The Macalope: An Apple blog

The big news today is the rumor (wait, "news"... "rumor"... is that an oxymoron?) that Apple is in talks with the record companies (wait, do they make "records" anymore?) over subscription and so-called "comes with music" plans.

Chances are, like most of these rumors, any number of the details are wrong. Indeed, these rumors hardly ever come out of Apple so they must be coming out of the recording industry. That's why it sounds so much like recording industry porn. "Apple's gonna pay us $7,000 for every iPod they sell!" It shouldn't be surprising such talks are going on, though.

While some people swear by them, the Macalope has never been a fan of all-you-can-eat services. He'd rather pay less and get to keep, you know, the music that's actually good. But, of course, the Macalope's already got seven or so iPods. Apple's already got his business. If you're a subscription service nut, you probably don't have an iPod. Or, at least, you don't have seven. And Apple wants you to have seven. They're kookie that way.

Further, even if the recording companies' 5-year business plan reads "Keep acting like petulant children", Apple has to do something to get them back to the table. iTunes continues to defy the nay-sayers because the kids love one-stop shopping and convenience, but you can't sit still and expect to wear your big "We're #1!" foam hand without it becoming painfully ironic. The industry apparently won't give Apple access to its catalog DRM-free, so it needs to find another way to push the envelope.

Not the envelope with the MacBook Air in it. That's a different envelope.

Remember, Apple's goal is to push iPods and iPhones, not sell songs. And now its challenge is to keep turning over rocks to find more buyers.

Not that the Macalope is saying subscription music fans live under rocks.

They actually live in caves!

Congratulations, Stacie Somers of San Diego County! You're the first jackass of 2008!

Well, OK, technically, since the suit was filed on December 31, you're the last jackass of 2007. But as it's already prompted some very silly analysis that we'll have to deal with this year, we're going to put it on the 2008 books, nnkay?

The tip o' the old antlers on this one goes to a friend of the Macalope's who happens to be a lawyer (and a woodland gnome, incidentally), who forwards it on with the one-word summary "Crazy."

Well put, woodland gnome!

So, what's your beef, Stace?

It alleges that Apple has constricted the market by not enabling iPods to play content in the Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, Microsoft's copy-protection technology.

And how! This reminds the Macalope of the time he successfully sued Sony for using the Memory Stick instead of SD. And then the time he successfully sued Microsoft for using FAT32 instead of HFS. And then the time he successfully sued Hamilton-Beach because their cone-filter coffee maker only takes, well, cone filters.

The Macalope likes flat-bottom filters. They're flatter. On the bottom.

The suit contends iPod-owning consumers can only buy music from iTunes, an unlawful tie-in that violates U.S. antitrust laws.

Boy, that sure is true! It sure would be nice if we could buy music to play on our iPods from some other place -- like, say, a popular online retailer or an independent-friendly MP3 site.

Too bad.

Boo, Apple.

Down with our evil, oppressive overlord Steve Jobs.

Uh, yeah.

Well.

Good luck, Stacie Somers of San Diego County!

But you say, "Macalope, our system of jurisprudence is not based on luck, but on well-reasoned arguments based on the code of law and legal precedent!"

That is why the Macalope says: good luck, Stacie Somers of San Diego County!

ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wonders, will Apple every fully embrace DRM-free music?

Causing the Macalope to wonder, will this raging headache right between the antlers ever stop?

Musing on the recording industry's current penchant for only selling DRM-free tracks through stores other than Apple's Kingsley-Hughes says:

While I can't see this having an effect on iPod sales, a decline in iTunes sales could ding Apple's profits, which in turn might mean that it has to get with the 21st century and throw away the digital shackles and compete openly.

You really haven't been paying any attention at all, have you, Adrian.

Despite the iTunes Store's market share, it's still there to drive hardware sales, not the other way around.

Some have taken this post as a slam of Apple - it's not.

Uh, right. Implying Apple's living in the 20th century, that it has to use "shackles" to sell its products and stating it doesn't want to "compete openly" (as if everyone else does) certainly couldn't be misconstrued as anything other than complimentary.

However, Apple/Steve Jobs have in recent months claimed to be anti-DRM...

For the record, that was in February.

