Its driving me crazy. I keep hearing conflicting reports. Some say Apple won't license fairplay to other music sites or companies like Microsoft. Others say Apple only licenses fairplay. So which is it?
If Apple owns fairplay, they should license it to others. Why would Steve keep this from Microsoft and others? Is he really trying to make the iTMS a commercial success as well as the iPod? Is he afraid others would license fairplay to put in their own players? Yes, this could erode iPods marketshare. But preventing the licensing of it will only hurt Apple in the long run. Let the iPod have marketshare based on its merits, not on a licensing restriction. Yes, the iPod and iTMS have gotten a jump on the market. But nothing lasts forever. If Apple does license fairplay, here's what I see in the future: iPod loses some marketshare to cheaper players. iTMS becomes one of many to offer fairplay drm. Consumer wins out big because fairplay becomes defacto standard. If Apple doesn't license fairplay, WMA eventually overtakes it because of sheer volume. iPod becomes a niche along with iTMS. So Apple can make money off of the iPod or off of licensing. The player will be a commodity item one day. There is a lot more money to be made in licensing. Does Steve have a long range vision or is he obsessed by maximizing his short-term profit?
If Apple only licenses fairplay, why haven't others licensed it as well? The more music sites that support fairplay, the better it is for all of us as consumers. The more music players support fairplay, the better it is for all of us as consumers too.
After thinking about this, I'm worried that Apple actually does own fairplay themselves. And having not learned from mistakes of companies in the past (i.e. Apple with its OS, IBM with MicroChannel, and Sony with Betamax), I'm afraid that Apple's fairplay and iPod could go down the same road in the long run. Which will be a sad day. I hope I'm wrong about this and I hope that Apple doesn't own fairplay themselves.
If Apple owns fairplay, they should license it to others. Why would Steve keep this from Microsoft and others? Is he really trying to make the iTMS a commercial success as well as the iPod? Is he afraid others would license fairplay to put in their own players? Yes, this could erode iPods marketshare. But preventing the licensing of it will only hurt Apple in the long run. Let the iPod have marketshare based on its merits, not on a licensing restriction. Yes, the iPod and iTMS have gotten a jump on the market. But nothing lasts forever. If Apple does license fairplay, here's what I see in the future: iPod loses some marketshare to cheaper players. iTMS becomes one of many to offer fairplay drm. Consumer wins out big because fairplay becomes defacto standard. If Apple doesn't license fairplay, WMA eventually overtakes it because of sheer volume. iPod becomes a niche along with iTMS. So Apple can make money off of the iPod or off of licensing. The player will be a commodity item one day. There is a lot more money to be made in licensing. Does Steve have a long range vision or is he obsessed by maximizing his short-term profit?
If Apple only licenses fairplay, why haven't others licensed it as well? The more music sites that support fairplay, the better it is for all of us as consumers. The more music players support fairplay, the better it is for all of us as consumers too.
After thinking about this, I'm worried that Apple actually does own fairplay themselves. And having not learned from mistakes of companies in the past (i.e. Apple with its OS, IBM with MicroChannel, and Sony with Betamax), I'm afraid that Apple's fairplay and iPod could go down the same road in the long run. Which will be a sad day. I hope I'm wrong about this and I hope that Apple doesn't own fairplay themselves.
