Quote:
Originally Posted by guyanonymous
[SNIP]
Anti-kudos for them charging to remove the drm from music already purchased. Would it have cost them $ to do so, of course - relative to their profits? Minuscule amounts (and yes, I'm making an assumption here). Could they have simply released an application, free, for users to download, or added the functionality to itunes? YEP.
I don't remember, but was Apple pushing for DRM'less stuff from day one, or did this come a while into their process; my mind (admittedly faulty at times) is saying that early statements were of the, "down the road this is where it will be" form.
|
An acquaintance of mine was directly involved in Apple's original discussions with the record labels (although I probably shouldn't say on which side!). He/she told me that Jobs and Apple pushed
very hard for no-DRM from the very beginning — almost to the point of torpedoing the entire deal. When it became clear that some degree of DRM would be required by the big labels, Jobs and Apple negotiated terms that were unbelievably favorable for the consumer (at least by comparison with what the labels wanted). Up to 5 computers and as many iPods as you like was nearly inconceivable by the standards of the day. The Steve Jobs open letter that came a few years later was a continuation of the argument, not a change of heart on Apple's part.
It is important to note here that I'm
not claiming that Steve Jobs or Apple are some kind of champion of the rights of the people! They had a good solid business reason for preferring no DRM; to wit: DRM reduces value to the consumer, adds complexity, increases support calls, adds costs—either per-sale if you buy someone else's DRM, or development costs if you build your own—and depresses sales of both content and devices. It's an all-around lose for both buyers and sellers. So pushing
against DRM is very much inline with Apple's desire to make a profit. They just don't always win the argument.
Xenophon