...but not managed to offer a complete DRM-free catalog and have blamed the music industry for this. However, Amazon's MP3 store shows that the music industry is obviously interested in offering DRM-free music ... so why not through iTunes?

Uh, because the industry won't let them? Because the recording companies woke up one day and realized they were no longer in the business of music distribution because everyone was using a new distribution channel and that their supposed "value add" of selecting which music would actually be distributed was now not only irrelevant but actually a nuisance because they continue to pick utter crap and, in a vain attempt to salvage some sense of their relevance, they're trying to knock the new market leader off its perch?

The Macalope has written of the willful obtuseness of the ZDNet blogger but Kingsley-Hughes turns it into an art form.

Back here on planet Earth, however, the simple truth is that the initial contracts between the industry and Apple were to supply DRM-ed music through iTunes. Now the industry is conspicuously avoiding renegotiating those contracts in a deliberate effort to reduce the iTunes Store's market position. As Michael Gartenberg said, they're trying to poke Apple with a sharp stick. They're not interested in sales -- they clearly haven't been for years -- they're just trying to be the biggest jackasses they can because that's the only thing they know how to do.

Is there any other rational explanation behind the brilliant ideas these clowns come up with? Message to customers: "We hate you!" Well, message received.

Now that the kid gloves are off and the RIAA has changed its story so that ripping a CD is no longer kosher, the Macalope looks forward to the RIAA's suit against some high-profile CD rippers. [UPDATE: Looks like the Washington Post story was bad. They've issued a correction.] Like, say, President Bush. In for a penny, in for a pound, right boys and girls?

Bring it on, indeed.

The RIAA is like an angry drunk who just got let go from the factory, lashing out at anyone and everyone in arm's reach. Only a ZDNet blogger couldn't see that.

Hey, readers, it's stupid ZDNet blog post day!

Oh, let's not kid ourselves. Every day is stupid ZDNet blog post day!

But how stupid is this one? Really stupid. Because now Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is blaming Steve Jobs for the DCMA DMCA [Note: the Macalope always gets that damn acronym wrong. It's possible, however, that Kingsley-Hughes also believes Jobs is to blame for the Defense Contract Management Agency.].

It seems that Steve Jobs is looking for a new way to make money from consumers (Steve Jobs looking for a way to make money, that's not news I hear you say ... read on ...).

Oh, the Macalope stands corrected. Steve Jobs is not only to blame for the DCMA DMCA, he's also to blame for capitalism.

This time his idea is that Hollywood should start selling "premium" DVDs that contain an iTunes-compatible version of the movie for an extra few bucks.

Wait, who's idea was that again? Let's look at the source -- a New York Times blog post -- Kingsley-Hughes links to:

More interestingly perhaps, the studios are hoping to create [emphasis the Macalope's] "premium" versions of DVDs that include a copy of the movie that can easily be put on an iPod (and presumably a laptop with iTunes or an Apple TV).

Spin, magic wheel of bullshit! Spin!

Kingsley-Hughes pompously proclaims:

It seems that fair use is OK in the eyes of Steve Jobs, as long as it comes at a price.

And its seems disingenuous blog posts are OK in the eyes of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, as long as it comes at the expense of Apple or Steve Jobs.

In fairness, Techdirt also misreads it in exactly the same way -- transposing "the studios" for "Steve Jobs" -- and Cory Doctorow takes TechDirt at its word, so Kingsley-Hughes isn't the only one.

Jackassery, of course, loves company.

Does anyone know what the hell they're putting in the water cooler over at ZDNet?

Because.... damn.

Larry Dignan (does anyone know which one is Larry in that picture? Is he the sysadmin, the college professor or the metrosexual? [UPDATE: In comments, Larry says he's the sysadmin. Who had sysadmin in the pool?]) has seen the future, friends! And the future is...

ZUNE!

Actually, the Macalope suspects that Dignan drank a few too many Zimas and fell asleep watching Superman II and the line "You will bow down before Zod! You, and one day, your heirs!" seeped into his brain stem and festered like a Ceti eel and he's just trying to get it out.

Yes, the Macalope knows he's mixing his sci fi movie references.

At any rate, Dignan seems to have awaken with fevered visions of a future where the Zune rules supreme.

