The Macalope gives this one six out of six antler points.

He’s less sanguine about the Safari on Windows rumor (tip o’ the antlers to Daring Fireball). Sure, there’s the “gateway app” philosophy that says the way Apple makes inroads to Windows users is to offer them cool apps to show them what they’re missing on OS X.

But a browser? Seems to the horny one that most of the hot action in the browser goes on in WebKit, not Safari. Meanwhile, Firefox has already established itself as the “not IE” browser for Windows including all those sarcastic “Get a real browser!” reminders. Also, based on what the Macalope’s hairy ears have picked up about the relative stability of running iTunes on Windows, he’s not so sure the “gateway app” philosophy is as sound as you might think.

But assuming Apple has ironed out its Windows development issues, then are there really any other apps the company has that it could/would/should port? You don’t want to to give away the farm by porting iLife and you don’t just want to hit a small segment of the market by porting a professional app like Aperture.

Three out of six antler points.

Neither really seems like a great announcement for WWDC. But, then, they could just be bubbling to the surface because of WWDC and might only get announced later.

Oh, and the Google rumor below gets five out of six antler points.

Seven minutes.

And can anyone explain to the Macalope why an iTunes update forces a reboot on a Mac but not on a PC?

UPDATE: The Macalope’s mistake. It’s QuickTime 7.1.6 that forces the reboot. So, OK, why does QuickTime (often?) force a reboot on the Mac but not on Windows?

Anyone upgraded any songs yet? A whole 5% of the Macalope’s iTunes-purchased music is upgradable. Hmm. Well, at least it’s only going to cost him $6.90.

Click.

The process prompts you to either have the files replaced and deleted or have the old copies moved to a folder on the desktop. The Macalope had them moved but he’s not sure why.

Mr. Gruber says the upgrade option isn’t working for him.

“Television and cable networks will shift the bulk of paid downloading to ad-supported streams where they have control of ads and effective audience measurement.” McQuivey wrote. “The movie studios, whose content only makes up a fraction of today’s paid downloads, will put their weight behind subscription models that imitate premium cable channel services.”

This is so stupid it hurts the Macalope’s furry head.

Forrester’s fallacy is in not realizing that iTunes downloads are not a replacement for broadcast or cable television.

They’re a replacement for DVD sales.

Yes, iTunes downloads are different in that you don’t have to wait months for the DVDs to ship and they don’t feature the extras the DVDs do. But they are alike in that you can time-shift your viewing, you can repeat your viewing as often as you like, they’re portable to a variety of devices (albeit Apple-only except for iTunes on Windows) and, most importantly, there is no advertising.

It’s as if Forrester doesn’t know that people go to Target every day and buy DVDs of TV shows and movies.

Ad-supported content online is the replacement for broadcast and cable television and these two things are not the same.

It seems like every year some brilliant think-tank issues a bone-headed report that says ad-supported X will replace its for-fee equivalent.

And it never happens.

Because people hate ads.

Overall, TJ’s absolutely correct in almost everything he writes, but what it comes down to is the old saying about trying to teach a pig to dance.

Here’s the nut graf from TJ’s post:

Just because Steve wouldn’t hold them in parallel, doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

That’s fine, but the point the Macalope was trying to make is that you can do that aaaallll daaaaaay loooong and you aren’t going to gain an inch with the MPAA. The Macalope and Daring Fireball certainly weren’t arguing that there should be a difference between the two, just that one is currently under successful siege and the other is not.

The Macalope’s advice? Wait for music DRM to fall. Then let’s talk again.

When vociferously called on it, he did apologize for the error about AAC, but did that change his tune on the Apple/EMI deal? Nooooo!

All my facts were wrong, but my conclusion was still sound! And get off my lawn, you damn kids!

The iPod, iTunes on your computer, and the iTunes store are a closed system, designed to keep you captive. I see AAC and iTunes as . . . not exactly a DRM system, as I said to a couple of people in e-mails, but something nearly that restrictive.

The Macalope just typed “AAC to MP3 converter” into Google. He got over 2 million hits. One wonders if DeJean has used Microsoft Word in the past 15 years.

I still don’t love the EMI-Apple announcement, either. EMI may have seen the light on DRM, but it’s treated me like a thief instead of a customer for so long that it will take me a while to get over it.

