What pathetic whining. Break free? Any non DRM mp3 or AAC file plays on an iPod. Period. The more DRM free music sites there are, the more content there is for the dominant MP3 player, the iPod. Meaning more iPods sold with more freedom of choice for iPod owners. There is no downside. Apple instituted a DRM program because of the labels, and now because of Apple's leadership, consumers win.

But noooooo, we can't leave it at that, we have to pretend this is some kind of "bad thing" for Apple. Oh No! Major labels are releasing music in formats every iPod can play. Oh No! Whatever will we do?

I'll tell you. BUY MORE MUSIC FOR iPODS!

Any music site that went out of it's way to exclude the player that has 75 or more of the market is dead, dying or switching formats. And all of that is a direct result of Apple's leadership.

The labels want to screw over the consumer at every turn with variable track pricing and forcing you to buy entire albums when all you want is a single. They don't deserve any support or accolades for finally grasping the reality that Jobs has been beating them over the head with for 5 years. Where do you think this 99 cents a track standard came from, anyway? Gnomes?

The only chance Microsoft had of "winning" in the entertainment arena was for Apple to not have survived into the Millennium and for WMA to be the default format. It's not, and thanks to Apple, it won't, and never will be.

"In October, I declared DRM freedom. I dumped about 2,000 iTunes tracks, replacing as many as I could with MP3s from Amazon's music store. For Christmas, I got a new Zune; now I get subscription WMA DRM music as well. I will no longer buy DRM content."

Not to nit-pick but just before somebody else gets in there, surely you're still funding DRM? I would side with you and say you are not buying DRM content, you're technically renting it... I just assume somebody will jump on you for that last sentance.

I think Microsoft has the only sustainable DRM strategy with the Janus technology used in Zune- it is one of the only uses of DRM I can think of that cannot be labelled as entirely unfair. Traditional DRM will have to be dropped in the long run and Apple will have to find more ways to sustain their market share, I personally wonder if they are going to turn to a subsciption model ever themselves, however obviously older models would become obsolete.

When does 75% "leadership" turn into "monopoly"? I hope the EU steps in to regulate this monster.

Mike :
When does 75% "leadership" turn into "monopoly"?

Monopoly doesn't matter. The abuse of a monopoly is what matters. Apple does not abuse it's partners and it's customers. Microsoft does. Microsoft wasn't hauled into court because it has a monopoly. It was dragged into court because it acquired that monopoly thru illegal practices and abused it's monopoly to maintain it's position.

Of course Apple abuses its monopoly, customers and partners: denying that is fanboy blindness.

So has anyone come up with a believable explanation how Adobe, Verizon, VCSY and NOW Solutions end up with the same photos?
(much, Much more at url at bottom)

There's been plenty of time and plenty of people looking but nobody's come up with similar photos anywhere. How do you explain the coincidence?

Oh, I remember now. You describe it as Wade scamming shareholders and readers by copying the pictures from the Adobe site and the Verizon site. Now I remember. You're claiming Wade is a thief and a crook and VCSY is a scam.

That IS what you're saying, isn't it Al? I mean, when VCSY makes a list of the message board posters who've abused VCSY's reputation, they can put you down for anti-VCSY, right?

Or do you have a different explanation for those pictures? Same website designers? Do you mean to tell me you think Adobe, Verizon, VCSY and NOW Solutions all employ the same web-site designers?

Isn't Adobe a rather large web-site company in their own right? And doesn't Verizon have their own staff for building their own websites?

And VCSY? NOW Solutions? Those two tiny companies have web designers that also do Adobe and Verizon? What are you saying, Al? Are you actually KNOW what you're saying?

So, it's either that or you're saying the CEO for VCSY and the CEO for NOW Solutions are both crooks (that's what you have to believe since NOW Solutions and Verizon are tied that way the same way VCSY and Adobe are) because they ripped off pictures from the Adobe and Verizon websites (it's almost too laughable to write but that's what the_original_al_coholic is claiming) to "trick" people into thinking VCSY and NOW Solutions are connected to Adobe and Verizon.

Well, we do know Verizon and NOW Solutions are connected in some way. And we do know Adobe Apollo looks and smells just like VCSY's Apollo system... but, of course, according to the_original_al_coholic, that's just a preposterous idea to think these large companies could be connected in some secret way.