However, the Zune's big breakthrough came courtesy of Apple, which bet entirely on music and video downloads. The company's reluctance to offer a subscription service turned consumers away from the iPod...

Ha-ha-ha!

Oh, wait, he's serious.

Yes, the Macalope has long heard about how subscription and ad-based music systems vill take over ze virld! And so far the leading player and store have neither.

Maybe people really want subscription services. The Macalope doesn't, but maybe everyone else does. The problem is, no one apparently cares enough to give up cool hardware that works better in order to get it. Dignan's apocalyptic vision for the iPod's future fails to address this.

Meanwhile, Department of Justice proceeding against the iPod/iTunes link hampered decision making at Apple.

Uh-huh. Just like it did with Microsoft and Windows leading to its complete overthrow in the operating system market and...

Wait, what?

Dignan is clearly no Hiro Nakamura. Or maybe he is and just hasn't realized that the future he's jumping to is an evil future where everything has gone completely haywire and Microsoft is run by Sylar.

Hey, it could happen.

Well, in the world of Zune fan fiction.

Back to Dignan's future.

According to a new report from the NPD Group, a leading consumer and retail information company, sales of Microsoft's Zune are outpacing Apple's iPod by a 5 to 1 margin.

But then Steve Jobs saved the cheerleader and reality was restored.

The End.

Boy, and they have the nerve to call us craaaazy zealots?

Sure, the Zune is getting better and, sure, Microsoft has deep pockets. But the Zune's got a pretty big hole to dig itself out of and drawing little pictures on the back of it isn't going to cut it.

Let's face it: the only real way Dignan's silly vision of the future comes to pass is after the headlines read "STEVE JOBS RETIRES".

But if we're playing Dignan's game, all we have to do is stand Peter Petrelli next to Jobs for a minute so he can pick up his reality distortion field and then...

Oh, great, now the Macalope's doing it!

DIIIIIIIGNAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

Boy, this whole thing with Adrian Kingsley-Hughes lobbing balls in the air only to have Apple bloggers mercilessly smashing them back down in his side of the court really doesn't make for very good tennis, does it?

Lord knows what satisfaction he sees in it, other than the increased hit counts from people linking to him and saying "Can you believe this guy?!"

Kingsley-Hughes has sadly trodden off the path of virtue he set for himself on his PC Doctor blog where his Q&A says:

Why do you rarely talk about anything Mac/Linux/etc ...
I only talk about things that I know. 'Nuff said!

Dude, what happened to that? You used to stand for something!

You've changed, man. You've changed.

Taking a look at the last 10 posts on his ZDNet blog, the Macalope sees that one is about Ubuntu (aka, the operating system that's fun to say), another is about software updates from a variety of vendors including Apple and the remaining eight are specifically about Apple.

If you ask the horny one, he's so far off the path of virtue he can't even see it anymore. He's over the river of temptation, through the forest of overconfidence and head first down the rabbit hole of jackassery.

MacUser's Dan Moren has already ably taken down Kingsley-Hughes' latest but, sadly, the silly pundit beat was the beat the Macalope was born to. There's really no use complaining about it now. One might as well complain about how hard it is to wear hats with giant antlers poking out of one's head.

It's pointless.

If you'll pardon the pun.

Anyhoo, after asking his readers' opinions on whether or not iTunes is monopolistic -- come now, students, there is no wrong answer! Ha-ha! -- and having most of his readers say "no, not so much", Kingsley-Hughes stomps his foot and says "It is so monopolistic!"

"What are you people? On dope?"

So, Professor Kingsley-Hughes, just how is iTunes monopolistic?

iTunes is also very picky about which formats it'll play.

You say, "Huh?"

Waiiiiiiit foooooooor iiiiiiiiiit!

If you're [sic] existing music library is in WMA format then you have many pleasant evenings ahead managing the mind-numbingly slow import process.

That's right. It's Apple's fault that your music is locked in Microsoft's proprietary format. Oh, you can convert it, but it's "sloooow".

Well, Adrian, the Macalope would suggest that maybe the reason it's so slow is to give you time to think about the wrong you inflicted on your poor music by putting it into WMA in the first place.

If you still want to keep your WMA library (maybe because you have another media player)...

