It was rumored a few weeks ago that Nokia’s forthcoming music phone with a 4GB hard drive would ship with iTunes software, but Nokia quickly poured water on it, saying Apple was free to write iTunes software for the smartphone, if it desired. But in the wake of yesterday’s snore-inducing launch of the iTunes phone comes word that while Nokia has no immediate plans for an iTunes-compatible device, it is in talks with Apple, according to IDG’s Playlist magazine:
“We’re always in discussion with Apple,” says Nokia spokesperson Camilla Grägg. “But what Apple does is use proprietary DRM software. As such, it is up to them to make that decision who they play with. So we’re in talks with them, of course to see if they would open that up.”
Now, of course, those talks could take on just about any form, and leaving a discussion months ago on “We’ll get back to you about that” could be construed as being in talks. Is Nokia trying to get Apple to use another flavor of DRM, such as OMA’s version? Does Nokia want to license Apple’s Fairplay DRM to use it on its devices?
Nokia pulled a bit of a surprise when it announced a deal with Microsoft earlier this year so its devices could play filed DRMed with Microsoft’s Janus technology, and in return Windows Media player will be able to play OMA-protected songs. All this horse-trading is necessary for device manufacturers, who want to ensure their phones can play songs from the widest range of sources. Even if carriers are hell-bent on making sure that their customers can only listen to songs bought from their stores, phone makers know they can’t play that game.
But all this talk of talks and interoperability and licensing is stupid and pointless: saying one type of DRM is better than another, and that’s what you’ll support, simply just masks the problems caused by DRM.
This all goes back to the point that DRM isn’t just being used as copy protection, it’s being used to lock consumers in to certain brands of devices. Record labels that insisted on copy protection shouldn’t care about where somebody buys their downloads, as long as they’re buying them. When DRM serves as a lock-in to a particular brand or a particular store, it’s limiting consumer choice and in turn, potentially hurts record labels’ sales. If DRM hurts their bottom line, they should drop it. When content owners say it’s not necessary, hardware manufacturers (and others further down the food chain, like operators) will be hard pressed to justify continue using it — and then anybody will be able to buy their music from any store, and listen to it on any device, instead of having to worry about all this “interoperability”. Isn’t that really the best answer for everybody?
Carlo says: “When DRM serves as a lock-in to a particular brand or a particular store, it’s limiting consumer choice and in turn, potentially hurts record labels’ sales.”
I find this often used argument against AAC/Fairplay unconvincing. As long as a DRM creates a set of products that work together seamlessly with it, what does it matter that it doesn’t work with competing products. The only devices my iTunes songs need to play with are mine; not my neighbor’s or my co-worker’s.
This is known as cyber-diversity. The lack of it is what security experts claim is the reason for the security problems on the internet today. Put plainly, everyone running Windows today sit as easy prey to hackers which can leverage one vulnerability to the majority of users. With cyber-diversity, hackers are challenged to learn the diverse architectures of systems and are confronted with a greater challenge to leverage a vulnerability. In this way the DRM product lock-in has the side effect of producing a cyber-diverse environment which ultimately protects the record labels.
Microsoft only cares about making money licensing its DRM, not about the security of the music. Record labels should heed the lessons of the last ten years and avoid locking their security exclusively onto Microsoft’s DRM. When they hear the mantra of “user choice” they should bear in mind that everyone will be hearing the same drone; and eventually a cyber-homogenous environment will be created much like today’s Windows world. The question then is will I have more choice than the hackers have advantages?
A Nokia iTunes Phone soon?
Were always in discussion with Apple (Camilla Gr√§gg - Nokia spokesperson). This might some fans excited, but talk is cheap andthis does not mean that the two companies will agree on anything, especially when it is not clear …
A Nokia iTunes Phone soon?
Were always in discussion with Apple (Camilla Gr√§gg - Nokia spokesperson). This might some fans excited, but talk is cheap andthis does not mean that the two companies will agree on anything, especially when it is not clear …
A Nokia iTunes Phone soon?
Were always in discussion with Apple (Camilla Gr√§gg - Nokia spokesperson). This might some fans excited, but talk is cheap andthis does not mean that the two companies will agree on anything, especially when it is not clear …
Hi Jose,
Thanks for the comment, but I’m not sure I understand your argument.
“As long as a DRM creates a set of products that work together seamlessly with it, what does it matter that it doesn’t work with competing products.”
It matters that you’re stuck with being able to play back that media only on hardware which the DRM maker has deemed acceptable. For iTunes, that means the only phone on which you can play those songs is the ROKR, and the only mp3 player you can use is the iPod. What happens when you want something other than an iPod, but then if you buy it, you won’t be able to listen to all that music you’ve bought?
I also don’t see how your security argument enters in to this. As a consumer, why should I care if somebody’s DRM gets cracked? Recent history would suggest that consumers have benefited from DRM cracking. DRM solely protects content providers’ and device manufacturers’ interests. It does nothing for consumers.
You say that record labels should avoid locking in to Microsoft’s DRM. Why only Microsoft? They’d be better off not locking in to anybody’s DRM.