Will an Apple 'iMusic' Service fly?

March 4, 2003 7:12 AM

An "insanely great" solution to MP3 piracy that users AND the recording industry will accept? While still only a rumor, Apple Computer may be developing a service in conjunction with all major recording studios to permit easy, inexpensive downloading of music through Apple's famed 'iTunes' music cataloging/burning software. Knowing Apple's penchant for ease-of-use and clean, solid design (combined with some hard-knuckle Steve Jobs negotiations with the recording industry), could a $.99 per song (or similar) service take off and bring legitimacy to downloaded music and acceptance from both the industry and users? If true, it's also good to see the consumer electronics industry taking some initiative and responsibility to provide solutions - not blame and accusations.
posted by tgrundke (61 comments total)

could a $.99 per song (or similar) service take off and bring legitimacy to downloaded music and acceptance from both the industry and users?

The big hurdle is whether consumers will accept wrangling a new file format to fit their established patterns. Will fair use be fairly difficult?

I don't see this being a venture that will wag the dog. Being mac only and using a quicktime codec insures that Apple's music service will be copied as a model rather than embraced as a standard.
posted by machaus at 7:20 AM on March 4, 2003

I like the idea of a pay-for digital music service, but restrictions on how and where I can use the files I buy are just begging for people to crack whatever protection AAC provides and convert the stuff to MP3 or Ogg. I won't be surprised if such a service is eventually successful, but I worry about the backlash the industry will wreak on the hackers who are fighting for fair use.

My other worry about these types of pay-per-song services is what it's going to do to what's left of the classical music model. How much am I going to have to pay to get Beethoven's Ninth? Is it 99 cents for the whole piece (it's 70+ minutes long), 99 cents per movement? Or are 15-minute tracks going to cost more than 3.5 minute pop tunes? What about Reich's Music for 18 Musicians or Bach's Mass in B Minor? These works just don't fit into the "song" model. Regardless, the logistics are going to be a killer--classical music already has trouble fitting into the digital music schema which only (in practice, given current software) recognizes three fields: artist, album, and song.
posted by daveadams at 7:23 AM on March 4, 2003

"all major recording studios"?

Please. Bullshit detectors to ON.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:28 AM on March 4, 2003

I was excited about this until I noticed the bit about AAC rather than MP3. I imagine this will involve some kind of copy protection as well.

Still, it's good to see Apple taking the lead where so many others have floundered.
posted by aladfar at 7:32 AM on March 4, 2003

Why should people start paying for something that is already free? Idealism?
Puh-lease.
posted by spazzm at 7:33 AM on March 4, 2003

Please. Bullshit detectors to ON.

Why not? This seems like the perfect trial balloon for an industry incapable of reshaping its business model. Let's start off with a trial group that represents 3% of the computing population, and we'll piggyback upon the R&D of one of the most innovative companies going.

Apple has already shown results with iPhoto that it can provide a revenue stream to a partner through web services. I'm sure that Kodak will back that up.
posted by machaus at 7:34 AM on March 4, 2003

Why would users want to "solve" MP3 piracy?

What spazzm said.
posted by signal at 7:36 AM on March 4, 2003

What spazzm said.
posted by Satapher at 7:40 AM on March 4, 2003

Why would users want to "solve" MP3 piracy?

You've never wanted the two good songs off of an album and would pay $1.98 to get them rather than spending an hour scrubbing P2P for them? My time is worth more than $1.98 an hour.
posted by machaus at 7:42 AM on March 4, 2003

I'm immediately suspicous of their choice for AAC over OGG when OGG is a superior file format, and open-source to boot. I'm guessing what you'll end up with is DRM-laced crap that sounds great but can't be burned, copied, or otherwise employed in a Fair Use manner.

Welcome to a world in which you no longer own what you buy.
posted by vraxoin at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2003

Sounds like a desperate cash grab to me. Go Apple! Milk them for all you can get!
posted by wobh at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2003

Why buy the milk when you can get all the cows you want for free?
posted by signal at 7:54 AM on March 4, 2003

classical music already has trouble fitting into the digital music schema

No kidding. I've spend hours redoing the track listings I've gotten from the CDDB since they almost always are mangled beyond recognition. Anyway, most classical music aficionados probably don't listen to MP3's, and a compressed format really isn't suited for the wide range of sounds that a single piece may have. Rather I'm keeping an eye on how the SACD v. DVD-A format war works out.
posted by gyc at 7:59 AM on March 4, 2003

Wow, this would have been a great idea 5 years ago!

