where that would lead this thread...

I understand completely. Please enjoy your turn doing the superior dance.

en.wikipedia.org

Finally someone gets it right... people have been saying for years "Apple would increase its marketrshare if it just licensed its OS." Power Computing anyone? The clones nearly put Apple out of business when they did this back in the mid '90s. Part of the reason the Mac works so well is the tight integration of specific software/hardware.

Yes you can run the Intel version of the Mac OS X on some run-of-the-mill PCs but good luck with some of the drivers. If you don't mind messing around in terminal and hacking kexts—let's not even mention skirting around legality here— more power to you.

Vista will even slow you down.... www.computerworld.com

Releaux,


AFAIK the names have been changed but there are still plans to incorporate Palladium. With Vista you have the BitLocker Drive encryption support, which use the TPM chip, which Palladium is based on. So you will see some kind of Palladium in Windows "soon".



Sorry, this is kind of wrong, as the same goes for iTunes/iPod and Apple in general. I can't copy my mp3 (recording of my own stuff!) from my iPod. Once they are on the iPod, there is no legally supported way to get them off the iPod.



True, but more and more companies earn money by services, supporting software. They hire programmers professionally and pay them to work on open source products. I think this is a model for the future and it will increase the quality of software.
Also a big plus is that programmers who spent their free time on projects are in general more passionate about their projects ;)


Hm, well, admitted, it may take some time to get your stuff running. Its not always a "out-of-the-box" solution, but many governments are actually changing to open source solutions b/c they can adopt the software to exactly their needs.

Nik,




As I said, it lives on in spirit. The only thing I use Windows for is World of Warcraft, Oblivion, Flight Simulator, BF1942/Vietnam, and Quickbooks. Everything else I do on the Mac.

It will be interesting to see how far Microsoft and the entertainment industry can push consumers back before they either see plummeting revenues (and blame it on "piracy") or experience a complete paradigm shift with something like YouTube (but without the content problems) coming along and biting them in the ass.

The barriers to entry for content creation have been lowered by nearly unimaginable amounts... we've got 12 year olds producing tracks in their bedrooms that would have been impossible to create outside a studio when they were born. We've also got people producing movies on digital cameras that cost less than $3000 compared with normal film cameras that break $100k (plus all the costs of film development and editing).

As content supply goes up, price goes down. We're in for interesting times in the next 30 years. :-)




Ok, I'll get picky because I think we're talking about two different things.

I'm not referring to the ability to transfer mp3s on/off an iPod. Instead, I'm talking about the specific license pertaining to music purchased through the iTunes Music Store.

No other mainstream service I'm aware of (e.g., Napster, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.) provides you with a combination of:

*a perpetual license
*the right to simultaneously play the track on up to 5 different machines
*the ability to move it to an unlimited number of iPods (as long as they're associated with one of your licensed machines)
*the right to burn the DRM'd file to an unprotected format (AIFF/WAV on CD) an essentially unlimited number of times (the restriction is on how many times a specific playlist can be burned).

Other vendors may have one or two of these features, but not all. The other model is the subscription model where you get all you can eat, but everything disappears the minute you stop paying.

I should note here that I don't buy from any of these services, including the iTunes Music Store, because I don't find it to be a good value. I'll stick to CDs until they stop selling them or come out with a better (unprotected) format.

The point of my statement in the earlier post was simply to illustrate the difference between Apple and Microsoft when it comes to how software is sold and protected. For Microsoft, the software is the product. For Apple, the software is simply a reason to buy the real product which is Apple hardware.

I am also in no way saying that Apple doesn't benefit from DRM - the iPod is a closed system and FairPlay isn't licensed because it helps to sell iPods. If you like you can think of a Macintosh as a big dongle for Mac OS X (in the same way we get Serato Scratch Live, but it's only useful if you also buy the $500 USB audio interface...)

I'm primarily saying that Apple has less of a vested interest in further injecting DRM into every aspect of the computer user's life because they have a fundamentally different business model from Microsoft.


Regarding your specific point about transferring tracks on/off an iPod, there are several work-arounds. The inability to transfer tracks from the "playback" section of the iPod is limited by software (as lip-service to the labels if I recall correctly), but not prohibited by license as far as I know. Additionally, you can always use part of the drive in disk mode if you don't want to use a 3rd party utility.

The iPod is not meant to be a distribution or authorization mechanism, it's an end-user playback system. My comment about the Zune referred to Microsoft being so worried about protecting licensed content that they "threw the baby out with the bath water" and applied DRM tactics even to non-protected content.

This article says it far better: www.engadget.com

Microsoft missed a golden opportunity to definitively one-up the iPod.

This is, however, a Microsoft product, so I'm giving them up to the 3rd version before I make a final judgment on the device - I think it has the potential to be really great, and I'm glad the iPod has a competitor - it will make Apple have to keep innovating the iPod and everyone (particularly the end-user) benefits.

By the way, if you haven't seen this video, check it out. It's funny: Watchwww.youtube.com



No argument from me on either of those, though the long-term profitability of committing corporate resources to an open source project hasn't really been determined. It's almost more of a marketing/PR expense because it generates a lot of goodwill from a very opinionated, active, and (sometimes) influential group of international developers.

Again, I wasn't saying that open source is bad (I don't believe that at all), only that the ease-of-use of open source software suffers when there's not a unifying vision or set of human interface guidelines that people mostly follow.

Luckily, many Linux/open source developers have adopted some of the conventions used by Apple and Microsoft which makes things a bit more consistent. But when everyone's trying to reinvent the wheel (which can be an unfortunate byproduct of the passion you mentioned), it can slow things down.




Heh heh... if you want to win any argument with me, one thing not to do is tell me that something is good because the government's doing it! :D

Seriously though, yes... Linux has a definite place in the world. It's cheap, it's powerful, it's adaptable and extensible. It is a fantastic platform for embedded systems or vertical applications, especially those needing customization as you mentioned.

What it's not good for now, and what I don't see it being good for at any time in the near future, is the average end-user who doesn't have an IT department or an annual training budget.

