1/19/2008
Dave Winer's arguments against AppleTV are very similar to mine against the iPod. Why does Apple get a pass when it tries to control our audio, and now video, experience? Everything about the iPod is designed to force you to use iTunes as a gateway to your music. And to sell some downloads, of course. If Microsoft did something like this, all the Apple heads would scream bloody murder. I'm not saying Microsoft wouldn't have done it if it had the chance. I'm just saying. On a similar note, why does Google get a pass when it tries to control our entire internet experience? Back to iPods: Michael Walsh points me to his Digital Rights Manifesto, which I generally agree with, except that I will not accept any form of embedded DRM. Now that I can get DRM-free downloads from Amazon, I am buying much more music than I was in the less immediate CD format. Michael also pointed me to this very timely comic. Speaking of what goes around comes back around, get ready for the next big thing: wireless TV! Technorati Tags: ipods, appletv
Posted by Kent @ 1/19/2008 06:03:00 PM |
Permalink
Submit to:
Digg |
Netscape |
Reddit |
Tailrank
Bookmark on:
Del.icio.us |
Furl |
Ma.gnolia
Reactions: |
|
10 Comment(s):
Please elaborate: how does Google (tm) try to control our entire internet experience?
Google controls search, which is about 90% of the internet to most non-technophiles. It controls a big chunk of the ads. It controls a lot of the stats, between Google Analytics and Feedburner.
It controls a lot of the feeds, via Feedburner as well as a lot of the reading therof via Reader.
It controls a big share of the online email via Gmail. And the video content via Youtube. And then there's the online applications.
Plus, it wants to be the archiver of our personal data, which can then be used to target ads, etc.
Now its looking at buying airwaves.
It just seems to me that on the Risk board of our information, both getting and giving, an awful lot of the pieces belong to Google.
Thanks.
There are viable alternatives to each of the features you mentioned.
You may have to pay for the features, but the alternatives are there.
Google is just better.
That's a good thing.
You didn't mention the Google cloud where they want to dominant the world's computing.
Are they too dominant? Microsoft has successfully beat back every court challenge of their monopoly of operating systems. 70% market share with what everybody acknowledges is a inferior OS.
Google is good.
We gave Google the power and access, they didn't take it.
I'm more concerned about Microsoft when Gates gets out of the picture.
They have far more motivation and power to do harm.
"If Microsoft did something like this, all the Apple heads would scream bloody murder."
Ummm...I believe Microsoft did try something like this only larger by trying to force all Internet access to be via Internet Explorer...and yes they did somewhat get taken to task for that. But not by Apple "heads."
I find that the iPods are wonderfully designed music players and the iTunes Application is a very good media manager even if you never go online. There's also applications if you prefer to drag and drop you music to an iPod.
Do the iPod and iTunes App. make shopping at iTunes Online easier then about anywhere else...oh wait, that sounds like good business.
Good business and controlling, it's a fine line sometimes.
I agree about DRM...don't like it. But honestly, I've never had any real problems with it using iTunes and it's easy enough to circumvent if need be.
Bottom line...to each his own as long all happy with our choices. Isn't it great to have choices!
60, Microsoft is scary, there's no doubt about that. But they don't have this "we're just trying to make the world a better place" vibe about them like Google does. Meanwhile more and more and more data and content get wrapped into Google in one way or another. All while Google tries to support a $600 stock price.
I guess I'd sum it up this way. I don't like it when my content is walled in- thus my anti-Facebook position. That's the same reason I don't want to be forced into iTunes and whatever format Apple uses. I'm just concerned that Google is quietly building a wall around a lot of our data while we sit like frogs, happy in the big pot of warm water.
Earl, part of my anxiety is knowing how easily I could fall into the trap. When I installed a new version of QuickTime on my shop computer (an ancient Dell), I wasn't paying attention and iTunes ended up on there. I got curious and clicked on it. Before I knew it I was listening to some alt. country radio station.
I dig my wife's iPhone. If it could pull my work mail, I'd get one tomorrow.
There is no doubt its easy, and convenient. I am just really bothered by the fact that I can't load songs directly onto an iPod without having to do it through iTunes. That feels like a wall to me.