Wait, they did have this idea 5 years ago - anybody remember tunes.com, emusic.com, & others too numerous to name.

What happened to them, I wonder?
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:01 AM on March 4, 2003

most classical music aficionados probably don't listen to MP3

Tell that to my hundred and eighty tracks (generally movements) of J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Elgar, Mozart, Rossini, Strauss, Wagner. Not to mention the additional hundred or so Glass, Gorecki, Nyman, Reich...
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:07 AM on March 4, 2003

Why would I pay for downloaded music? Because I don't begrudge artists being able to make a living, and the free rips on P2P often suck: bad sound quality, cut off short, wrong artist/title, etc. On the other hand, if the labels would embrace electronic distribution, I want to see the per-song price come down. We went from 8-dollar LPs to 20-dollar CDs, and though they are less now they're still not "cheaper than vinyl" as we were promised in the 80s. Take out all their manufacturing, packaging and distribution costs and I certainly don't want to pay as much per-song as I do today.
posted by Tubes at 8:08 AM on March 4, 2003

None of these services had much of a selection... when people scour the net for music they want something they can recognize, for the most part. The industry was never genuinely interested in making music downloads viable, and in the words of a Weezer song, "the world has turned and left [them there]".

Personally I have little but contempt for a technological solution which is more focused on protecting the company against awful thieves... er, I meant paying customers, than giving said customer the best audio experience, so fsck AAC as far as I'm concerned. Mind you, for some time I have neither purchased nor downloaded any new music... and evidently that's not going to change with the advent of this service. 0.99 per song is no less a ripoff than buying a CD -- considering you're stuck with a crippled track you probably will be stuck listening to on your PC or iPod (if you have money coming out of your wazoo already).
posted by clevershark at 8:13 AM on March 4, 2003

inexpensive != free.

As long as free alternatives exist, they're preferable to ... anything else. Especially any icky mac/apple formats (I hate you, Quicktime, more than even Real Media).

¡vive la soulseek!
posted by KiloHeavy at 8:14 AM on March 4, 2003

Wait, they did have this idea 5 years ago - anybody remember tunes.com, emusic.com, & others too numerous to name.

Five years ago? Just a reality check, but five years ago only the corporate and the individually wealthy had anything close to broadband in the form of ISDN, MS Office '97 (for PC) had zero functionality for the web, and nobody I knew had ever said boo about mp3.
posted by holycola at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2003

Yes, everything is different today, but it's still all the same.

Compare the average modern day white American to an inhabitant of one of the ancient Ghanian empires of a thousand yeasr ago. They are apt to be quite different in not just race, religion, wealth, but in every material and social aspect of their lives.

But still, they share a common hummanity. And they all die if you cut their heads off.

Free on-line music sharing cut the head off of for-pay online music, so to speak.

There will always be people who will pay for audio quality, but it's more likely some sort of 'trusted ripper' or 'trusted trader' system will emerge than a profitible for-pay model dominated by the 'industry'.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:40 AM on March 4, 2003

Five years ago was 98 -- everyone and their mother was downloading mp3's from ftp and Kermit already. Maybe six years ago would have worked?
posted by Ptrin at 8:48 AM on March 4, 2003

"all major recording studios" What do studios have to do with it? Labels, publishers, sure, but not studios.

It's amazing how people are so sure they know everything about the music industry, when they clearly don't have even the vaugest clue.
posted by Leonard at 9:14 AM on March 4, 2003

It's also amazing how nasty people will get over the silliest minutiae.
posted by machaus at 9:28 AM on March 4, 2003

I wonder what the encoding quality will be. I definitely would not pay $.99 for 128kb/s MP3s, which is noticeably inferior to CD quality. My current music "model" is buying CDs and ripping everything using LAME VBR with 128 as the minimum bitrate. I don't have "golden ears", but I can't tell the difference between these files and the original CD (excluding track crossfades). I would pay if this is the quality being delivered, but, as mentioned before, $.99 per is the same price as CDs today. There had better be bulk rates.
posted by botono9 at 9:31 AM on March 4, 2003

Tell that to my hundred and eighty tracks (generally movements) of J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Elgar, Mozart, Rossini, Strauss, Wagner. Not to mention the additional hundred or so Glass, Gorecki, Nyman, Reich...