You know... "secrets". The kind of operations companies perform when they're sneaking up on a competitor and about to slam that competitor with news that will rock it to the foundations.

Oh, companies don't do that sort of thing? You're kidding, right? Are YOU in the construction business along with hawcreek?

Companies carry on secret campaigns and they put out flags to signal those who know precisely what's going on while keeping people who don't know (and who don't believe it could be possible - people like you) in the dark.

You're in the dark. Like a mushroom. Making up stories to explain how those photos can appear on key website pages... for so long. They aren't a recent addition. They've been there for a while.

Maybe Adobe and Verizon are just plain stupid, you know. Maybe they have marketing people who never look at their website construction and never respond when people send emails and letters asking why they have particular pictures on their sites. Pictures that appear to link them to other companies they're doing business with or have intellectual property that's strikingly similar... especially intellectual property that's patented.

BUT. You're so sure it's a scam. You're so sure it's some idiot web designer who just picks photos out of a stack and splashes them anywhere they damn well please. You're so sure Adobe and Verizon are idiots and you're absolutely certain VCSY and NOW Solutions are thieves.

I'm sure all the people who read you and think you're really smart will believe the same thing.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=1366&mid=1397&tof=1&rt=1&frt=1&off=1

Joe, I am starting to wonder why I read you. Your comment, "I dumped about 2,000 iTunes tracks, replacing as many as I could with MP3s from Amazon's music store", sounds very strange. Why did you dump your iTunes track and buy replacements. It is easy to export your tracks to a CD and then import them in again. I understand it would take some time, but you would then have all of your tracks backed up and they would then be DRM free.

Wow Joe, way to miss the point!

"MP3 stores will increase consumer choice of content and devices, which can only hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod business model"

Any store that has transferred from selling WMA files to MP3s has just widened the choice of devices to INCLUDE iPods.

"Microsoft is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the DRM-free movement"

How do you work that out? Microsoft is going to start losing licence fees as stores (and possibly devices) drop WMA. How much is Amazon paying Microsoft? Nada!

"Meanwhile, many music stores selling DRM-free content continue to offer subscription-content in Windows Media Audio DRM"

So what? Not enough people have been using these services. That's not likely to change any time soon. Note. Napster just hiked their subscription fees. That's a great way to attract new customers.

Prior to the Zune, Microsoft's digital music strategy was to license WMA to everyone and anyone. Apple never sold WMA files ..... and pretty soon ..... nobody else will either!

Mike, Please explain how Apple abuses its monopoly. To my knowledge they have never been convicted of doing so or paid out to avoid being convicted, unlike Microsoft.

Another clueless tech writer. You idiots come a dime a dozen.

Firstly, over 85% of all music is still sold on DRM-free CDs, and ripped to iTunes. Apple has won the MP3 player and music strategy battle WITHOUT THE iTunes STORE.

Secondly, you, idiot, position your article to suppose it is Apple that insists on DRM. It is the LABELS that insisted on DRM. Apple, through a superior, customer-friendly offering, out-DRM'ed Microsoft, Real, and many others. When this started, THERE WAS ZERO MARKET SHARE, ZERO SO-CALLED 'MONOPOLY'.

Third, it is Apple and Steve Jobs who
1) First introduced non-DRM'ed music, and
2) Made the appeal to the other labels to remove it.

Who is the Monopoler here? Jobs has been winning through innovation, smarter hardware, and out-negotiating the music cartel. Or don't you get that?

Fourth, it is MICROSOFT who has the track record of being the monopoler, the liar, the criminal, the double-crosser to its partners in the music industry. Hey, clueless, don't you remember the 'Plays For Sure' charade?

Fifth, it is Jobs who said the best way to fight piracy is TO COMPETE AGAINST IT. And today, there are still lots of music services out there (Real Networks, Zune, Napster, Amazon, others) who have had failing business models which THEY CHOSE TO IMPLEMENT.

Sixth, SO BRING ON THE DRM'LESS COMPETITORS. Jobs whipped them before there was DRM, while there was DRM, and will again as we go back to the past with no DRM.

Be watching Tuesday, you idiot, and learn even more why Apple is going to tear down the current video industry and build it to be customer friendly again, just like he did with the music industry, and just like he is doing in the mobile phone industry.