It's hard to set up, it's not unified, it's too balkanized, and most importantly, it's not really designed for the end user. Linux (and the open source movement in general) was created by a bunch of really smart people who don't have the benefit of a marketing department to reign them in when they get a little crazy. (Of course, they also don't have a marketing department squashing really cool ideas because it won't make money, but that's a slightly different issue). Linux d00d minds don't think the same way the average user's does.

The potential certainly exists for someone to come along and create a good end-user experience (Ubuntu comes to mind), but the only way I see Linux making true inroads to the end user is if someone comes along and uses it as the basis for a new OS the way Apple uses BSD as the base for OS X. Someone has to hide the ugly (but powerful) underbelly of the OS and make things easy before it will get mass-adoption.

(Thanks, by the way, for the thoughtful responses... I'm enjoying the conversation.)

yeh, in my experience—depending on the software and its complexity—sometimes with the smaller open source projects, it's almost easier to roll your own solution than trying to hack someone's else's code. I got bit by this one awhile back (modifying a shopping cart solution). By the time I got it up to where I wanted it, I could have used that time to create my own code with exactly the right set of features. So it really depends on what you're doing...

Maybe we should amend Andy Warhol's statement to:

"In the future, everyone will be a linux coder."

Sadly, for me, that ship has sailed... I can set make file switches and compile source code if I have instructions, but that's about as far as it goes.

"I don't understand your mysterious ways... I'm only a caveman!"

AFAIK they have plans, not only hidden in their spirit and mind.

Picky? You? *I* am picky :) :


This is a restriction, AFAIK, you can't burn them as often as you like.



About 50% of the CDs in Germany are copy protected and by law you are not allowed to circumvent the copy protection. Going throught the analaog loophole is not breaking the copy protection, but its a big hassle. Its so ridiculous if you consider that at the same time you have the right for a personaly copy. Weird? Yes.



You hit the nail on the head and it explains definitly a lot.



Arent you contradicting yourself now? You say apple rely on hardware, hardware sells better due to DRM, and then DRM is not so important for Apple?


I know that there are workarounds, but why is Apple putting me through this shit? For stuff which can't be done anyway. There are ways to get the tracks off, there is no way how you can DRM mp3s (I talk about real DRM, not a restriction like wl.net files). So why putting the user through such a hassle? It sucks.

I cant comment on the fact whether it is allowed or not.



There are lots of companies who use this as a serious business model, so it's not just a PR gag. They customize open source software.


The rest of your post dealing about open source/linux makes sense, absolutely. The example of a government was only taken to display that there real life/mission critical scenarios where linux is being used... (not talking about the ridiculous uptime of linux servers in general ;) )



Absolutely SpinThis. Simple example - the SSL user wiki. The wiki does not support editing from logged-in-users-only. I modded it with my almost not existing poor php skills. Recoding a wiki was not an option for me ;) And I am pretty sure, this would have not been possible with a closed source software (of course unless the option (logged-in-users-only-editing) was in the software natively ;)

You are correct - it is technically a restriction in that if you bought the entire Justin Timberlake album, you can only burn the tracks to CD in the order they appear on the album a certain number of times.

However, unless they've changed the policy, there is no limit to how many times you can burn the tracks themselves... just the order in which they appear. So if you want to put SexyBack on every CD you burn all year (and who wouldn't?) you can do that. You could put all the tracks from the album on every cd you burn as long as they didn't appear in the same order more than X times... (I think it's 5 or 10... not sure).

Again, my point is not that the restrictions aren't there, just that they are pretty significantly less onerous than what you get from other downloadable music sources.



The same restriction exists here with the DMCA, we just haven't rolled over and accepted copy protected CDs yet. My gut feeling is that the labels are going to try and skip on to the next format and build copy protection into it from the start.

By the way, I have shown admirable restraint in not going off on a rant on how fundamentally stupid DRM and copy protection schemes are. I write a lot about it (and given these last few posts of mine, that should strike fear into your heart). My argument normally boils down to:

Copy protection would be fine if:

A. It were unbreakable.
B. If caused more of a headache for the criminal than for the paying customer.

Unfortunately, neither of these are true, nor are they likely to ever be true in the foreseeable future. Yet I still have to guard my iLok with my life every time I go into a studio, only to find that the d00d coming in after me just downloaded a patch off the internet and doesn't have to worry about it.




If you consider Apple hardware as a form of DRM itself (e.g., you can't run OS X without having Mac hardware), then yes, I suppose I am sort of contradicting my original argument.

And with Bill Gates publishing an open letter to the world saying that we'd all be better off without DRM... oh wait a minute... that wasn't Bill Gates, that was Steve Jobs. ;-)

We can get all lost in the details and poke holes in specific arguments, but I think my original point is still valid.

I never said that Apple doesn't use or benefit from DRM, only that its business model is less sensitive to unauthorized copying than Microsoft. MS has a more vested interest in DRM/copy protection than Apple because software/content is Microsoft's primary source of revenue.

If someone steals a copy of Windows, MS doesn't see a dime. If someone steals a copy of OS X (or any other Mac software), Apple still sold a Macintosh. As a result, you can expect MS to be a bit more... enthusiastic about getting DRM into its products, and from an end-user perspective (or more to the point, a DJ's), less DRM is good... that's one of the reasons I prefer my Mac.

I'm not trying to paint a black and white / good and bad picture, I'm just addressing one of the concerns raised in the original post and some of the subsequent questions. It's my feeling/opinion that I'm less likely to get sandbagged by some hidden DRM hook in the future on my Mac than I am on Vista.



It absolutely sucks. While I can't provide you with a verifiable source, I believe that the reason for this behavior in the iPod is Apple hedging against a specious lawsuit from the RIAA claiming that the iPod "encourages copyright violation" (the same argument used against peer-to-peer systems). In making it difficult to transfer an mp3 from one computer to another via the iPod (even if only a little more difficult), Apple shows a good faith effort in preventing the violation.