Well that's why I said most and not all. If you take a look around any classical concert, 80-90% of the concertgoers would not even be able to turn on a computer, let alone know what a MP3 is or what ripping is. Then there is the aforementioned problem with tagging classical MP3's. Where can I plug in the movement, the orchestra name, the conductor, the chorus name, etc.? Lastly, classical music is harder to compress compared to most popular music because of the wide range that an orchestral piece may have as opposed to your run-of-the-mill rock piece and certainly music compression algorithms are better optimized and designed for those types of music and not classical music.
posted by gyc at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2003

I use emusic all the time. Then again, I was predisposed to the type of indie music they offer. Unlimited mp3 downloading of full albums for $10/mo has kept me happy for awhile now.
posted by gwint at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2003

$0.99 USD/track = $10-15 USD a CD. That's way more than I pay in CDN, plus I don't get the physical media. Not a freakin' chance.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:59 AM on March 4, 2003

Let's see here.

The major record labels, stuck in business model of the 80s & 90s, suddenly wake up and decide to strike a deal to release their music electronically as a unified group with the computer manufacturer that has less than 5% of the marketplace?

Am I in some strange timewarp to 1999 and reading from an issue of Wired?

An 'Apple is going to save the music biz' rumor coming from Maccentral is considered seriously? Wake up folks.
posted by Argyle at 10:06 AM on March 4, 2003

It was originally an LA Times article.
posted by machaus at 10:11 AM on March 4, 2003

and the SJ Merc chimed in too.
posted by machaus at 10:12 AM on March 4, 2003

Chat on the Mac message boards has been a little more accepting of this announcement than in here. We all suppose that Apple will not use the DRM component of ACC so that we will still be able to burn custom CDs from iTunes. And for those wondering: ACC provides better music quality with smaller files than MP3. It isn't open-source, but it is part of QuickTime and MPEG4, so it IS cross-platform.
posted by scalz at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2003

As blue_beetle said, no fucking way. 99 cents a song? How about 10 bucks a month for unlimited downloads, mp3 format and downloads off an actual server rather than P2P? If such a service had even half the songs I wanted (c'mon, emusic doesn't even come close), I would consider it.

For .99 cents a song, I mine as well go down to Virgin Megastore around the corner and buy the damn CD. There, at least, they have every song I want, and if it's not in stock, they'll order it for me.

The cost per download is ridiculously, unbelievably small. I could buy a host with gigs and gigs of transfer from a reseller for 10-20 bucks a month. It works out to under a penny per 4mb even with that model. It's even cheaper when you run the server. The costs should be nowhere near the costs of a CD, since the medium here is so much cheaper.

The more fundamental problem is that I don't know what songs I want. That's why I download so many songs - 99% of what I download is not worth buying, but it is worth checking out just to see if I like it. There's no way I would pay for that privilege.

What economic model does Apple think the world runs on?
posted by Kevs at 10:19 AM on March 4, 2003

AAC is not a proprietary format. It is a standard (ISO 14496-3). It is generally known as mpeg4 audio, or mp4. AAC files supposedly have a superior quality to filesize ratio, where a 160kbs AAC file beats a 256kbs mp3 file in subjective listening tests.

There are hooks for DRM systems in the AAC standard, and we might be looking at something akin to the Audible DRM system w/r/t these files -- when you buy an Audible file it is keyed to an account, which your iTunes or iPod is also registered with. I find this system to work VERY well, given that I generally hate DRM systems and how they limit my use of purchased media more than I would be limited if I had 'stolen' the files. Your Audible account can be active on up to three computers and two portable devices at once, which accomodates my iPod, my work machine, my home machine and my wife's computer very well.

That said there may not be any DRM in this system at all. The DRM built into the iPod is simply one of inconvienence -- you must know how to find the files or where to download a utility to make the files accessible. Perhaps this service will go along with this using no DRM AAC files.

In any case I'd love a service like this. I want the artists to get my money, I don't like buying a bunch of plastic to get my music and I think that a workable digital distribution system could give the Music Industry an even bigger shot in the arm than the introduction of CDs did. And that is why this whole thing is so exciting to me.