Mike In Helsinki:

Nicely said.

MacDailyNews Take: It's impossible to believe that anyone could be so obtuse, so Wilcox must have some other reason for trying to convince his readers (or maybe just himself) that Apple CEO Steve Jobs' total evisceration of Microsoft's proprietary WMA format is good news for Microsoft. Yeah, Joe, people are going to run out now to buy Zunes and Windows Mobile phones that cannot even come anywhere near to matching Apple's iPods and iPhone. Dream on. iPod came before iTunes Store, Joe. It sold very well without the iTunes Store. Do the math: today just 3% of the music on iPods is from iTunes Store. Therefore, iTunes Store is not driving iPod and iPhone sales. As always, iPods and iPhones are driving iPod and iPhone sales.

Microsoft's Zune answer to Apple's iPod touch is what, exactly, Joe?

We'll wait... Not just for Joe to make up some new nonsense, but because we'll have to wait forever as Microsoft seems intent on poorly copying two-year-old, discontinued iPod models and releasing them as new Zunes two years later. They can't even match the iPod classic. Apple's nano kills the flash-based Zune. Where's the Zune shuffle knockoff? It's just a joke.

Microsoft's Windows Mobile answer to Apple's iPhone is what, exactly, Joe?

We'll wait... Not again just for Joe to make up some more nonsense, but because Microsoft is at least 5 years behind and the best they have to offer today are bad Photoshop images of Apple's current iPhone. This one's not even a joke, it's just sad.

When it come to picking who knows what they're doing and understand what's going on and the choice is between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer... Puleeze. When the choice is between Steve Jobs and Joe Wilcox... Come on.

I was reading that and wondered what you would think,of it:

MacDailyNews Take: It's impossible to believe that anyone could be so obtuse, so Wilcox must have some other reason for trying to convince his readers (or maybe just himself) that Apple CEO Steve Jobs' total evisceration of Microsoft's proprietary WMA format is good news for Microsoft. Yeah, Joe, people are going to run out now to buy Zunes and Windows Mobile phones that cannot even come anywhere near to matching Apple's iPods and iPhone. Dream on. iPod came before iTunes Store, Joe. It sold very well without the iTunes Store. Do the math: today just 3% of the music on iPods is from iTunes Store. Therefore, iTunes Store is not driving iPod and iPhone sales. As always, iPods and iPhones are driving iPod and iPhone sales.

Microsoft's Zune answer to Apple's iPod touch is what, exactly, Joe?

We'll wait... Not just for Joe to make up some new nonsense, but because we'll have to wait forever as Microsoft seems intent on poorly copying two-year-old, discontinued iPod models and releasing them as new Zunes two years later. They can't even match the iPod classic. Apple's nano kills the flash-based Zune. Where's the Zune shuffle knockoff? It's just a joke.

Microsoft's Windows Mobile answer to Apple's iPhone is what, exactly, Joe?

We'll wait... Not again just for Joe to make up some more nonsense, but because Microsoft is at least 5 years behind and the best they have to offer today are bad Photoshop images of Apple's current iPhone. This one's not even a joke, it's just sad.

When it come to picking who knows what they're doing and understands what's going on and the choice is between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer... Puleeze. When the choice is between Steve Jobs and Joe Wilcox... Come on.

Jobs called for the end of DRM because he's quite confident that Apple has a formidable lead and will continue to innovate. Innovation is something that Microsoft has a very difficult time achieving. Their claims to fame are an upside-down and backwards poorly-faked Mac and an Office suite that they are increasing trying to make work like Apple's iWork. What else do they have? A money hemorrhaging, defective to the tune of billions of dollars game box that only sells because they bought a hot game company. And a failed fake iPod. And a Big Ass Table that hopes to achieve some of the things Apple has been delivering since last June in a multi-million selling pocket-sized device. And a CEO who can't keep his fat feet out of his mouth or manage his resources effectively. He spends $7 billion a year on R&D and delivers what, exactly? His company's ass on a platter for Apple to kick regularly? There's an accomplishment.