Secondarily, I think it was probably a bargaining chip in the licensing of content for the iTunes Music Store.



I didn't say that it was a PR gag... just that larger companies who dedicate some staff to working on open source projects have no way of knowing if it's a long-term profit center, a cheap mechanism for realizing internal savings (leveraging open source efforts for internally customized software rather than buying from a 3rd party or writing from scratch), or simply a community goodwill expenditure.

I think any company with half a clue is also aware that the open source community is already skeptical of corporate involvement - doing something solely as a PR "gag" would likely backfire. The effort has to be sincere and, so far, I think the companies who have waded into the pool have done pretty well.

I probably misread your initial statement on this, though, and interpreted it more along the lines of Apple (who has certainly benefited from their customization/fork of BSD) rather than companies who exist solely to provide support and customization of open source products (e.g., Drupal or Joomla hosting companies, etc.). I have no argument with your assessment of this business model.



I was just being a smartass about the gov't thing. It's actually one of the places I think is a very good fit for Linux. Gov't needs special purpose, secure, customizable, and cheap software. Most gov't applications are pretty vertical (DMV, tax collection, infrastructure planning, law enforcement, etc.). Linux makes sense for any gov't. that has enough of an IT budget to support the initial conversion and subsequent maintenance and training.

That's where ROI compared to Windows licensing comes into play, and you've probably noticed MS being very aggressive when Linux has made inroads to the public sector. Sometimes I think small gov'ts simply use it as a bargaining chip in their windows license negotiations, but I'm happy when I see someone making a serious consideration.

Since you mentioned mission critical, I'll give you a personal example. I worked for a silicon valley biotech. We were one of two companies leading the charge to map the human genome. We used very big iron from SGI and Sun primarily to crunch through all the sequencing.

Then one of our mad-scientist sys-admins figured out a way to do massively parallel processing via RedHat. We built a 300-cpu rack of generic white box PCs that was outperforming some very powerful machines at about 1/10th the cost. These things ran 24/7/365. Eventually, we moved to 2 and 4 chip rack units, and ultimately to blade servers and got even better price/performance ratios. We hadn't even paid off the big iron before we decided it was obsolete for its original purpose.

To put things in perspective, we ran more data through our network in a month than Industrial Light & Magic - at one point, we had the fastest network in Silicon Valley with the probable exception of Cisco's R&D lab.

So don't think I'm not a huge fan of Linux - I really am. I'm just not sure it's the right OS for DJ Jazzy Bizzo.

(By the way...



Come on... give props. That shit was funny! (even if the command is nonsense))

Oooh! I just thought of another bit (shamelessly ripped off from the Apple commercial) for that joke:

Windows Vista: Pretty OS that ...YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO FEED WINDOWS VISTA WITH NON-MICROSOFT FOOD. THIS MAY RESULT IN AN UNSECURE SITUATION AND CAN COMPROMISE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION. ALLOW OR DENY?

I really need to get a life.

It's just a shame you see Jobs explain why DRM is such a problem and why they won't license it to other companies (even if were profitable) then have the RIAA chumps go completely backwards, as if they hadn't even read the article at all. If it were up to Apple there wouldn't be DRM.... but alas we don't live in a perfect world either.

perfectly said... my feelings exactly too... if it matters, Apple's intentions seem to be much better than M$'s and with Jobs' open letter, he really confirmed this.

Man... we typed a lot in this thread. :-)

How stupid is that? Again, thats an unnecessary restriction.



TWo wrong dont make one right, right? ;)



Absolutely agree. Same goes not only for DRM but also all this crap about loggin what you are doing in the internet, on your cellphone, with your car. Allowing police to check your email accounts. Jesus, it's 2007. Any 12 year old kid can google and find out how to encrypt their emails. Don't you think that criminals don't know how to use tools to protect them? So who are you really controlling? Average Joe or the criminals. Power to the people. Viva la revolution! :)



Sorry, but I disagree. It doesnt make sense to me if you keep in mind what you said before. Once there is no DRM, anyone can use iTunes tracks on *any* player, no one is bound to use Apple hardware. So it is crucial for Apple. Esp. as they make a looooot of money from iPods.



I somehow understand this but I don't trust Apple either. Esp. the statement about DRM free music from Steve Jobs, I don't trust him. I think it was a clever move from Steve, to pass the buck back to the music industry after the question arised again in the public why Apple does not license their DRM to other companies. Apple is certain that a removal of DRM is not going to happen soon (even I am praying for it ;) ) which is also, as said before, in Apples interest.



True true. In the common end customer market Windows + Mac's rule. Thats how it is. Thats one of the reasons why we wont see a Linux port of SSL in the near future.

I'm not arguing that it's a hindrance, but I think this falls under the same rationale as the restriction on moving files off the iPod. It was probably a term demanded by the content companies, and it shows good faith on Apple's part to try and deter unauthorized copies.




No, but if I'm going to be handcuffed and someone offers me a choice between a set with ragged metal edges and a set with fluffy padding and silk liners, I'll probably choose the latter. Yes, I'm still handcuffed, but the experience isn't quite as bad.

(Unless you like handcuffs with ragged metal edges, but I suspect that's another thread entirely)




You're forgetting a bit of your history... the iPod became the best selling MP3 player in the world before the iTunes music store came out. It won the marketplace when only MP3s roamed the earth.

Further, I think you underestimate the degree to which the iPod has saturated consumer consciousness. Apple is having to be more and more aggressive about protecting the iPod brand because it's in danger of becoming a generic term.

Radio stations and bloggers don't talk about making a copy of their shows available as an mp3 download, they talk about their podcasts. Major automotive companies are advertising that new models are "iPod compatible" even if it's a more generic interface that will work with other players. But many of them only support the iPod and have it so integrated that you can put it in the glove compartment and control it from the car's radio.

Don't forget, also, that music downloads make up a small percentage of total music sold. Most of the music living on iPods (as Microsoft itself was quick to point out during all the Zune hype) are actually mp3s.

