命令,选项,控制

对史蒂夫乔布斯的“音乐思想”的两个讽刺批评是:(a)跳到反DRM的潮流是一种无耻的尝试 - 即that Jobs and Apple are merely attempting to take credit for the already inevitable move toward non-DRM music; and (b) that it’s all just some sort of trick and Jobs didn’t mean what he wrote.

保罗瑟罗特从(a)路线开始

There are times when Apple and its CEO Steve Jobs seem well ahead of the curve, releasing products and services that easily trump anything the competition is doingAnd then there are times when Apple is a follower, though the company tries, in such cases, to pretend that it is leading the wayThis is an example of the latter case...

Jobs’ pleas follow years of complaints from analysts, music fans, and an increasing number of industry executives, all of whom have noted that DRM restrictions have stymied online music salesOf course, when someone with the clout of Steve Jobs makes a stand, it’s interesting, even if we’ve heard these arguments before.

Who exactly, then, is Apple following? Yes, there have long been outspoken critics of DRM是的,长期以来,一些出版商和音乐商店出售无阻碍的无DRM可下载音频文件。eMusic的例如,销售普通的MP3文件,它们是第二大最受欢迎的音乐下载商店(虽然它们的价格超过了一个数量级--1亿对比迄今已下载20亿次)。

但是,显然,乔布斯所写的不仅仅是音乐下载,而是来自属于四大音乐公司的艺术家的音乐下载(无论好坏,这包括大多数人关心或甚至不知道的绝大多数音乐。)四大方向的这个方向已经出现了断断续续的步骤 -EMI已经发布通过雅虎(仅限Windows)音乐商店获得少量无DRM曲目 - 但乔布斯的文章是第一次对现状有既得利益的人明确表示如果我们摆脱DRM,对每个人都会更好。

It’s one thing when a peace activist calls for an end to nuclear weapon testing; it’s something else when the leader of a country that has nuclear weapons does so.

瑟罗特在他的结论中将理性推向极限:

Regardless of the timing, Apple will always claim that it led the way to unfettered music downloads, of courseAnd though the company knows that record companies will never bow to this kind of pressure, Apple can also claim it’s been looking out for the interests of consumers all alongIf that’s really true, I’ll just reiterate a request I’ve been making for a long time nowMr. Jobs, tear down that DRM wall: License FairPlay, seek a license to Microsoft’s Windows Media technologies, and make all of these products interoperate in the world as it is, even if it’s not as perfect as the one you allegedly prefer.

Remember the RIAA’s response to Jobs’s essay, where they misread Jobs’s clear statement that Apple has rejected the idea of licensing FairPlay as an offer to license FairPlay? Thurrott takes it even further, suggesting not only that Apple license FairPlay to other companies, but that Apple “seek” (read: “pay for”) a license to Microsoft’s Windows Media DRM.

这是一个非常可笑的建议但它提出了一个真正有趣的问题:瑟罗特怎么会这么错?

我的猜测是,一个非常简单的解释就足够了,这就是Thurrott从一个重要但完全破坏的假设开始:微软在这场辩论中很重要。

很容易看出瑟罗特如何从这个假设开始He’s a Windows expert; covering and analyzing Microsoft technologies is what he does而且,在过去二十年的大部分时间里,微软的观点和技术似乎只是因为他们是微软而非常重要如果这是你从DRM开始的假设,那么Thurrott的建议实际上是有道理的。

但微软在这个领域是一只纸老虎他们的音乐DRM只与购买他们的音乐播放器的任何人相关 - 也就是说,它是市场中的一小部分他们的Windows垄断并没有让他们在这里建立事实上的行业标准,就像过去曾多次这样做The most popular DRM-encoded music format for Windows users is FairPlay; the most popular music player for Windows users is the iPod.

微软对乔布斯的文章的回应传达了他们缺乏相关性的挫败感Zune营销总监Jason Reindorp告诉纽约时报that Jobs’s call for the elimination of music DRM was “irresponsible, or at the very least naïve”, and then added, “It’s like he’s on top of the mountain making pronouncements, while we’re here on the ground working with the industry to make it happen.” Thurrott quotes Reindorp approvingly, writing, “Microsoft responded to Jobs’ pronouncement in a fashion that I feel is long overdue.”

但乔布斯的文章到底是什么“天真”的呢?1我认为Reindorp认为天真的是乔布斯甚至没有提及Windows Media DRM,除非传递。We’re Microsoft, damn it! Why isn’t Apple scared of us?