Jobs wanted to drive a stake through the heart of WMA, which he's obviously done. Jobs clearly doesn't much care if you buy your music via iTunes Store or he wouldn't have called for the end of music DRM. It would be nice if people did buy their music from iTunes Store, but as long as they are buying the profitable devices from Apple and not using Microsoft's WMA and DRM, that will be fine, thanks. And, let's face facts, iTunes Store rules the marketplace. People buy their music downloads from iTunes because it works very well, has a massive library, and the weak DRM it does have for the time being is very unobtrusive. Everything's going according to Jobs' plan.

People who think the iTunes Store is driving iPod and iPhone purchases are deluding themselves. People buy iPods and iPhones because the competition is hopelessly outmatched on both fronts. Again, 97% of the music in iPods today did not come from iTunes Store and yet, somehow, iPod manages to dominate the market. Logic, Joe. Give it a try someday.

Microsoft Watch. What's that like, Joe? Watching slow motion Hindenburg footage over and over again?

Thank you

His Shadow wrote:

"It was dragged into court because it acquired that monopoly thru illegal practices and abused it's monopoly to maintain it's position."

WRONG..WRONG.. WRONG As the court explicitly stated, Microsoft did NOT acquire its monopoly status illegaly. It only used monopolistic power to retain its monopoly.

This article is pure nonsense. Anyone tempted to believe this stuff should have their heads examined and a few minutes or so of research will show you how biased and unbelievable this fantasy he is spinning really is.

On top of that, the author is either a very dim bulb or just straight out lying here. What kind of a knob would throw out 4,000 dollars worth of iTunes tracks? I just don't believe that at all, no matter how much you like Apple.

Also, the average consumer, by Apples own count only purchases 10 songs or so for the average iPod. All the rest are burned form CD's already owned, so it's just not believable that this guy really did spend 4,000 bucks at the iTunes store in the first place.

Liar or idiot, take your pick.

Joe, you have just been slammed by Mike in Helsinki. Good words Mike!!! Joe, maybe you should starting selling hot dogs for a living.

Ouch! Joe you've been slammed pretty hard here and I have to agree with the other posters. Pretty poor article. Are you going to respond?

What's pathetic is that when one purchases download files that the user does not get any liner notes and the music is compressed, which for those that have a nice stereo or home theater system, they just don't sound as good as a CD. Personally, I would just buy the CD and import it into the iPod, otherwise listen to the CD on a good stereo or home theater system for the better experience.

MP3/MP4 download files are, IMO, like a demo of the real music.

But then again, the majority of the content available is fad music. It's too bad the days of having a concept album is almost gone....

We don't get that much in the way of true classic music coming from these artists these days, and that is a shame.

Maybe things will change to where we have real musicians creating high quality content where the listener will spend quality time sitting down and actually listening to the music and not just for a background to another activity.

Eh eh , Joe what a pity. You and all the mary jo foley of this world are really sad mummified people, writing on bad looking Windows/business-graphic styled sites prostituting for those Redmond pointless bigwigs. How well are you paid for not to feel that unethical pruritus writing such partisan reviews?C'mon, You can't like Windows poducts. I won't believe that. Nobody who understands something about IT and technology can. Oooops, I suddenly understood why you can...

@Mike

Mike writes: "Of course Apple abuses its monopoly, customers and partners: denying that is fanboy blindness."

You're reciting a mantra, not facts.

@db

I have your answer as to why Joe would dump his iTunes songs.

He's a Microsoft defending Applephobe who'd rather cut his nose to spite his face. Same as Michael Dell when he ditched WebObjects (which drove the Dell store during the 90s) after Apple bought NeXT.

The Microsoft defense league will do the most unnatural things just to protect their world order. And they have the audacity (and delusion) to think that people will believe them.

If Microsoft can't innovate, at least they have the money to pay shills around the internet to keep drumming and reciting anti-competitive and anti-consumer mantras.

Hey, wow, this article has been posted on MicrosoftWatch, not Applewatch. Oh. Its Joe.

Here we go again with more spittle against the screen, railing against DRM. Cool.

Wait. Didnt EMI release a bunch of tracks, without DRM. Charging a premium, granted, but also delivering a higher sampling rate ? Though iTunes?

And then you imply that MS is somehow leading the Anti-DRM charge ? What ? The 'Windows Genuine Advantage' spyware fiasco forgotten about? Vista DRM forgotten about?

Well. I've not forgotten about them, even if you have.