Now that the iPod's been around for several years, is reaching a maturity point in its lifespan, potentially getting some decent competition, and getting more people to use the iTMS, Apple benefits more from DRM than they previously did. No question.

But you've focused my original argument to only consider the iPod, when I was originally talking about Apple as a whole, and I still hold that Apple relies less on DRM as part of its business model. Not that they don't use it at all, only that it's less important to Apple's success.

Let's say that DRM disappears tomorrow. Which company is likely to suffer more damages: Microsoft or Apple? (Ignore marketshare because that only magnifies the answer).




A healthy skepticism is good, and I share it with you. I believe that the timing of the DRM letter was more geared toward current issues Apple is having in Europe. However, if you look at Steve's personal politics, I think he leans more toward the populist side of things, so while it may be politically advantageous, I don't consider it out of the realm of possibilities that he truly believes in it.

If you read the trades, most of the music industry has a real love/hate relationship with Apple because they want more restrictions. Apple holds a giant club with the iPod's marketshare, and that's what gives them the leverage to keep the DRM as unobtrusive as they can, while still satisfying the major labels' need to "protect" the music.

And if you're gonna shift blame to where it truly belongs, I think the music industry is absolutely the right place. It's not Apple suing 12 year old girls...

iTunes downloaded music is DRM'ed

i need a cigarette.

lol :)



I honestly think it would be Apple.

Both... remember Microcrap owns alot of stock in Apple

nik39 wrote:



If after all this you still feel this way, then we've reached the point where we shake hands, agree to disagree, and get back to talking about why Run-DMC is better than Fiddy. =-)


Dj Disturbed wrote:



Oh, now you gotta just give me more ammunition, don't you?

Rather than make this thread any longer and contribute to KaGeN's smoking habit, I'll just link this:

(WARNING: YOU MAY BE ENTERING A MAC VS. PC WARZONE)

news.com.com

This guy doesn't provide any sources, but his account generally fits with what I remember hearing from friends at Apple when I lived in Silicon Valley.

Never watch anyone cook your food, make sausage, or avoid litigation. =-)

Watchwww.youtube.com

Spin, there is no way I'm clicking that link after my last sentence without some description of what's on the other end...

;-)

Nice... but I still would like to know why you think the way you do. I didn't understand it properly I guess. :)

hahaha... jobs vs gates spoof on apple latest commericials... it's pretty entertaining....

It's likely that I didn't explain my position clearly enough or that we got sidetracked on some secondary issue.

I suppose actions speak louder than words: Microsoft is actively increasing the amount of DRM in its OS, and has launched several initiatives over the years like Palladium, all of which make the honest end user pay to jump through hoops.

Conversely, Apple doesn't have a serial number requirement on their OS installs, doesn't perform authentication/valid copy phone-home checks, and only uses a serial number for their pro applications like Final Cut Studio and Logic.

The DRM on iTunes Music Store Tracks was demanded by the major labels who would not allow Apple to sell their libraries without some form of protection. While Apple has chosen to keep this system proprietary (a smart business move when you're the market leader, a dumb move when you don't have much share), the presence of DRM was not what made the iPod the best selling MP3 player on the planet - it was a combination of killer features, a nice design, a great UI, and that intangible "cool" factor that Apple is so good at cultivating.

Finally, if DRM is as critical to Apple's success as you say, why can the iPod play non-DRM tracks? Why does Apple tell you how to remove the DRM if you choose? Why does Apple allow you to burn a CD?

Meanwhile, you record a song you wrote, put it on your Zune, and Microsoft immediately decides for you what you can do with that song (e.g., the 3x3 beaming limitation). No, you can't share music with an iPod, but iPods never claimed sharing as a feature, while MS pushed it as the killer feature of the Zune.

Let's go back to words, though...

Steve Ballmer:


Steve Jobs:



I know you don't trust Jobs' statement, and there's nothing I can do about that other than to point out that CEOs of billion-dollar companies don't say things like this lightly - it screws with stock prices and analyst forecasts too much.

Finally, I'll repeat something I said in an earlier post because I don't think I can come up with a clearer example of why Microsoft's business model relies more on DRM than Apple's:

If someone steals a copy of Windows or Office, Microsoft doesn't see a dime. If someone steals a copy of Mac OS X, Final Cut Studio or Logic, Apple still sold a computer.

Spin, that was hilarious! Thanks for the link.

I still have my Commodore 64. (And my Vic-20, and my Amiga, and my Atari 2600, and my original Pong game, and...)

God, I'm a nerd.

It sounds like SSL will not work with Vista... is that correct?

Nevermind...


scratchlive.net

I'm in the market for a new lappy for SSL. Is it possible or does it make sense to remove Vista off the new lappy and replace with XP?

It depends on how soon you need to be up and running. Since Serato hasn't issued a release date or ETA on Vista drivers, it might be awhile before SSL plays nicely with the OS.

The only potential hurdle you might hit would be a lack of XP drivers for your new hardware. You'll probably want to research that before making a final decision. You'll also want to make sure you have a way to go back to Vista if you decide to.

Is the computer going to be dedicated to SSL, or will you be doing other things with it?

Primarily for SSL but of course I would like the option to use it for other ish.


Sounds like it doesn't make sense to to switch Vista with XP as it wouldn't really be a clean swap (driver issues).

I'd hold off on buying a new lappy unless it came with XP, till Serato catches up...

Didn't someone (not sure whether it was you) say that that's how Apple started their iPod? Without DRM stuff.



Cause they they hope enough people find it as annoying as I do, burning, reripping, reencoding, retagging. A lot of (unnecessary) work.



I don't understand this. If you really steal a copy of Mac OSX then you have 2 choices:

* you've owned a Mac before

=> you are stealing a copy of a new version of Mac OSX - money loss for Apple, as the updates cost money.

* you haven't owned a Mac before

=> you are stealing a copy and are trying to run it on a non-Mac hardware. No machine which apple has sold - lost money.


What did I miss in your arguement?