The Macalope is at an utter loss to explain this graf. DeJean has apparently been beaten so long that he doesn’t want them to stop because they’ve been beating him so long?

Sorry. That’s the best the Macalope can come up with.

Also, DeJean is apparently so bewildered by the discount Apple’s giving on unprotected 256Kbps albums that the only way he can rationalize it is to assume it’s going to go away.

Does this mean, in fact, that album prices are going to be higher — that in a couple of months we’ll wake up and find new releases are one price and old catalog albums are another price? Probably.

And the gubbiment done put a trackin’ device in mah fillins!

If Jobs got DRM-free music and traded a price hike for it, as some of my correspondents have suggested…

The drunk ones.

…then he should ‘fess up rather than hide behind “it’s better quality.”

Oh. Dear. God.

It… it is better quality.

If Apple and EMI had offered protected 256Kbps songs for 30 cents more, these pinheads wouldn’t have said boo. But the fact that they took a huge step in the right direction is not only meaningless in their eyes, it’s somehow worse because they failed to have every member of the RIAA and the MPAA on stage apologizing for the last 70 years of recorded music and video sales and saying their entire unprotected collections would now be downloadable for free before dancing around with flowers in their hair as Leonard Nimoy sang Good Morning, Starshine.

But I want EMI and the other labels — and Apple — to work with me to make it easy to be honest. They way things are now, it’s easier to be dishonest.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

David, buddy, are you saying that you’d resort to getting an EMI song off a P2P network rather than iTunes because you can get it in MP3 instead of AAC?

What is wrong with you? You make the RIAA look sane.

Am I excited about the opportunity to pay more for music just because it’s finally starting to come in an open format the way it should have come all along? No, I am not.

It’s encoded at a higher bit rate! And if you buy the album, you’re not paying more! Just because you keep saying it’s paying more for nothing does not make it true. It just makes you a nutjob.

The Macalope isn’t sure what kind of crazy pills these people are on, but he recommends you stay far, far away from them. Even their imperious leader had great things to say about this deal, if he couldn’t bring himself to apologize to Steve Jobs for doubting his sincerity.

When did DRM become the worst thing in the world ever — so bad that it drove people insane? Was the Macalope off the planet when that happened or something?

Was today’s announcement a real commitment dedicated to consumers’ digital rights? Or was it a play for disenfranchised music lovers’ hearts? We have a feeling the answer lies somewhere in the middle — although we can’t help but feel the whole thing is gestural at best, and subterfuge at worst.

Translation: there is no pool too big that I cannot try to ruin it for you by depositing my Baby Ruths into it.

We should be clear to start: we don’t believe Jobs is leading by example here — EMI is.

…

With his $4 billion+ stake in the media megacorp and his seat on the board of directors, you’d think Jobs would be quick to encourage Disney-owned labels, like Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records, to “embrace [DRM-free] sales wholeheartedly.”

Well, do you know that he isn’t? Now that Steve Jobs has proven he means what he says about music DRM, let’s not believe him about something else! This first-person shooter game is awesome and has so many levels!

Perhaps Jobs and Iger don’t see as eye-to-eye as they previously postured, or perhaps Jobs is waiting to see whether this is actually the right move for the business, consumers be damned.

Yeah! Why, Jobs probably isn’t even a pescetarian! The Macalope bets he goes home and grills up a nice steak every Friday! And the Macalope has just as much evidence for that as Block does for his argument.

The finer details of EMI and Jobs’s announcement today were also dubious.

Dude, you sound like Martin Prince.

Despite the silver lining, which is that full albums should cost the same but will now default to DRM-free files, the two businesses still conflated DRM-free music with the discerning tastes of audiophiles.

If by “conflated” you mean “created value” then, yes.

Steve mentioned that 128-bit AAC just isn’t good enough for the sharp-eared, so uncrippled tracks are being bumped to 256Kbps. This gives Apple the ability to sell the music as a separate product and price point, while giving consumers the illusion of greater value.

It is a greater value, you numbskull! How is 256Kbps not a greater value than 128?! Arrrrg! The fact that albums are going to be in that format is something they’re giving you for free, not the other way around.