So. This. Entire. Article. Is. Bunk....

Sigh.

I really dont mind these opinion pieces, even when they are so far away from Microsoft Watch as this. But at least try and retain a shred of credibility by actually checking your facts first ?

I'd grade this article an F for failure.

---* Bill

@evan

evan writes: "Microsoft did NOT acquire its monopoly status illegaly. It only used monopolistic power to retain its monopoly."

Thank you for correcting us. You just forgot to mention that Microsoft's monopoly was acquired by double-crossing Apple and IBM. Questionable ethical tactics, although not necessarily illegal. The end result has generated a whole ecosystem which now defends Microsoft and hopes that we forget the past.

It's a great embarrassment for Microsoft to be beaten in innovation and customer appeal by a former partner that it left for dead back in the 1990s. But now that Apple is in the position of dominance, and knows the ways of Microsoft's unethical tactics, I cheer Apple on. I expect Apple to continue competing successfully (and no doubt more ethically) against...

(I would have said against Microsoft, but I think Microsoft is irrelevant to Apple's success. Apple just needs to outdo themselves and continue partnering with other companies and they'll be fine.)

Did you really trash $2000 worth of legal downloaded music that you bought and paid for from Itunes just to spite yourself? Why didn't you at least back them up as mp3 files (which only Itunes will easily do for you) so that you could play them on any device that you choose?
Or why didn't you just upgrade them to drm free files as only Apple will let you do? Try and do that with your wma files as that format goes out of print, and no other players support it.
Only Apple is looking out for their customers. They fight the big labels and hold their ground on prices, and that's why people are loyal to Apple. You pay a premium for Apple products, but you get what you pay for because everything just works.

Well, since it IS "Microsoft Watch", and Joe has done a lot of Microsoft bashing over the last year, his overlords probably forced him to write this crap to keep the cash flow coming from THEIR overlords. And he dumped perfectly good bought-and-paid-for music. What does that say about this guy's thought process?

Apple has nothing to worry about with live wires like Joe on the case...

You fat, stupid wanker. Is writing and journalism an accredited profession? or just your 'hobby'. Oh. You're a blogger. Right. Well then, get some solid data poofy head.

Boy, logic is sorely lacking in this article.

It is ludicrous to think that the welcome emergence of DRM-free music is someone beneficial to Microsoft vis-a-vis Apple. All that same music plays on iPods just fine.

Eventually, the labels will realize that Apple is not to blame for their lack of pricing power. It is the internet that has changed the ball game; Apple has only devised the most successful model for selling music on the internet. The labels don't like Apple's model because they are greedy and want more money, but giving temporary, privileged access to DRM-free catalogs for Amazon and others won't change the fundamental situation. The cat is out of the bag. Consumers won't tolerate a return to DRM and prices are not going back up.

Once the labels realize this they will get over their snit with Apple. They will then allow the iTunes Music Store access to the same DRM-free catalog and reap the benefits of high-volume sales. This is the way to compete with illegal downloads: DRM-free convenience and reasonable prices.

Joe, has is occurred to you that it makes no sense to both buy downloads AND rent music? You are paying twice and you are definitely NOT free of DRM as you claim. But you are willing to dump 1,000 paid iTunes tracks, so you are obviously not hurting for cash. You'll get no sympathy from me.

Wow, I love my iPod and I think the iTunes store is pretty good, and I generally like the whole iTunes-iPod music management ecosystem, but I don't have anywhere near $2000 worth of tracks purchased from the iTunes store. And if I did, I don't think I have the luxury of trashing them. I don't think anyone does, really. Who has the luxury to throw away $2000? Besides, I'm not dumb enough to think I couldn't listen to them anywhere else. I'd convert them to MP3s and keep on trucking.

Anyway, if you think you won't miss $2000, and you're a music fan, then donate $2000 to one of those programs that helps underprivileged kids, at home or abroad, get funding for music education and instruments. Now THAT would be a tangible contribution to the future of music.

In my opinion, that should be your penance, Joe, for speaking without knowledge, and needlessly wasting when others are in need.

Well Joe,

care to respond? All the above posts pretty much convey my thoughts, so now I'd just really like to know what you were thinking. Maybe we're all missing a key strategic bit of um.. strategy that you could enlighten us with.