Or maybe you're just filled with self-loathing.

...then it's time to invest in another hard drive, because from that point on you're going to be doubling up on everything.

Dude, if you've never heard of MP3 then you really have no business writing about digital music players. Or technology.

How did you even get on the web in the first place?

And why are we supposed to assume that this is in any way Apple's fault again? You're choosing to keep files in two different formats, you knucklehead. Don't go bitching about Apple's proprietary iPod and iTunes when your music's in someone else's proprietary format.

Remember too that one iTunes library supports more than one iPod, but that's another catch. Each device has to be an iPod.

That's a half-truth. On Windows it has to be an iPod. But iTunes on the Mac supports a number of other music players.

The Macalope has said this time and time again, but Apple's primary concern is making things work and the company has well learned the lesson of the Newton: connectivity matters. A mobile device is useless if it's difficult to connect to your computer (and vice versa).

Why doesn't Apple spend their time making the Windows version of iTunes work with other players? Because the manufacturers of those devices already make Windows applications to load music onto them.

By making the Mac version of iTunes work with other players, Apple makes the Mac just work. By making versions of iTunes for Windows and the Mac, Apple makes the iPod (and the iPhone) just work.

You're complaining that Apple doesn't make other manufacturers' hardware work better.

That's just weird.

And what happens if you've got a load of music in iTunes and your iPod dies? Why, buy another one of course!

Unless, of course, they're these mystical emm-pee-three files that Kingsley-Hughes has never heard of.

OK, maybe he's talking about FairPlay files. But the problem is he never mentions FairPlay. Or DRM. Or anything that makes any sense.

Then there's the iPod side of the equation. Apple tried to lock the latest generation iPods to iTunes even if this meant upsetting iPod-owning Linux users.

It would be nice if Apple made a Linux version of iTunes.

They don't.

The end.

Formats that the iPod can play are also locked down tight. Want it to play WMAs? Forget about it.

Oh, fer crying out loud! Yes, it doesn't play WMAs! We went over that already! Did you duck out for a cheeseburger or something?

You know, one could make at least a logical case for the supposedly unholy iPod/iTunes/FairPlay trinity being a monopoly, but Kingsley-Hughes doesn't come close. It's not that the Macalope thinks in any way that it is a monopoly, it's just that someone could make a much better argument than this.

Which, admittedly, is not saying much.

Again, the Macalope's not sure what prompted Kingsley-Hughes' misguided interest in writing about Apple, but the Macalope kind of hopes he keeps it up.

It's job security.

There's been a lot of noisy garment-rending in the Apple world recently as the combination of the iPhone price drop (since corrected), the change in iPod video output (still a mistake in the Macalope's eyes), the ringtones feature (really a problem with the industry) and the bricking of unlocked iPhones (boo-hoo-hoo) has apparently driven people insane.

The pointy one understands there have been some misaligned expectations about the iPhone, but what's so surprising is that they're coming from some usually responsible sources, and now he's a little concerned that it might be spreading.

After writing a piece the Macalope sure hopes wasn't about his real family, Macworld's Chris Breen (aka "The Bouffant of Knowledge") was a guest on MacBreak Weekly where he had this to say about Tiger:

Yeah, but I do think that people have expectations about Leopard and not because Apple is doing it but a lot of it is partly due to the delay. You know, it was supposed to ship in the summer and now they said "No, no, no, we're gonna wait until October because we need these resources." However, people would then say "OK, well you've had these extra months to really do something spectacular here."

What?! Chris, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. They've had those extra months to catch up, not make new features.

Mac users are the biggest collection of spoiled brats the horny one has ever seen. Who else can hear "delay" and think "more features!"?

Do people really think that Apple is going to reveal something vastly different from what we've already seen (twice!)? Leo Laporte seemed to think that there was pressure for Apple to release something as different from Tiger as Vista is from XP.

The Macalope loves him some Leo (and some Chris Breen, for that matter), but that's crazy talk. XP came out in 2001. Microsoft had six years. Tiger came out in 2005. That's, hmm, let's see, divide by X... multiply the derivative... carry the one... two years!

If people really think that, well, it's time for an intervention. Yes, Leopard should work and it should work well, but if you're expecting the unexpected, don't.