EMI CEO Eric Nicoli said, “Not everybody cares about interoperability or sound quality.” Since when did the two become so intrinsically linked?

Do you not know the meaning of the conjunction “or”? Maybe you should log on to LimeWire and download a copy of Schoolhouse Rock.

So why not make 99-cent 128-bit AAC tracks DRM free as well?

Why not give Ryan Block a pony?! Because he’d only bitch that he wanted a bigger, shinier pony.

Now take a look at Steve’s response to the question of whether TV shows will be sold without DRM.

No. The Macalope has said this time and time again. He does not agree with disconnect between music and video, but they are treated differently because the industry managed to get their hooks in the DVD specs. The landscape is totally different and you simply cannot argue both at the same time. Well, you can try, but you’re only going to waste your time and look like a jackass in the process.

In fact, the only other devices that we can think of that supports [sic] AAC are a handful of Sony players, the Sansa E200R, and the Zune — and good luck getting that to work with your Mac or iTunes.

Does Block not know that the majority of iPod and iTunes users run Windows? And, yeah, that whole dragging and dropping unprotected AAC files to another directory is a real pain in the ass.

The bottom line is this: we want to live in a DRM-free world, and while we’re not necessarily convinced that Jobs, Apple, Disney, and EMI do too, at least some of the players in this ecosystem are willing to look at it from the consumer’s point of view.

Yet you give credit to EMI and none to Apple and Steve Jobs.

Yes, the situation isn’t perfect, but yesterday it got a hell of a lot better and when sales of unprotected 256Kbps AAC files absolutely beat the crap out of the DRMed 128Kbps alternative — as the Macalope is sure they will — it’ll get even better. So quit your bitching.

Sincerely,
Steve Jobs

ADDED: Michael Gartenberg writes:

It is a good step forward for consumers but more importantly, it showed Apple at the forefront of acting as “champion” for consumer interests. After all, it wasn’t Rob Glaser or Bill Gates up there with EMI.

Indeed. Which is why Doctorow owes Jobs and Apple an apology. Haven’t seen it yet.

I need somebody

EMI is to hold a media event on Monday with Apple boss Steve Jobs as special guest, prompting speculation that Beatles songs will finally go online.

Help!
Not just anybody

There will also be a “special live performance” at the London event by an unnamed artist or band.

Help!
You know I need someone

Last week at a mobile industry conference, EMI chief executive Eric Nicoli praised Apple for the simplicity of the iPod and iTunes.

He told the industry that it should learn from Apple.

Heeeeeeeelp!

(Tip o’ the antlers to Daring Fireball. To Mr. Gruber’s questions the Macalope would add, will the performance be downloadable from iTunes?)

Tsk. You idiots.

Doctorow doesn’t believe Steve Jobs when he says he’d drop DRM in a hearbeat if the recording companies would let him, saying Apple is enjoying the benefits of locking customers into iTunes. If Jobs is serious, he asks, why won’t Apple sell songs from artists who own their own music and want it to be sold DRM-free? Why are some podcasts DRMed and some DRM-free? Why has Apple always sold Pixar movies with DRM? Why was Apple’s first pitch to the music companies to sell DRM-free music?

Whoops, he didn’t say that last one.

To be sure, though, Jobs is only talking about music. No one is under any illusions that the movie business is going to budge one inch. The Macalope will stipulate that there is a bizarre inconsistency in the treatment of the two media. One’s DRM is under attack, the other’s is not.

Mr. Gruber has opined here on whether or not Apple would offer both DRMed and DRM-free music and the Macalope agrees with his analysis – it’s going to take some critical mass to get Apple to do it (not just a smattering of indy bands), but if one of the companies says “OK”, Apple better come through.

As for podcasts being offered both ways, it is an inconsistency, but consumers of podcasts are almost certainly more aware of what the heck DRM is in the first place.

Doctorow does make some good points but, as usual for him with this subject, he’s so wound up about it that he keeps heading off into la-la-koo-koo crazy-bananas land to make sure you know how bad DRM is.

Apple may have created a successful “Switch” campaign by reverse-engineering Microsoft products like PowerPoint to make Keynote, an Apple program that lets you run old PowerPoint decks on your Mac, but Microsoft can’t create a “Switch to the Zune” campaign that offers you the ability to play your iTunes Store songs on a Zune, Microsoft’s latest abortive iPod-killer.