Hey Mr. Wilcox,

1. the iPods have always been able to play regular MP3 files, so ANY store that switches to plain MP3 files is a win for the iPod, and a loss for Microsoft's own WMA format.

2. Apple makes next to nothing by selling music through the iTunes Store. The labels turning a nose to Apple is the labels turning a nose to THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS, who would prefer to buy music directly via iTunes itself. Not to mention that AAC is a better format than MP3, which is more than a decade old now.

3. only a Microsoft zealot would write an article about how he dumped 2000 iTunes track (which cost up to 2000$) and replaced them with MP3 files (which cost up to 2000$).

4. Have fun with your Zune, Microsoft's own music player that's not even compatible with Microsoft's own PlayForSure DRM. Yep, Microsoft are king at supporting their users, and that's one more proof of it.

Last, I have to agree with Mike In Helsinki: well said.

I don't mind people who prefer Microsoft over Apple, but what we have here is a typical, Microsoft-like so-called "writer" who has to twist the truth in order to convince himself of his own lies.

Earth to labels: Apple sells your music in the AAC format, which is way better than the old MP3 format.

Even at $0.25 I'd never pay for an MP3 file. I would gladly pay $0.99 for a 256kbps AAC file, however!

"The labels want to screw over the consumer at every turn with variable track pricing and forcing you to buy entire albums when all you want is a single. They don't deserve any support or accolades for finally grasping the reality that Jobs has been beating them over the head with for 5 years. Where do you think this 99 cents a track standard came from, anyway? Gnomes?"

true true true! GREED is 100% behind this. THE GOAL IS TO ULTIMATELY BREAK THE 99¢ FIXED PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all this drm is not the point it's a shell game diverting (and working) your eyes from iTunes. REMEMBER apple make very little to DISTRIBUTE music FOR the labels. if it wasnt about the price... why not just raise the price like the labels want Apple could stand to proft more too... REASON? Aplle is looking out for the consumer!!! locking in a fair price at 99¢. not too much, not too little.

What can I say? This is microsoft-watch and I am a microsoft fanboy. Now I must go pray to my Bill Gates poster god.

Not that I disagree with a lot of what has been posted here, but I'm really am amused by the raw passion with which you guys argue over something so petty. Don't you have girlfriends or wives to please?

Hello Joe,

Interesting article. You hit an Apple Fanboy sore spot.

You should consider an article on Apple Microsoft fanboyism. The intensity of the Apple Microsoft rivalry is stronger than ever.

IMO, the Apple Cult Fanaticism far exceeds anything on the Microsoft side.

This Bloods/Crips rivalry is entertaining to watch.

Fredey :
Not that I disagree with a lot of what has been posted here, but I'm really am amused by the raw passion with which you guys argue over something so petty. Don't you have girlfriends or wives to please?

It's usually the lonely dorks that bring up that line of reasoning. You think it takes any real effort to crush Joe's ridiculous article?

Anyone who throws away $1980 worth of music and then spend some more on the same stuff from Amazon can't be smart.

you can purchase your DRM-free music wherever you want (including the iTunes store!) the iPod is the best portable music player bar-none. any music i might buy from Amazon (cd or mp3) is going on my iPod.

"the iPod is the best portable music player bar-none."

This bears repeating, sorry Apple-haters.

OK, Microsoft gave me a free Zune with a year's subscription and all the songs I previously purchased for my iPod for a short pro article on Microsoft and Zune.

Only one way to describe this article: too silly for words.

Someday it will be a footnote in a learned paper about the misunderstandings about Apple, DRM, WMA, etc.

Joe, this article truly points into the abyss of your ignorance. If you wiped out your 2000 songs, you are far dumber than anyone could have conceived.

Perhaps it is time for you to change careers. Have you considered becoming a ditchdigger or sanitation collector or a profession without such an (ahem) challenging "knowledge profile"?

Joe :
OK, Microsoft gave me a free Zune with a year's
subscription and all the songs I previously
purchased for my iPod for a short pro article
on Microsoft and Zune.

Posted by Joe | January 8, 2008 2:49 PM

C'mon folks, let's not beat up the douche-bag too badly. He hasn't been the same since they cancelled "That 70's Show" on TV. Let's go slam Mary Jo "brown eye on M$" for the rest of the day.