Yep Yep... every new lappy I've seen lately has Vista. I'm even considering goin Mac!

Yeah... that was me. And that's my point. Apple hasn't needed DRM to make the iPod successful. The iTMS didn't exist when the iPod was released. In fact, according to Apple's stats, DRM'd tracks from the iTMS only make up about 3% of all music currently living on iPods.




I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Apple wants to make the user experience poor so users will just accept DRM because its easier? If that were the case, why give consumers the option to do it at all? If you're trying to get people to be happy with just having a DRM'd track, it would be better to never show them the benefits of having an unprotected track.

For that matter, why come out and challenge the music industry for their requirement that Apple put DRM on tracks? It's interesting to note that a Microsoft employee called Steve Jobs "irresponsible" and "naive" for publishing that essay and if THAT (along with Steve Ballmer's comments) doesn't tell you something about the disparate attitudes and cultures at the two companies I don't know what will. Steve is out there trying to get the consumer a break (which he feels will also benefit Apple) and Microsoft is calling the move irresponsible.

Yes, DRM is a pain in the ass. Absolutely no argument from me on that. But if protected music makes up only 3% of total content on iPods, and the iTMS is not a profit center for Apple, and Apple has point-blank said officially that they'd like to get rid of DRM, and the iPod became the dominant player on the market without the benefit of DRM tracks locking people in, I really don't see how you can say that DRM is critical to Apple's iPod channel.




I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have a loss from theft, only that their loss isn't as complete. If someone steals Apple Software, and that software only runs on a Macintosh, then Apple has to have sold a hardware unit at some point for that theft to have a point.

Example: Someone downloads a cracked version of Vista Ultimate. Microsoft has lost between $200 (OEM) and $378.99 (Amazon retail price). For the sake of simplicity (and our sanity), we'll ignore development costs and margin.

For what we're talking about, Microsoft only sells software, primarily Windows and Office. The theft of Vista is an unmitigated loss because Microsoft has no other channel that could possibly benefit from the theft.

Net loss for Microsoft: $200 - $378.99

On the other hand, if someone dupes a copy of the latest OS X install DVD from a friend, Apple has lost a sale of $150. But because the thief has to have a Mac to run that OS, and because Apple is the only source for that Mac, Apple has also sold a computer for between $599 (Mac Mini base model) and (gulp) $12,842 (fully loaded Quad core configured at the Apple Store).

Net gain for Apple: $449 - $12,692

Now if you're trying to run a hacked OS X on vanilla hardware, you are correct - that's a net loss of $150 for Apple.

This is grossly simplified and the real gains/losses are smaller because we should incorporate cost of production, development cost, etc., but I don't have those numbers.

On the whole, though, Apple suffers less from software theft than Microsoft because, until someone comes up with a Star Trek Replicator that we can put in our homes, you can't make a copy of the Macintosh. You have to buy it from Apple.

I suppose you could buy a Mac Mini and then steal every new version of OS X until you made up the cost of the hardware, but you'd probably have a pretty slow computer since OS X major releases are 18-24 months apart. If you bought a Mac Mini the day before a new version was announced, it would be between 72 and 96 months (6-8 years) before you'd make up the cost of the Mini in savings on the OS.

I stand by my original point: Apple is less likely to put deep DRM hooks into its operating system because Apple's business model (selling hardware) doesn't rely as much on DRM as Microsoft's model (selling software).

Not that I'd want to discourage you from getting a Mac (personally I think they're the only acceptable choice now, given the disastrous turn Windows seems to be taking) or patronizing CompUSA (to me a place I go only as a last resort), but I was looking on CompUSA's site earlier today and they seem to still have a fair number of Windows XP laptops in stock.

Ironically, if you pop into a mac os x hacked forum, almost everyone who posts already has a Mac or "intends" to get one after using a "hacked" macintosh anyway. There's prob more people pirating windows vista than trying to get mac os x working...

That actually is illegal. Most CDs have a disclaimer stating 'any unauthorised duplication, distribution, lending etc is strictly prohibited'

Thanks Mark... I'll check that out.

BTW...Which Mac lappy would you recommend?

If you don't plan on doing video, the Macbook line will probably be fine for you. If you need the additional video horsepower, however, the MacBook Pro line will probably be a better bet.

MacBook vs. Powerbook??

MacBook vs. MacBook Pro. Right now, the relative performance is pretty close. The Pro line has faster processors, bus, firewire 800, backlit keyboard, and much better built-in video.

If all you're going to use the machine for is Serato, and you don't plan on doing video mixing down the road, the non-Pro line may be a better value for you.

Good look Releaux... I just may end up with a MacBook. I was just kinda wondering if it would be worth picking up a used powerbook because of the usb dropout issue with the MacBooks.

I think it would be a mistake to pick up a PowerBook. You'd be giving up the Intel chip and all of the other niceties of the current MacBook and Pro line to avoid a problem that really isn't that much of a problem.

1. There's an easy workaround: plug it into the other USB port.

2. It's likely a software issue that will be fixed eventually, though considering 1, it's not that big a deal.

I've never had a dropout problem on my 15" Core2Duo MacBook Pro. I guess that means that either I always plug into the correct port or using an external FireWire drive eliminates the problem. =-)

One other reason to go with the current models: if you decide that Mac OS X isn't for you or there's that one piece of Windows software you need, you can always install XP.

Great info! Good look Releaux.

My pleasure - nice website, by the way. I'll have to pick your brain about mobile work sometime soon. =-)

Holla anytime homey!

Agree as well.

My experience is however a bit different, I own a 15" C2D MBP as well, and even with the good port I get a few dropouts during a night.

If my G4 12" Powerbook dropped dead and I needed something right this minute...I would have a tough time deciding whether to seek out an identical G4 Powerbook (Apple's site as of today still has refurbs) or going for a Macbook.