I think that a whole new breed of artists could prosper under such a system and if *I* could sell my music for $1 per track online with a 20-40% profit to me simply by registering my tracks through some kind of online application I would be very, very happy. I currently give it away for free, because I'm not so interested dealing with a label and all the bullshit that goes with that, but if I could self-distribute.... well that would be great.
posted by n9 at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2003

Oh, and BTW, the eMusic "all you can download" system gives the artists either no money at all or a very modest one time payment. Certain artists on Slumberland records were not only not getting any kind of royalties for their tracks on eMusic, but were not even informed by the label's management that their tracks were available through the system.

This is not acceptable to me... the artists must get the money, otherwise who am I paying for what?
posted by n9 at 10:26 AM on March 4, 2003

Imagine this: I write a device driver for my Macintosh (or PC) that looks to the world like an audio output device. The OS can't tell it's not a card nor can the user. It advertises that it wants data written to it at 44KHz, 16 bits per channel, stereo or heck, make it surround.

When data comes in, this device driver will write the raw data straight to a file, or heck, run it through an mp3 encoder instead of (or in addition to) playing it through the speakers.

As a result, I know have a digitally pure equivalent of any proprietary or encrypted file that can be played on my computer through an OS recognized audio device.

This is less that two days work to do. What were they thinking?
posted by plinth at 10:30 AM on March 4, 2003

We'll see, but the idea that the major labels would release music without crippling their product with Disabling and Restricting Mechanisms seems hopelessly naive. The assumption that Apple is your friend in this seems pretty naive as well (I'm a huge apple fan. I have all kinds of Apple hardware, but I don't for a minute think Jobs cares at all about my user experience -- just look at what they've done to designers, their core supporters).

Sure, if they were smart they'd release clean tracks. That's the only way I'd EVER consider buying it, but they are hell bent on self-destruction from what I can see.

My only question at this point is how quickly and in what ways can we kill the labels dead so they can get out of the way of the future.
posted by willnot at 10:54 AM on March 4, 2003

Imagine this: I write a device driver for my Macintosh (or PC) that looks to the world like an audio output device.
Allready exists.
posted by Espoo2 at 10:58 AM on March 4, 2003

0.99 USD/track = $10-15 USD a CD.

No, $0.99 a track times the two or three good tracks on most CDs = $2-$3 a CD. The only trick is going to be finding the good ones.
posted by kindall at 11:04 AM on March 4, 2003

Oh, and BTW, the eMusic "all you can download" system gives the artists either no money at all or a very modest one time payment. Certain artists on Slumberland records were not only not getting any kind of royalties for their tracks on eMusic, but were not even informed by the label's management that their tracks were available through the system.

From the emusic web site:

Do musicians and labels get paid for the MP3s I download?

Yes. EMusic splits all of the profits from membership fees 50/50 with the label or artist.

---

If lables are screwing their artists, that isn't emusic's fault, and it certainly isn't anything new in the music industry. If emusic does as it says, then labels would be getting a continous revenue stream from the monthly subscription fees.
posted by gwint at 11:05 AM on March 4, 2003

So willnot, what have they done to designers? Just wondering.
posted by cowboy at 11:39 AM on March 4, 2003

OS X isn't ready for a serious art/production environment. Key software isn't there yet (not exactly Apple's fault), and the UI has taken several steps backwards in an attempt to play to the "cool" demo factor and possibly to be more attractive/easier for switchers.

Despite this, Apple is now shipping just OS X bootable machines in an attempt to force the move away from OS 9.x.

Take a look at this discussion on Macintouch for additional context.
posted by willnot at 11:58 AM on March 4, 2003

n9 - very valid points
posted by harja at 12:01 PM on March 4, 2003

The DRM built into the iPod is simply one of inconvienence -- you must know how to find the files or where to download a utility to make the files accessible.

Imagine this: I write a device driver for my Macintosh (or PC) that looks to the world like an audio output device.

An integral part of any DRM scheme is the DMCA, which criminalizes (in the US) the use of any program that circumvents DRM. So if Apple gets in bed with the RIAA on DRM, they will have to start outlawing certain types of software on the Mac.

Not likely, you say? Microsoft's Trusted Computing Initiative is already trying to achieve this result on the PC, since it will increase their control over what software runs on their platform.