太过微软的大脑可以让你通过雷德蒙德有色眼镜看到苹果公司或任何其他公司微软的历史充斥着锁定的实例,这是一个重要的技术目标和核心业务战略,往往是他们的法律损害或者用微软自己的说法:拥抱,延伸,熄灭

这从来就不是Apple的策略Apple定义的企业愿望正在最大化其控制权,同时最大限度地减少其依赖性如果表格被转变,微软和苹果公司在音乐DRM市场份额方面的立场发生逆转,我们当然不会看到“如果我们摆脱音乐DRM,我们会更好”史蒂夫鲍尔默的公开信。

但从Apple的角度来看,它确实有意义乔布斯的“音乐思想”中隐含的一点是,如果苹果公司支持任何DRM,它将是他们自己的,他们不会与其他任何人分享。

这样,用户体验和技术受到Apple的控制,而Apple并不依赖于任何其他公司的合作或能力来使其工作并保持其正常运行一个明显的问题是Thurrott建议苹果公司授权微软的Windows Media DRM决不在Mac上为Windows Media提供了不错的支持 - 而且根本不支持DRM。

如果iPod和iTunes支持Windows Media DRM,则需要Mac OS X支持Windows Media DRM支持Mac的PlaysForSure音乐商店的数量为零。也许这在Paul Thurrott的世界里是有道理的他认为推出了iPhone意味着“开始长期告别Mac作为通用计算平台”,但在现实世界中,苹果将采用iPod / iTunes平台的想法 - 目前全然独立于微软的控制 - 并使其部分不能在Mac上工作并将Windows部分置于微软的控制之下,这是一个笑话。

The truth is that the only companies that have a say in this are the Big Four music companies and Apple; the music companies because they control the rights to the music, Apple because they dominate both the legal download and portable music player markets(That eMusic is the second-most-popular download store means several good things for Apple: (a) both of the top two download stores fully support iTunes and iPod playback on both Mac and Windows; (b) neither of them use Microsoft technology; and (c) because eMusic only sells songs from independent labels, it means Apple’s share of the legal download market for重大的标签音乐甚至高于其在整个合法下载市场中的份额。)

为了让苹果公司注意到Thurrott的建议,即他们从微软获得Windows Media DRM的许可将要求Apple忘记,如果你依赖微软的东西,微软会毫不犹豫地滥用你的依赖,如果它后来适合他们苹果在Windows Vista上延迟支持iTunes正在给微软带来他们自己药的甜味(对我们其他人来说,至少是甜蜜的。)

就目前而言,Apple在iTunes,iPod,Mac OS X以及像iPhone这样的新产品中依赖于音乐和视频播放。而且,由于未将FairPlay授权给其他公司,Apple并未依赖任何其他公司推出固件更新以修复错误并格式化更改这就是Apple想要的方式。

有趣的是,微软可能已经在几个月前开始了如果Zune推出无DRM,那将会如何 - 作为一个音乐播放器和在线商店科里多克托罗happy? And then used the lack of DRM as an advertising point against the iPod?在宣传和基层支持方面,它的价值远远超过喷射。

我怀疑这是否曾被考虑过微软是如此倾向于与苹果公司交换位置 - 所以他们控制压倒性的DRM锁定优势 - 他们错过了Apple提出放弃自己(实际的,现有的)DRM锁定优势的事实即Microsoft’s problem with the iTunes Store isn’t that it has created an unfair playing field, but rather that it has prevented Microsoft from creating an unfair playing field倾向于自己的利益

如果苹果公司成功说服四大公司放弃DRM,这对Zune来说似乎是个好消息,但它会让微软远离它真正想要的东西,这是一个长期自我延续的DRM锁定优势。

这让我们看到了Thurrott呼吁Apple自愿弥合DRM差距的最美味的方面,这就是微软对DRM感到高兴,他们甚至不提供DRM之间的交叉支持。他们自己的DRM标准Zunes不适用于PlaysForSure DRM,而PlaysForSure小工具不适用于Zune DRM。


接下来是保罗凯德罗斯基他在星期六的华尔街日报上发表了一篇专栏文章,名为“原谅我的怀疑主义”Kedrosky写道:

That Microsoft-style lock-in to iTunes/iPod has been good for Apple and its shareholders — the company sold more than 20 million iPods in the Christmas quarter — but others have been less impressed. First up has been Norway (an admittedly tiny market), which last month gave Apple until March 1 to explain how it would untangle iTunes and iPod and open up the music marketSimilar complaints have now come from groups in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

输入先生乔布斯本周的反DRM论文We’re less than a month from when MrJobs needed to respond to European complaints, so he seemingly had a deathbed conversionLet’s open it all up, he says, eliminating DRM altogether.