My Powerbook has been rock-solid stable for 18 months of heavy use (and still looks brand new), and I love the size and finish...the aluminum is great both for heat dissipation and for cleanability. It is not without good reasons that the last generation of 12-inch Powerbooks are quite desirable on the used market at this time. The performance with SSL and everything else I run on it leaves nothing to be desired. (I do have the Mac Pro for the heavy-duty tasks like Pro Tools, batch-encoding of MP3's, and I'd no doubt use it if I needed to build overviews for a whole SSL library, so I *won't* claim the 12-inch Powerbook works as my "do all" machine...just for clarity).

Obviously the Macbooks are faster, but I hate the shiny screens and there seem to be more reliability issues with those machines. Plus I firmly believe plastic cases are compromised for heat dissipation, especially with Apple's approach to letting electronics cook for the sake of lower fan noise. (Fortunately there's Fan Control for the Intel Macbooks/Pros, so that would no doubt help mitigate that concern).

I'm hoping Apple has a laptop that's more similar in form to the 12-inch Powerbook before I'm forced to make any such choices.

On the other hand...the choice between a Macbook and any Windows laptop for SSL to me is a no-brainer in favor of the Mac. Among many other reasons (already discussed here at great length) I very strongly dislike both Microsoft's business practices and their approach to software development, and feel that *any* viable alternative should be encouraged and supported. Look at Apple, look at Microsoft...look without prejudice, but consider all of both companies' actions in the last five years or so. Which one seems to care more about the needs of end-users? Which one is actually driving progress, and which is doing little more than leeching off other companies' ideas and aggressively protecting their own interests at the expense of paying customers? Which is progressively leading and which is the reactionary follower?

Sorry for the mini-lecture, but on a larger level I look at this much like voting. I look at everything Microsoft and the likes of (PIMMAL) Steve Ballmer have been up to in the last few years, and I don't think I could bring myself to give them any money at this point. This stuff affects all of our lives, and that will be more and more the case as we become ever-more dependent on this technology.

Do the MAcbooks have glossy screens?

^Yup

Even more freaking glad I went with a MBP instead of a MB.

you can get them with glossy or or non-glossy screens

Overall the MacBook Pro feels and makes you look more professional compared to the MacBook: better and bigger screen, aluminium enclosure, backlight keyboard.

Powerbook is good b/c it does not have the USB dropout issues but will be outdated soon.

Maybe you just continue using what you have and see how everything develops (Vista drivers, Macbook dropout problem).

Well the same arguement could apply to why Apple implemented the nast mp3-protection stuff on their ipods - to show good will towards [insert customers/industry].



It all comes down to the questions about what exactly is the driving buying feature for iPods. It is indeed a combination of coolness, image, bla bla, but also iTunes (thus DRM) plays a big role I assume. As iPod sales (and all sales which belong to the iPod 'aftermarket') is a major part of Apples sales - DRM is important.



Wow, the numbers you were given are almost arbitrary. We could discuss for days why some are way off. However lets scrape the numbers for a second... and...


There is a flaw in the logic... if the computer has already been sold, thats sale which has already been done. By downloading a new version of Mac OSX - Apple is not earning money. They are loosing money. They are also not getting a new customer who buys new hardware to make Apple get some money.



That's what I am talking about. But, maybe, this is a way to get new customers. I read an article yesterday which was about pirated software and the impacts for MS. They are actually quite happy that MS software is being pirated - to some extent. Cause thats a good advertisment. People know how to use MS Office. All with legal copies? If not, the article said (quoting someone from MS) they kind of want to keep the pirates and... try to make them pay, with the pay-by-use and pay-by-the-size-of-your-wallet model which you can already see in Vista. It's quite cheap (ehmm....) to get the basic Vista, someone with a little money might be tempted to buy such a basic Vista. Then he will recognize how stripped down it is (except for the DRM crap of course ;) ) and as soon as he has some more money he will be tempted to upgrade his Vista - just a click away.
Back to topic [well I am kinda on topic weird, innit...], Apple does not earn money by pirates. I think the number of users who actually use a pirated OSX on not Apple h/w and then convert to buying actually a Mac is quite small.

@DJMark,

Mini-lecture? HA! Scroll up a bit and witness the discussion Nik39 and I had. We wrote nearly 1/3 of Great Expectations up there.

As Disturbed pointed out, both the MacBook and MBP lines come with the option for either matte or glossy screens. I went with matte.

I also have a 12" PowerBook. Actually, my wife and I had matching ones and hers got stolen, so she stole mine and I got the MBP. It's a sweet machine, and I agree - there's definitely a place for the small form factor if you don't need the screen real estate.

I've found my MBP to be more useful all-around, but the size of the PB was great on airplanes, at cramped meeting tables, in a backpack...


@Nik39,

Do you use an external drive? If so, is it FireWire 400, 800, or USB2? My drive has all three as an option, but I only use FW800. I'm curious if that has any effect on the dropout issue.

Also, are you using a separate user account dedicated to SSL, and have you gone through and looked at how many background tasks are running?

The only time I ever see a dropout light is immediately after I plug the box in. After that, it's rock solid for hours. I did a 6-hour house party for friends last week and never had a problem.

When I got the MBP, I knew I planned on using it for audio work and that I'd want to separate those apps from "normal apps" via a user account. I set my main account up without admin privileges and have been very careful about what apps go in the root Applications folder - most of the applications I install go into ~/Applications to isolate them from the other user accounts. This may also have some impact on my performance.


@thread

There's one other thing that I love about the PowerBook and MacBook Pro lines - the keyboard itself. This may not be important to most people, but I do a lot of typing and the keyboard on these machines is flat-out excellent. It's solid and fast.

The only keyboard I've come close to liking as much is on an IBM ThinkPad. Again, this isn't probably high on the list for most DJs, as your interaction with the keyboard is likely to be much more limited, but it's one more tick in favor of the Pro for me.

Releaux, no ext drive.

No separate user account. I thought Macs are "configuration and hassle"-free? ;) Do I need to use a second user account?

Thanks Mark & nik.
The wifey has approved the new lappy so that's why I'm all over it! LOL Guess I'll do like BD Martin suggests and hold to see how things develop. Just can't afford to have dropouts...