What? Apple’s “Switch” campaign is based on getting PowerPoint files to open in Keynote? Since when? Apple’s own “Get A Mac” ads actually reference the Mac version of Microsoft Office, not iWork.

The Macalope knows Doctorow is trying to compare Microsoft’s lock on office applications to Apple’s lock on digital music, but it’s a rather tortured comparison. Even MP3s are not editable in the way a PowerPoint presentation is.

Not only won’t your iTunes Store music play on those devices, it’s illegal to try to get it to play on those devices.

Doctorow doesn’t say it explicitely, but he seems to be implying that even burning an audio CD of your iTunes Store purchases and re-ripping them as MP3s is illegal under the DCMA. The Macalope has never heard that before and is inclined to think that’s not true, but he wouldn’t be completely surprised to find out it is. You would have to re-enter all the metadata and for a large number of tracks that’s going to be a huge pain in the ass.

Doctorow then plays his Apple street cred card again.

I’m a lifelong Apple fan boy — I have an actual Mac tattoo…

That’s cute. As long as we’re whipping it out and comparing sizes here, the Macalope feels compelled to point out that he has a head actually shaped like a Mac.

So… you know…

Beeeotch…

If you rip your own CDs and load them onto your iPod, you’ll notice something curious.

The iPod is a roach motel: Songs check in, but they don’t check out. Once you put music on your iPod, you can’t get it off again with Apple’s software. No recovering your music collection off your iPod if your hard drive crashes.

So now the complaint is that the iPod isn’t an archival device? Well, it’s probably good you’ve got the CDs, then.

The Macalope thinks the real concern would be your iTunes-purchased music and those files can be copied off your iPod and onto another machine. Frankly, the Macalope doesn’t understand why Apple restricts this feature to iTunes-purchased songs. Probably at the behest of the recording industry which assumes any MP3s you have on your iPod must have been stolen in the first place.

What’s more, Apple prevents copying indiscriminately. You can’t copy any music off your iPod.

Not technically true as you can sync your purchases to another authorized machine. But, yes, you can’t copy them off individually.

Apple even applies the no-copying measure to audio released under a Creative Commons license (for example, my own podcasts), which prohibits adding DRM. The Creative Commons situation is inexcusable; because Creative Commons licenses are machine-readable, iTunes could automatically find the C.C.-licensed works and make them available for copying back to your computer.

Apple has “locked” the iPod so you can’t copy any non-DRMed content synced with iTunes off of it, but the files themselves have not been DRMed. You can copy them from machine to machine a variety of other ways, including using the iPod as a hard drive. It’s a rather stupid encumberance, but it’s not exactly keeping people from copying Creative Commons works. It’s really just saying you can’t use iTunes to do it and if you want to play it and copy it, you have to put it on there twice.

Stupid, yes. Evil? Only if you’re incredibly pedantic about DRM.

Videos you buy from the iTunes Store can only be watched on Apple’s products. So every movie you buy from Apple is a tax down the line of switching from Apple to a competing product.

The Macalope’s got to go with him here. This is a piss-poor situation engendered by the recording industry’s ability years ago to control how DVDs and DVD players were designed. The least the industry and Apple could do is allow customers to burn them to a fixed number of DVDs.

Conceptually, spyware and DRM have the same goals: to do something to your computer that you don’t want to happen.

Oh, please. It’s crap like this that makes Doctorow so unbearable on this issue. Does the Macalope need to point out the difference between consensual sex — albeit with someone who you fear may end up being too clingy but, hey, they’re right there and they’re willing and you wouldn’t even have to get up off of the couch or possibly even move — and, well, getting raped?

At the end of the day, DRM is the biggest impediment to a legitimate music market. Apple doesn’t sell music because of DRM — it sells music in spite of DRM.

Indeed.

Doctorow’s strident war against DRM certainly has a goal the Macalope agrees with. But while the horny one is not naive about the motivations behind Jobs’ statement, he also doesn’t think Doctorow helps his own case by stretching the truth to try to scare the kiddies about Apple’s DRM.

Maybe there’s another explanation for it.

Like…

Dope-fueled paranoia?

The Macalope’s just thinking out loud.