Another trojan horse possibility is that Apple could provide music with no DRM, but with a license that allows them to retroactively apply DRM later on to files you have already bought and paid for. Microsoft has already done this in that latest version of Windows Media: you must give them the legal right to prevent you from accessing any content you use with Windows Media at any time later on.
posted by fuzz at 12:31 PM on March 4, 2003

The article makes some good points, but the heart of it deals with users that are resistant to change. Such is life in the techincal world, I see it everyday. It's still a great OS in my book.
posted by cowboy at 12:39 PM on March 4, 2003

fuzz --

Don't go overboard. DRM circumvention doesn't automatically involve the RIAA unless they hold or license the patents on the DRM technique. And there is no such thing as 'outlawing' software on a platform, save the Trusted Computing Initiative, which is MS's game. Jobs and Apple have gone on the record against this kind of thing. Also, technically, using device wrappers (like Audio Hijack or vsound) to capture an application's audio isn't really circumvention, is it? If said technique *was* considered DRM circumvention then why have any protection at all? Just release the tracks with an End User Agreement forbidding them from duplicating (the unprotected tracks) them and that would be enough to prosecute any copiers under the DMCA.

I find it interesting that a conversation about a theoretical music distribution system has turned into a DRM debate. There is no indication that Apple is planning on using any kind of DRM much less what kind... or that this product will even actually ever exist.

And re: eMusic's blurb about profit sharing. Their statement is totally in line with mine -- for their statement to be true all that must come to pass is that they pay the Label some money at some point.

In any case, anything that you pay for is automatically opt-outable, don't pay if you don't like. As far as OSX's viability as an OS without builtin DRM, don't worry -- it's *nix roots will protect you: you will always have xmms, esd, mpg123 and lame and the like to play your mp3 files. :)
posted by n9 at 1:01 PM on March 4, 2003

I'm with n9 - there's an unbelievable amount of fear and hostility here towards an pretty non-threatening idea.

Why assume there'll be DRMs and unfair pricing and whatnot? The article cites one source as saying the service will be for people "interested in buying music, not just stealing it."

Where's the harm in that? This isn't going to keep P2P fans from downloading MP3's. As much as I disdain record companies, artists getting some cash is better than them getting none.

My guess is that the real innovation in this service is going to come from the interface. It'll probably be much, much simpler than anything currently around, will be completely integrated with iTunes so that not even newbies could mess it up, and there'll probably some unique features that Apple'll bill as "groundbreaking" (which they might or might not be). Prediction: A simple "purchase" button that works with iTunes' internet radio tuner - like it, click it, own it. Now that would be great.
posted by adameft at 1:53 PM on March 4, 2003

Why assume there'll be DRMs and unfair pricing

maybe because the iPod has exactly that, DRM and a high price?
posted by matteo at 2:03 PM on March 4, 2003

maybe because the iPod has exactly that, DRM and a high price?

A high price, perhaps, but it has no DRM technology at all.
posted by kindall at 2:14 PM on March 4, 2003

I think that the iPod's price is reasonable: $299 for the 10GB version. Quality interface and great integration. Very small and good battery life. It scratches the itch. I paid $399 for the 5 GB version and still consider it to be a great investment.

Besides which: 20 albums cost more than $300. 20 albums = about 220 songs. The 10GB iPod holds almost 10x that much... roughly $3000 worth of music. If you think that a 10% premium is too much to pay for a great interface on $3000 worth of tunes than an iPod might not be the device for you anyway.

I think that $1 per song is also very fair. I will buy music at this price. If the new Radiohead album came out tomorrow and it had 15 tracks on it and I could press a button to charge $15 on my cc for it I would and I would think that it was a *very* fair deal. More environmentally friendly, potentially more artist friendly and much easier for me than having to make a trip to the record shop.
posted by n9 at 2:30 PM on March 4, 2003

We're still getting jacked at $0.99/song. I can already get a 15-song album on CD, with CD-quality sound, nice cover art, and liner notes, for $15. Why would I pay the same money to get less quality? The price should be in the $0.50-$0.75 range, and if I buy individual songs, I should get a discount if I buy the rest of the album. I should also be able to download a PDF of the cover art and liner notes. And of course I should get a pony.

