Jazz Odyssey

Don’t miss Austan Goolsbee’s article in today’s New York Times about the recent approval of a bill that would require Apple to reveal software code that would allow music purchased at the iTunes music store to work on other digital music players–not solely on iPods.

The article has a distinct pro-Apple sensibility–Goolsbee argues:

If the French gave away the codes, Apple would lose much of its rationale for improving iTunes….Apple’s margin on 99-cent music is thin. Yet it continues to add free features to iTunes because it helps sell iPods. Opening the codes threatens that link. Apple would need to pay for iTunes features with profits from iTunes itself. Prices would rise. Innovation would slow.

The sale of iPods is fueled by sharp marketing and media hype driving mass-market demand for a portable, digital music device that is sleek, sexy and easy to use. The form factor of the iPod is winner with consumers., and the near flawless integration with the iTunes desktop software reinforces the positive digital music experience. The word iPod is synonymous with digital music players the way Xerox is synonymous with photocopiers.

Does Apple need to keep improving iPods to retain marketshare? Certainly…but to insinuate that a deliberate lack of interoperability should fund that improvement seems like a stretch, particularly when there is a history of proven marketshare increases when platforms are opened up. After all, the iPod started off as a Mac-only compatible device and all the hype in the world didn’t drive significant sales until a Windows version was released. And you can just look at the recent interest in Mac computers now that it seems they’ll be capable of running the Windows operating system…I’d put money on the arc of ascent in Mac hardware sales, and increased adoption of the Mac OS as an army of Windows users gets turned on to the elegance of the Mac operating system.

Goolsbee goes on to say:

Even worse, sharing the codes could make it easier for hackers to unravel Apple’s FairPlay software. Without strong copy protection, labels would not supply as much new music.

There isn’t even an argument here…Apple’s FairPlay has already been unraveled, both by hackers as well as other digital music providers such as Real with their Harmony technology. And with P2P networks still teeming with unprotected MP3 files, and plenty of existing software that allows movement of music between iPod and computer without the need for iTunes at all, is unraveling Fairplay for fear of piracy really the core issue?

You’ve got to give credit to Apple for Fairplay, which up until now hasn’t felt like restrictive DRM to most iTunes users. But the times they are a-changin’…and we are starting to hear more and more that the Fairply DRM isn’t feeling as invisible anymore, even to those consumers who aren’t trying to pirate anything. One personal example is my Roku Soundbridge, a clever device that uses WiFi to stream music from my hard drive through the stereo in my living room. We love it and have hardly used our CD player since we set it up, but it does have a major drawback–it doesn’t play anything purchased from the iTunes music store due to the Fairplay DRM. Why should this be the case? I’ve bought the music fair & square and I’m not trying to do anything illegal with it. I just want to hear it through my stereo. I sure think twice now about buying something through the iTunes music store if I’m restricted from playing it in my living room.

Perhaps the opening of the Fairplay code should be viewed as a potential advantage for Apple….by opening the source code, enterprising programmers will have the understanding they need to write plug-ins to enable additional functionality, such as support of other codecs like FLAC. Or allow subscription services such as the Yahoo Music Service and the forthcoming MTV/Microsoft Urge service to work on iPods. This in turn would drive even more iPod sales.

And I could listen to the Ben Folds iTunes Originals recording in my living room.