Like Chris, Leo is also hot about the iPhone. That's the second time someone has said those who aren't outraged about the situation suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Frankly, that's insulting. It's also wrong. The Macalope would suggest that it's not he who's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, Leo, but you who's suffering from Munchausen Syndrome.

(Ha! Take that, Mr. I Graduated From Yale!)

Look, there's a reason the Macalope tends to buy Apple equipment and it's not because the company ties him up and puts a red rubber ball in his mouth (let's leave that to Mrs. Macalope, shall we?). It's because their stuff works and looks better than other stuff. If someone wants to make stuff that works and looks better than Apple's stuff, well, the Macalope might have to have some plastic surgery, but he'll be happy to use it.

Leo, if the Macalope's not mistaken, didn't you crash your N95 all by yourself by installing third-party applications? Why is this mythical beast supposed to feel like some kind of psychological victim because he doesn't need that particular brand of aggravation? The Macalope didn't buy his iPhone thinking about all the great apps he was going to install on it, only to find out later that it was locked down and then have to justify his continued support for the platform. No, you bought the iPhone knowing it was locked down and are now upset to find out, no, there will be no peanut butter on your chocolate, chocolate in your peanut butter.

The Macalope's just a little baffled by why Chris and Leo -- after being told repeatedly that they would be given Hershey bars -- keep expecting Reeses Peanut Butter cups to fall out of the wrapper.

Chris also had this to say on Macworld's podcast (which was largely a collective rant about how horrible it was to brick the phones and remove applications) about the possibility that Apple would make a certification program for iPhone and iPod touch applications:

If Apple comes out in January and says, OK, we've got this handful of applications that we've approved and I look back to today when I thought I had that when they worked much better than what you're offering and you're charging me $11.99 per app when I got that stuff for free and it was updated every day and a half and you're never gonna update this, I'm gonna be bitter about it.

Leaving out the whole argument that Chris obviously bought the wrong phone and the fact that the hosts of the Macworld podcast are clearly not average consumers (a subject which Daring Fireball has already hit) and that Apple should probably pay more attention to the 90 percent of its iPhone customers rather than the 10 percent, two points:

1. Someone else on the podcast (possibly Chris himself) noted that some applications crashed their phones. Certainly, that wouldn't happen with a certification program. The quality of the applications would tend to rise, not fall, as Apple would be inclined to pick the better applications for certification.
2. How absurd is it to expect to continue to get iPhone applications for free? The reason iPhone applications are free is not because developers make up for it on volume, Chris. It's because Apple has published no APIs. Charging for an iPhone application now -- and some have tried this and had to end up giving customers their money back -- is developer suicide.

Let's say Apple does what everybody says they want and releases an SDK without a certification program and developers run joyfully through fields of posies as birds fly overhead and virgins dance around the Maypole. You're still going to start getting charged for applications, and rightly so.

Finally, a word of warning to John Gruber and John C. Welch...

We're apparently the only sane ones left. Don't fall asleep!

Writing for the BBC, Bill Thompson asks the question "Time for Apple to face the music?" (tip o' the antlers to Dominic Bassett.)

Forgive yourselves if you think you've heard this one before. You have.

The recent launch of the new range of iPods, including the video Nano and the iPod Touch, has shown just how far Apple is willing to go to make life difficult for its users in order to shore up its dominant position in the market for music players and downloads.

Do tell, Bill.

First...

No! Wait! Don't! That was rhetorical!

...if you had gone to the trouble of making your own ringtones for your iPhone...

Dammit.

... using snatches of song from your library then you will find they are all gone the next time you sync with the latest iTunes. Apple now sells ringtones to its US customers for $0.99 and it would rather you paid up than made them yourself.

Hmm, let's see, this incredibly annoying system that's an offense to the customer's intelligence can either by the product of:

1. The company that specializes in beautiful hardware and software that are renowned for their ease of use.
2. The recording industry which, if it had its druthers, would charge you every time you hummed a song to yourself or thought about music, musicians, musical instruments, or band camp and the many amusing things you can do with flutes.

Bill seems to think it's A rather than B. It's possible, it's just not very likely. Still, as annoying and offensive as the iPhone ringtones system is, it's worth noting that it's still better than anyone else's system.