And another thing...distributing the music electronically saves the record labels bazillions of dollars in production, distrubution, and storage costs. Why wouldn't they pass those savings on to their customers? (Ha, ha, just kidding.)
posted by kirkaracha at 2:43 PM on March 4, 2003

Horse bolted........ stable door.....
posted by Joeforking at 3:14 PM on March 4, 2003

I think those of you poo-poohing the $.99/song fee (which is all speculation, I might remind) are missing the point. Those who want the whole bloody album will go out and buy it - fine. But for those of us who are looking for a few tracks here and a few tracks there, it's perfect. Hell, I don't want to buy the whole "Ken Burns Civil War" album for $15.99 when the only song I want is the "Ashokan Farewell".
posted by tgrundke at 3:57 PM on March 4, 2003

but it has no DRM technology at all

well, mine did. apparently, I'm not the only one:

PodWorks is a Mac OS X (Cocoa) application that compensates for the iPod's only downside: Apple only allows you to copy songs to your iPod. If you have two Macs and want to use your iPod to transfer music between them, or you only store your MP3s on your iPod and need to copy them back onto your hard drive after a disk failure, you are out of luck!
This is where PodWorks comes in: it allows you to copy songs from any Mac iPod to any Mac running OS X (10.2).

and good battery life

*cries*
do you mean that you are the only iPod user who never experienced battery life problems?

And another thing...distributing the music electronically saves the record labels bazillions of dollars in production, distrubution, and storage costs. Why wouldn't they pass those savings on to their customers?
exactly. it's a ripoff
posted by matteo at 5:39 PM on March 4, 2003

Rather I'm keeping an eye on how the SACD v. DVD-A format war works out.

I just got a (low-end) SACD player and it is amazing. After hearing it for the first time, I never wanted to hear another MP3 again. The sample rate is something ridiculous like 3 million samples per second (yes, you can absolutely hear the difference). Unless computerized formats can figure out a way to reproduce this kind of sound quality (not to mention 5.1 surrond encoding) I have a feeling that those little round pieces of plastic are going to be around for quite a while yet.
posted by boltman at 9:35 PM on March 4, 2003

I'm almost never actively listening to music. It's generally just background static when I'm working or driving or walking. Portability and convenience is WAY more important to me than sound fidelity. Even when I am actively listening, I can barely tell the difference between 192 kbs and CD quality. I have no need for a higher sample rate -- particularly as all of those new formats carry a bunch of consumer unfriendly locks and poison pills.

I get that other people are different. For some people fidelity is important. For some people saying that fidelity is important is important, but they probably can't tell the difference. What percentage of the population is that though really?
posted by willnot at 9:44 PM on March 4, 2003

I dunno willnot, the difference between SACD and 192 kbs or even regular CDs is pretty staggering. I honestly think that most people actively listening will be able to tell, just like most of us can tell the difference between the picture produced by a VHS tape and a DVD. The SACDs that I've acquired so far have a much warmer, richer sound then their CD counterparts. You're hearing pretty much exactly what the sound engineer hears when he listens to the master. Plus, the 5.1 surround element will be a huge selling point for all those consumers that have sunk a lot of $$s into a home theater system that is currently only useful for hearing big explosions and bullets whistling by your ears.
posted by boltman at 10:12 PM on March 4, 2003

Keerist. I can't tell the difference, most times, between 96 kb/s and high-fidelity reproduction.

Then again, despite the above, I'm mostly listening to the Fugs and Throbbing Gristle and Stooges and Sleater-Kinney and circa-'64 Kinks and Minor Threat. It sounds better at 96 kb/s.

This may also be an artifact of my M-16-damaged ears.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:49 PM on March 4, 2003

There is no indication that Apple is planning on using any kind of DRM much less what kind... or that this product will even actually ever exist.

Actual leaks from Apple are unheard of. Have no doubt this is a trial balloon. Right about now Steve Jobs is probably sitting on the toilet with his tablet Mac prototype reading this very thread.
posted by sudama at 7:23 AM on March 5, 2003

*sprays air freshener all over the thread*
posted by matteo at 9:51 AM on March 5, 2003

*records Steve's groans and farts to peddle to Mac rumor sites*
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:01 PM on March 5, 2003

I would feel bad if apple started embracing drm in any context. I don't think ipod counts as drm, it is just inconvenient; the files themselves are standard mp3s. One of the things that make people like apple, i think, is that they have so far fought this. Please listen to your customers.
posted by rhyax at 9:45 PM on March 6, 2003