A Posteriori

In case you missed it, Steve Jobs published an open letter last week entitled “Thoughts on Music” where he, among other things, called for an end to DRM by the big record labels:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

The letter was nothing less than Earth-shattering. There has been much praise, but also much criticism. The RIAA deliberately misinterpreted the letter to mean that Apple was offering to license their FairPlay DRM to others (which Jobs did not say at all). Edgar Bronfman Jr. criticised the letter, saying that jobs conclusion was “devoid of logic”, yet refusing to explain how. Anti-DRM usual suspects like emusic and the head of Yahoo! Music praised him.

From the other side (those opposed to DRM), there is much fallacious tripe about how Steve Jobs supposedly lied in his open letter about Apple being opposed to DRM. The Inquirer spewed their vitriol here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37522

and here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37492

There’s also this junk from FreePress Blog:

http://freepressblog.org/2007/02/14/apple-put-up-or-shut-up/

Apple’s critics from the anti-DRM camp can’t seem to get their facts straight. Here are the fallacies, and the rebuttals:

1) Apple benefits from DRM lock-in between iTunes and the iPod.

It seems these “critics” don’t read very well, because Jobs explained in his letter that 3% of music on any given iPod is from iTunes. The rest is ripped from CD’s or downloaded as legitimate (ex emusic) or illegitimate (ie P2P) mp3 download sites/services. Also, there’s a reason that iTunes is far and above all other DRM and non-DRM paid download sites. The interface is far better than any other competing service. No music download site can match the power and simplicity of iTunes.

iTunes would sell more music with the loss of DRM because people like myself who refuse to buy DRM’d music would consider buying from iTunes. What’s more, without DRM, iTunes is still head and shoulders above the other music stores in terms of usability, which means it won’t lose customers.

2) Apple supports DRM because they force DRM on independent label music that is available as non-DRM’d mp3’s elsewhere.

Given the RIAA’s history and M.O., I have no doubt that they forced Apple into including a clause in their contract that requires all iTunes music to be DRM’d, irrespective of whether or not it comes from the RIAA.

And my favourite…

3) Apple survives by locking users into their products. Apple cannot compete or innovate on its own.

This is laughable and patently absurd. Apple has, in less than 10 years, gone from producing a stagnant desktop operating system with 1980’s technology, far behind Microsoft, to producing and selling the world’s most advanced desktop operating system. Even the “mighty” Vista has not caught up to Apple’s latest stable OS X 10.4 Tiger (nevermind 10.5 Leopard) . It sells innovative hardware, including the award-winning iMac, at a great cost-value compared to similarly equipped hardware and software. It produces excellent designer Pro apps, including Aperture and Final Cut Pro. By the time Leopard comes out, it will have a server OS that is fully featured and capable of competing with Microsoft’s Exchange. It has announced the iPhone, a product with a truly unique interface and intelligent mobile software. It came from way behind to dominate the mp3 music player business with the world’s most innovative player, which is tightly integrated into great music software (iTunes), and the most user-friendly music store (iTunes Music Store).

Apple has a vested interest in getting rid of DRM:

A) They’ll sell more music to people opposed to DRM, and thus, more iPods, because their music store and music player will still be, respectively, the best in the market.
B) It will hurt Microsoft, because the billions that company has invested in its DRM technologies (WMA, WMV, Windows Media Player, and the Zune), will completely go to waste.