Second, it seems that the new generation of iPods will not output video through cables or docks that aren't Apple authorised and have a specific "authentication" chip. Apple charges a hefty cut for joining its approved suppliers programme, and this is a way to ensure that vendors sign up.

Yeah, OK, this one stinks and it's Apple's doing. No argument from the brown and furry one there.

But the nastiest little change is to the iTunes library itself. iTunes keeps your songs organised using a database, and over the years a number of free and open source music players have been developed that can read and write this database format.

This is important as Apple doesn't support Linux...

You have a really loose definition of "important".

... so any Linux user who can't resist the lure of an iPod...

Those damned seductive iPods! Luring unsuspecting neck-bearded 40-year-olds out of their parents' basements with promises of unbridled digital audio delight!

Lest we forget, Bill, you're talking about people who are going to connect an iPod to Linux. Blaming the iPod is pretty much blaming the victim in this context.

... needs a non-Apple library manager, but it also gives Mac and Windows users a bit of flexibility.

And the five people who take advantage of that flexibility are really happy.

Programmes like gtkpod, Rhythmbox and Banshee are easy to use and don't try to sell you songs all the time...

Uh-huh. Using an application you compile yourself is sooo much easier than going to the "View" menu and selecting "Hide MiniStore".

Thompson makes a big fuss about the "cat and mouse" game that requires developers to reverse engineer roadblocks Apple creates to prevent using anything but iTunes to manage songs on an iPod. Oddly, however, his big complaint about the iTunes database checksum was actually solved three days before his piece was posted, making this particular complaint seem rather silly. It also makes the Macalope wonder why the checksum was added in the first place if it was so easy to crack. Again, who's asking for these "features" that keep iTunes closed? Is it Apple management? If so, they should be asking their programmers why their algorithms are so easy to crack.

Or was it the backward elements of the recording industry? Remember, these are people who think every MP3 on your iPod is stolen.

The Macalope doesn't know for sure, but when you look at the history of the iPod and the iTunes Store, to Apple it's never been about selling songs or movies. It's been about selling iPods. It's the recording industry that's demanded that only five computers can be used with one store account, that you can only burn a playlist seven times, and all the other major restrictions.

If Apple was serious about building a music industry around downloads and digital devices then it would open up its devices and interfaces to allow greater innovation and greater competition.

You know, the Macalope knows a lot of faeries who inhabit the magical realm of imagination under the toadstool down by the babbling brook in the Great Green Wood, and even they aren't so unworldly about commerce to expect a company to actively help other companies compete against it.

But, wait! What's this? Well, whaddaya know?! It is possible to compete against Apple! You just, you know, have to create something that doesn't suck.

I wrote a presentation this morning using Microsoft's PowerPoint, but displayed it using Apple's Keynote. Apple can sell Keynote because it took PowerPoint apart and figured out how the files work.

Had Apple been unable to do so, or found that every time it figured out what was happening Microsoft changed the format, it would have complained loudly.

Hey, Bill, Cory Doctorow called. He wants his shtick back.

This analogy was bogus when Doctorow used it and it's bogus now. Microsoft controls the PowerPoint file format and can change it any time it wants. The reason it doesn't is because it doesn't want to create an interoperability nightmare for its Office customers. It's certainly not because Apple would be mad because Keynote can't import the new file format all of a sudden. Good grief.

It's bad enough that Doctorow and Thompson insist on blaming Apple for something that probably isn't its fault. Couldn't they go to the effort to put together a rational argument? Is that asking too much?

Again, that's rhetorical.

Seriously. The Macalope's not starting a campaign or anything, but is this not the worst "feature" you've seen from Apple since the iTunes update that removed Internet streaming?

It's overpriced (the way it's implemented -- for iTunes-purchased tracks only -- it should be free), buggy and ultimately just another way to let the record companies screw you. And, frankly, no one wants to hear how clever you are in assigning Rick James' the Commodores' "She's A Brick House" to your wife's contact anyway.

Ringtones are to this decade as skins were to the previous decade.

UPDATE: If you must use ringtones, use iToner or Rogue Amoeba's tools. Don't pay again for part of a song you've already paid for.