Macbook Pro's has the option for Matte or Glossy. Regular Macbooks you only can get it with Glossy.

no wonder you're even considering a MAC..... you have a wifey "safe to go shopping" store pass.

^funny

Hm, thats weird, I liked my Thinkpads keyboard, I don't feel comfortable with the apple keyboard. It just feels weird. Maybe I got used to all the cheapo keyboards which are built into many machines nowadays.

But the backlit keyboard nice! Is it true, that its not available on the MB, only on the MBP's?

Actually, it would be better for Apple in this respect if they didn't provide any mechanism to remove DRM. The DRM on iTMS tracks is due to a requirement from the major labels. If Apple didn't do it, the labels wouldn't license the music. This is fairly well documented.




Nik, you're not listening to me. I have never said that DRM is not at all important or useful to Apple. Only that it is less important to Apple than it is to Microsoft. I believe this because of a combination of words, actions, and corporate culture.

Apple doesn't use copy protection in any form on its OS and fairly light/unobtrusive or easily removed DRM on other offerings including pro applications and iTMS tracks.

Microsoft uses authentication, phone-home checks, hidden processes, and even requires you to re-authorize if you upgrade too many things on your computer.

Apple has said quite publicly that they'd like to get rid of DRM.

Microsoft has said quite publicly that they intend to make DRM stronger and more integrated across the entire product line.

Which company do you think relies more on DRM?



I don't know any plainer way to put it.


Apple's primary business is the sale of high-margin, premium, differentiated hardware. They achieve these sales through a combination of excellent feature set and industrial design. In the case of the Macintosh, they also provide software offerings that are highly desired by the target market and exclusive to the hardware being sold.

If DRM were important to the sale of a Macintosh, why is OS X not protected in any way whatsoever?


Let's look more closely at one thing you said, because I think it's important to our holding different views.



Maybe that 3% number didn't sink in. According to Apple estimates, only 3% of music on iPods is from the iTunes music store. Apple has sold over 1,000,000,000 tracks.

Flip that over and it means that the installed base of iPods contain 97% unprotected tracks (or over 32.3 billion files).

When you take this into consideration, iTMS tracks are an almost insignificant portion of what people buy iPods for.

Does the convenience of the iTMS create some iPod sales? Absolutely. Apple may even make some money off of it. But in FY2005, Apple made 4.54 billion on iPod sales, compared with 899 million for music-related services which includes the iTMS, iPod services (repairs), and after market devices. All of that combined was only 20% of what they made off the iPod itself. (www.sec.gov)

Nobody's going to turn their back on $900 million, but I think you overestimate the correlation of iTMS sales to iPod sales.

As the iPod market has matured, there are certainly some people who are "locked" into the iPod because of the DRM, though this is a pretty weak argument when Apple has made it relatively easy to permanently get rid of the DRM.

Is it a painless process? No. DRM removal rarely is for paying customers. Is it easier than any other mainstream digital music service? I'd say a qualified yes. I qualify it because we're now starting to see some vendors (e.g., Yahoo) selling unprotected tracks. Apple's betting the majority of the consumers out there will still put that music on an iPod.

And again, if DRM was critical for iPod sales, the iPod wouldn't be able to play anything but DRM tracks. Apple doesn't care where you get the music from, only that you put it on an iPod.





The numbers are not arbitrary. I chose to compare OS X with Vista Ultimate because they are the closest in feature set and functionality, and because Apple doesn't sell multiple versions of the OS.

The prices for Vista Ultimate are Newegg.com's prices as of 12 March, 2007. $200 is the price of an OEM copy and $378.99 is the price of a full retail copy.

The prices for the Macintosh hardware and OS X come from the Apple website on the same date. $150 is the cost for a single-user copy of OS X. $599 is the cost of a base-configuration Mac Mini (the cheapest Mac you can get). $12,692 is the price of a top-of-the-line quad-core Mac tower with all available options included.

(Actually, I made a mistake. The price for a single-user copy of OS X is only $139. Let's leave it at $150, though since the math is clearer).

I didn't include additional peripherals like mice, screens, etc.

As I mentioned, this is grossly simplified for the sake of argument because we have no source for true development costs, profit margins, distribution cost, etc. I chose easily available prices simply to illustrate my argument.

As I specifically said in my previous post: the real gains and losses will be smaller due to actual costs being different from retail prices.




It's a simple balance sheet calculation, Nik.

Microsoft Starting Balance: $0
Theft of Microsoft Vista: -$200
Microsoft Ending Balance: -$200


Apple Starting Balance: $0
Sale of Mac Mini: $599
Theft of OS 10.4: -$150
Theft of OS 10.5: -$150
Theft of OS 10.6: -$150
Apple Ending Balance: $149


Again, this is obviously simplified and doesn't take internal costs into account because I have no way of providing them without digging into a bunch of analyst reports and 10-ks. Additionally, I'm using a long-term approach. Quarterly or Annual results would show different P&L.

(I think this approach is adequate for a DJ forum since I was only making a broad point in the first place).

Even with the cheapest Mac available, it would take years for Apple to end up with a net loss because they sold hardware. You can't just conveniently ignore the sale of that hardware because it's Apple's core business.

The point, again, is that while Apple has lost some money on the theft of software, that software requires a hardware purchase and Apple's margin on hardware is among the highest in the industry.

Unless of course, you're saying that everyone who steals a copy of OS X is going to try and run it on non-Apple hardware which is stretching things pretty far. The difficulty and instability of that method limits it primarily to hackers and hobbyists. Most people who dupe a copy of OS X are going to be family and friends snagging a copy.



This is an ancillary argument that doesn't really affect my original point, but since I've already typed this much...

Microsoft has always had a secret-love-hate relationship with unauthorized copying, at least when products are young. Microsoft Office is the de-facto standard today because it was so widely copied in its infancy.