Apple has regularly stated the iTunes Music Store is not making much money. It is a means by which to sell more iPods and advertise the brand. Remember, Apple makes its money selling the hardware - so I doubt Apple's board are having nightmares over all this. Of course, what you do have to remember is that the iTunes store was and is partially so successful due to its easy integration with the iPod and iTunes and overall generally easy-to-use design. I've yet to see anything else match this so far.

Amazon.com is now the best music store in the industry, offering customers the choice of either CDs or DRM-free MP3s.

Apple-DRM was a tool that Apple used to lock current iPod owners into being iPod-brand-for-life owners.

DRM-free MP3s break Apple's lock-in strategy, and benefits both consumers and manufacturers of other brands of MP3 players.

Joe said: 'OK, Microsoft gave me a free Zune with a year's subscription and all the songs I previously purchased for my iPod for a short pro article on Microsoft and Zune.'

Joe perhaps you'd better tell us if that was true or a joke, 'cause if it's true it's pretty astounding to have it out in the open like that. It's often been claimed that MS buys positive journalism but I don't recall anyone actually admitting to it. If true this comment should be front-page news on tech sites (except those ones that also get paid the same way).

"I dumped about 2,000 iTunes tracks, replacing as many as I could with MP3s from Amazon's music store",

Sure you did. Truth be told, unless Apple starts making a really sucky iPod, most folks with even $20- worth of content from iTunes store are going to stay Apple. Legacy is why Apple will continue to own digital music for a long time, just as why M$ can put out a crappy OS every 5-8 years and still control the market. Apple has actually had a comparable price-point and a superior user interface on it's computers for- oh- 4 years now and look how slow their market has grown. Expect the same but the other direction for music. But somehow I don't think the iPod will stagnate. Look what happens, as M$ spits out a facsimile of last year's iPod with a few extra "gay" features, Apple launches the Touch and the iPhone.

MS makes money by licensing. It's DRM scheme it amazes me how diluted the thinking is when it comes to MS waterboys. Somebody here mentioned Janus DRM being fair...you need to buy a clue. People that bought a Plays For Sure MP3 player can NOT transfer the DRM music they bought to the Zune. MS screwed it's hardware partners & it's customers. If you want to move to a Zune from a MS Plays For Sure DRM'd music player your music will not play. You will have to repurchase your music. Do some research & look at the state of DRM & digital downloads before iTunes. Apple changed the game for the better. I can use iTunes & never buy an iPod. I can use an iPod & never buy one lick of music from the iTunes store. The iPod & iTunes are crossplatform....which one of MS's offerings in this arena can you say that about? There are a lot of ignorant posts here...not to mention the actual blog itself.

Oh c'mon!
This post is so senseless that is not even worth the time to comment it..
WAKE UP, JOE!

Wow, more anti-Apple FUD on a M$ site. What a shocker.

In case you didn't know, iPod's will play non-DRM mp3's just fine. Apple couldn't care less about declining music sales from the iTunes Store, as they really don't make that much revenue there. As long as they keep moving the iPod hardware, they'll be just fine. And Zoon hasn't made the slightest dent in their lead, money or mindshare-wise.

ps. Do some research in the future. Apple never asked for DRM to begin with. It was the record labels who insisted, so if they don't like the position they are in with regard to the iTunes Store they need only look in the mirror to see who to blame.

The only reason that the big labels are going with non-DRM'd music outside of iTunes is that DRM incompatible with iPods has yet to be commercially successful - and Apple aren't likely to licence FairPlay to Amazon anytime soon.

Anyone imaging that the pigopolists have an 'issue' with DRM is smoking crack. And to Apple, it's all gravy - they're only interested in the iTMS as a way to sell iPods. If Amazon contributes to the level of content available for that little Cupertino-produced wonder in your shirt pocket, then it's all gravy to Apple Inc.

OK, Microsoft gave me a free Zune with a year's subscription and all the songs I previously purchased for my iPod for a short pro article on Microsoft and Zune.
Posted by Joe | January 8, 2008 2:49 PM

I hope you folks are smart enough to realize that the "Joe" who wrote that comment is not the Joe who wrote this article.

And to "Joe" -- Spoofing another guy's identity just because you don't like his argument? That's just lame!

Journalism?

I...