I can't disagree that "we" sit like frogs as the water gets warmer courtesy of Google.
I understand your point about any company that says "do no evil" while accumulating all that data.
I am encourage - a little - by Google's reversal on Blogger not allowing other URL's. Also Blogger seems to be inferior to WordPress.
It will be interesting if Google comes to market with their open source phone.
Lots to ponder.
Thanks for the nod Kent!
On the issue of ".... except that I will not accept any form of embedded DRM." I guess I didn't explain myself properly.
I think I will revisit the wording on this as it's not meant to be DRM as a technological solution but DRM as a social solution. By this I mean rights are rights. The rights that you possess with a tangible, physical product should automatically transfer to a digital version of the same thing. Thus, secondary sale rights, freedom to share, etc. should be something we are free to do with digital versions.
All technological solutions seek to protect the content, whereas I would make the case that we should agree what we consider to be the social norms for dealing with a digital version of a physical product are and then use existing legislation to punish those who break these on an industrial scale.
My initial effort was an attempt to subvert the meaning of DRM by taking its existence and turning it back on itself - to support the idea of DRM - but to turn it from a technological solution to a social solution.
My earnest belief is that rights are important and anything that promotes this idea is a good thing. Technological DRM solutions have sought to go way beyond the bounds of existing copyright law (it doesn't have to be like that though, as watermarking is a form of technological DRM which can be used to protect rights without depriving one of the other parties of theirs) and seek to hand all the rights to the copyright owner and none to the audience. This is fundamentally wrong. Unfortunately most of the copyright owners I have talked to have been blinded by their belief that a technological solution is the panacea to all their ills in a digital future. They have lost faith in their audience and have been hoodwinked into seeing everyone as pirates and thieves. Thus my attempt to talk to them using terms that they are comforted by but seeking to rob those terms of their existing meaning and infuse them with a more realistic connotation.
Some other postings I've done which flesh this out a bit more in a real world situation:
1
2
3
Oooops! Link no. 1 doesn't resolve properly. URL is:
http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/bbc-iplayer-drm-cross-platform-support-and-peer-to-peer-–-part-ii/
Wordpress did something wierd with the heading - I may just repost it with an alternative heading.
Kent, I'm not sure I agree. The DRM with the iPod is optional. If you don't buy from the store but rather rip CDs or download MP3s (from somewhere like Amazon or equivalent), you can use the iPod without any problem.
There is also a key difference between the AppleTV and an MP3 player - the former has the capacity to be a computer on a par with what one might find on the desktop or laptop. The problem with something like the TV product is one of user-extensibility, which is not the same as what we find in the MP3 market. Few people seem to want a user-extensible MP3 device. They want an MP3 player which is simple to use, which is what the iPod has provided in a way that nobody else has - Google ipod user experience design and you'll see what I mean - people don't write that about SanDisk Sansas or Sony MP3 Walkmans, and they don't for a reason.
Now, I have a phone which is user-extensible. You can install Java applications on it. I've sat down and written a J2ME midlet for my phone for two-factor authentication. I haven't seen any significant changes to the MP3 layer of the phone though (not that I use it - I have an iPod). Similarly, with the iPod touch which has been unlocked by the krazy kids on IRC - has that led to a significant shift in how music is played on touch devices? No. Everyone is pretty happy with that part.
The issues of DRM and user-extensibility are different - one is to guarantee that your media investment is portable between devices, while the other is a nice thing to have if it fits within the experience of using the device. How often have you sat looking at your refridgerator thinking "Curses! Why can I not install a custom Linux distro on this machine?!" It is for the same reason that I have not have any desire to do so on my iPod, and quite a lot of people don't either. Sure, it'd be nice - but, like with my refrigerator, it isn't a knock-down reason to not buy one.
Okay - Blogger doesn't like a character in the URL - as the text got freaked out as well!
I've reposted the blog entry. So now the link is:
1
or for those who like their text only:
http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/bbc-iplayer-drm-cross-platform-support-and-peer-to-peer-part-ii/
It's weird because I previewed the link and URL in the comments section and it all looks correct but when it gets posted to the site it gets corrupted.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
|