But Jobs didn’t argue for music to be opened up only in Norway他呼吁在任何地方开放它苹果的手并没有被强迫在这里:如果他们想告诉挪威,他们可能会把挪威的iTunes Store关闭并且没有任何后果iTunes Store在全球范围内充其量只能获利Apple的iTunes Store从挪威获得的利润几乎可以忽略不计。

为什么很难相信乔布斯的意思是他写的:苹果公司非常乐意通过基于产品质量和用户体验的竞争来赚钱?

Kedrosky继续说道:

先是先生Jobs notes that it is the record companies that made him impose DRM on iTunes downloadable musicTrue enough, but that’s hardly the pointBeing ordered to do something objectionable is not an excuse — and, further, MrJobs hasn’t exactly had the high rhetorical ground here, not having fought the good fight on this subject publicly in the past.

确实,苹果公司和乔布斯个人迄今为止并未赞扬无DRM合法音乐下载But what was Apple’s option? Not to offer legal downloads from the major record companies at all? If Apple had refused to use any DRM whatsoever, that’s what they’d have been left with会有什么商业意义?

And few serious people in the security community buy the argument that Apple is really just making the music industry safe for all of us by keeping its FairPlay technology to itself.

这不是乔布斯所说的他没有说苹果公司将FairPlay保留给自己有助于保护音乐产业In fact, he explicitly pointed out the opposite, that DRM in general has had no effect on music piracy whatsoever, because 90 percent of music ships on DRM-free CDs乔布斯认为,保持FairPlay本身可以保护苹果因为苹果公司与音乐公司签订的合同保证,当FairPlay破产时,Apple必须在几周内修补漏洞。

Further, if the recording industry could copy-protect CD music, it wouldBut the industry is prevented from doing so by a massive installed base of CD players that don’t support such technology.

这是真的 - 实际上音乐公司已经尝试了各种各样的技巧来发行普通CD播放器中播放的CD,但却阻止PC将音乐翻录成数字文件记得索尼的根套件惨败? That the music industry sees DRM-free CDs as a problem is not an indictment of Apple.

Besides, if copy protection in general, and FairPlay in particular, are so fundamental to MrJobs’s lock-in and current music-media hegemony, this raises an obvious question: Why would he argue in favor of eliminating DRM altogether? It starts to seem … well, nuts.

如果你认为锁定,这只是坚果苹果“音乐媒体霸权”的基础我说它不是Imagine for the sake of argument that the iTunes Store were instead just a front-end to Amazon; buying music or movies through iTunes would simply be a convenient way to order CDs and DVDs without leaving iTunes我认为在这种情况下,Apple会出售并继续销售与实际iTunes Store一样多的iPod。2

It is, of course, a straight-out-of-Clausewitz exercise in diversionary tacticsWhile many people are uneasy about beating up on the successful and innovative Apple, gang-tackling the nasty old music companies is something everyone can really get behind.

音乐公司不受欢迎的原因是他们的行为和陈述的政策使人们不高兴苹果受欢迎的原因在于其行动和陈述的政策(包括乔布斯的“音乐思想”)让人们感到高兴这并不复杂That Kedrosky is apparently siding with the music companies instead of Apple doesn’t make him an iconoclast; it makes him a jackass.

(同样地,微软对DRM的深厚机构投入is not about making their customers happy; it’s about making the entertainment industry happy even though it makes customers不快乐。)

先生Jobs knows that there is pretty much zero chance the music industry will eliminate DRMThat move would sound a death ringtone for their struggling business, making online piracy dead simple and destroy the livelihood of an entire generation of artists.

Kedrosky显然错过了 - 或者拒绝相信 - 乔布斯论点的主要观点几乎不可能看到苹果如何通过iTunes销售无DRM的音乐会让盗版变得更糟音乐盗版已经猖獗iTunes上没有一首歌曲无法从P2P网络免费下载If iTunes were to switch to DRM-free music, would it stop anyone who is already buying music from iTunes? No.

更重要的是,是否有人拒绝从iTunes购买歌曲因为the songs are encoded with DRM? Yes!

已经从iTunes购买的人将继续因DRM而拒绝从iTunes购买的人可能会开始盗版的人会继续盗窃这种情况对音乐产业来说会更好,而不是更糟从音乐产业的角度来看,问题在于他们设计一种方案的技术荒谬,这种方案迫使每个人都为他们演奏的每一首歌付费他们痴迷海盗,同时将诚实的客户视为理所当然。


  1. That the music industry does not seem ready to jump on Jobs’s no-DRM bandwagon isn’t an indication of naïveté on Jobs’s part; nowhere in his essay does he indicate that his advice is something the Big Four labels are likely to accept. ↩︎

  2. I don’t think it’s outlandish to think under such an “iTunes-as-front-end-to-Amazon” scenario that Apple would have made as much or even more money, via Amazon referral fees, than it has from the actual iTunes Store. ↩︎