But Microsoft only profits from unauthorized copying if they can monetize the market share gained in this fashion. Once a piece of software becomes so widespread that it would be difficult to get people away from it, Microsoft starts playing hardball and begins using serial numbers, phone-home authentication, hotlines for disgruntled employees to report unauthorized copies, lawsuits, you name it. This allows monetization from casual copiers and those without the technical ability to defeat the DRM mechanism. Microsoft's model has long been "Innovate, then litigate."

The incremental upgrade and software leasing models you mention don't really affect the hard-core "pirates" though. They will still continue to steal the software (wasn't Vista cracked within like 24 hours of going gold master?). Microsoft has wanted to get the OS and Office applications moved over to a leasing model for years.

And leasing models don't work without heavy reliance on either contractual enforcement and random audits (an unrealistic option for Microsoft), or heavy reliance on technological mechanisms like DRM to enforce compliance with license terms.



I'll summarize one final time:

Apple primarily sells hardware. Hardware itself doesn't need DRM. Apple demonstrably uses DRM to a far lesser degree than Microsoft and says that they'd like to eliminate it entirely for iTMS purchases. 97% of all music on iPods isn't protected by DRM, yet the iPod is still the best selling music player on the market. The Macintosh Operating system has no copy protection.

Microsoft primarily sells software. Software is easily stolen if it is not protected by some form of DRM. Microsoft uses several forms of copy protection to protect its products because other forms of license enforcement aren't economical. Microsoft has publicly stated both historically and currently that they intend to increase the amount, strength, and integration of the DRM in their products, specifically the Windows OS.


If you still don't think that Microsoft's business model requires higher reliance on DRM than Apple's, there's nothing more I can say to convince you.

I use one because it's an easy way to isolate anything that might conflict. I should note that I don't use a separate user account my my desktop Mac and everything runs just fine.

But for any mission critical application, I'd either dedicate a machine to it (regardless of platform) or do my best to isolate the application from other applications that aren't well coded.

Whoops... you are correct, Matt. I never really looked at the MacBook, so I didn't realize they didn't provide the matte option.

It was even better for me... after my wife's PB was stolen, she asked me on a weekly basis, "When are you getting a new Mac so I can have yours?"

All you youngsters out there, heed well the old married guy: "Wife Approved Technology" will make your life much happier!

Ah, yes, I read the 3% but misunderstood the context.

Well in that case... I don't understand why people go for iPods :)


Disagree,
Sale of Mac Mini does not give a profit of $599!


Exactly... hardware is the difference. Hardware has hihg variable costs in contrast to software which has almost none variable costs but fixed costs. So after R&D:




My numbers are arbitrary as well, just estimated by someone who doesn't know much about the real h/w costs etc. The main point is that you have costs due to material things vs. immaterial things (software).

Anyway lets skip the numbers, as said before I don't think the exact numbers make a difference.



Absolutely right. Most of the OSX bootleggers are those who own a mac and dont wat to pay for the update.


Do you think incorporating the TPM module is a kind of DRM?

'Cause they're hella sweet and all the cool kids have 'em. =-)

Initially, I think it was because the iPod was the first player to have enormous capacity (for the time and relative to other players), the ease-of-use factor, and a simple but powerful user-interface. By that I mean the combination of the software and hardware interfaces.

Then it became the "cool" thing to have. White earbuds meant you were cool. Now I think it's partly inertia, partly the generic factor (everything's an "ipod" so that's what people ask for). Marketing has played a huge role in this... Apple figured out what people wanted, sold it to them, and advertised the hell out of the process.

That said, Apple has done a fairly good job making incremental improvements to stay ahead of the pack. There are certainly players with better features, but they just haven't been able to crack the mindshare.

I was disappointed in the Zune because it had the potential to set off a new arms race in the segment. Unfortunately, Microsoft crippled the features that would make its innovations truly useful to consumers and had some marketers smoking crack (seriously... "Squirting???" UPS Brown? What the hell? At least call it "beaming" and "cocoa" sheesh), They didn't give the mainstream consumer a compelling reason to switch from their iPod.

Of course, just as the RIAA blames "piracy" instead of crappy music for supposedly declining sales, Microsoft claims that the DRM on iTMS tracks is what's killing the Zune.

I think I said way up above, though, that since it's a Microsoft product, I'm giving it until version 3 before I make a real judgment about it. I think Microsoft is definitely on the right track with the Xbox 360. Integrating the Zune could be a killer combination. My worry is that they'll cripple it with intrusive DRM and the Gen Z kids will probably avoid that.




Nor does Microsoft "make" $200 or more off Vista Ultimate. Which is why I said,



(emphasis added)

You are absolutely right about fixed vs. variable costs, and I accept your offer to skip the numbers. Even if we know a $499 Mac Mini costs $283.37 to make (www.isuppli.com) we have no way of knowing Microsoft's true development costs for Vista nor do we know what Apple spends on OS X or Mac Mini R&D. I went with retail price because it factored a lot of things in automatically since both Apple and Microsoft sell high-margin products.

Of course, it costs less for Microsoft to develop Vista since Apple already did the R&D and interface design for them...

KIDDING! I'M KIDDING!!!



If I understand the intent of your question, yes I suppose it would be, although what you're essentially saying is that Apple sells $2,500 dongles for Mac OS X. =-) Which I suppose they do.

Of course, they've been doing that since the first Macintosh. I remember a Macintosh emulator for the Amiga that was pretty slick. The only catch was that you had to have a pair of the Mac ROMs that you could burn or nothing worked. And of course, the only place to find Mac ROMs was in a Mac.

So if you approach this from that angle, Apple is nothing but a big DRM company. There. You win. :D

There's so much FUD about the TPM thing that it's hard for me to figure out what's actually going on with that chip. This seems to be the most even-handed page so far, though:

www.osxbook.com

Even if Apple doesn't intend to use the chip for anything other than ensuring that OS X only runs on Apple hardware, the presence of the chip still annoys/concerns me because while Apple doesn't use it, that doesn't mean someone else won't find a way to make my life hell by exploiting it.

Like I said earlier, though: