Apple's own approach to iPad e-books could confuse

[paulckennedy]

Apple's own approach to iPad e-books could confuse



Does this mean that iBooks will ladden ePub with the iTunes AAC Drm?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by paulckennedy

Apple's own approach to iPad e-books could confuse



Does this mean that iBooks will ladden ePub with the iTunes AAC Drm?

Apple's DRM is Fairplay.

AAC is just an audio format, with or without DRM. As of today, you can't buy an AAC music file on iTunes with DRM. Films and TV shows on iTunes are MP4/H264 format, with DRM.

And, we just don't know, but my bet is that Apple won't use someone else's DRM scheme.

[Crowl]

Here's hoping that they are sensible enough to support adobe drm in addition to their own version as that instantly makes the ipad more appealing to a reader than if they lost all their access to the content they already had.

[Bremen Cole]

Agreed, Adobe DRM would be a great idea. I would of course liberate it, but if they have to use the crap, that is at least one that is already in use. As a matter of fact, if Apple uses yet another proprietary DRM, I will not buy any books from them.

[fugazied]

Apple isn't a huge fan of DRM because they saw iTunes MP3 sales take off after DRM was removed. They realise consumers hate it. Problem is of course publishers who would have no doubt demanded some kind of DRM with ibookstore ebooks. Apple also like to do things their own way which means they might not follow what Adobe has done with DRM.

So we could have epub with some new kind of DRM on top, but it's all conjecture. If it does have DRM, we shouldn't be too concerned a hack will appear to remove it pretty quickly. What I am interested in is if the Amazon app will be on the device. If it is, we'll have the iPad able to read epub and all of our Kindle books while the Kindle is off it's own little world with their proprietary format.

iTunes still has DRM on movies and TV shows. Steve Jobs thoughts on DRM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPla...ic_open_letter

[Nate the great]

Adobe said on their blog that Apple is not using their DRM.

[HansTWN]

Jobs hates Adobe with a passion, something personal. So Adobe ADE won't happen. Besides, Apple will continue its "walled garden" policy, trying to tie in users to iTunes.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Apple isn't a huge fan of DRM because they saw iTunes MP3 sales take off after DRM was removed.

....?

Apple loves DRM and total platform control. Everything sold through iTunes, except music -- movies, TV shows, apps, etc -- all have DRM or are locked down, and they leverage vendor lock-in whenever possible. Nor have sales jumped this year; in fact, revenues for the iTunes store has been flat for years.

Originally Posted by fugazied

What I am interested in is if the Amazon app will be on the device.

Yes, it will. Apple is a hardware company; to them, content is just a way to drive hardware sales. They earn $9 in iPod and iPhone revenues for every $1 of content via the iTunes store. The more apps that bring content to their devices, the happier they are.

The only limitation I expect is that as with the iPhone, apps won't be able to access the iTunes / iBooks library. As a result, you'd need the Kindle app to read your Kindle books, the B&N app to read your B&N books, and so forth.

[kilron]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

....?

Apple loves DRM and total platform control. Everything sold through iTunes, except music -- movies, TV shows, apps, etc -- all have DRM or are locked down, and they leverage vendor lock-in whenever possible.

you're assuming here that its apple that is driving the DRM choice and not the content providers. if that's true, then why did apple try so forcefully with the music industry to remove ALL drm from iTunes music? why could it not be the content providers that are requiring apple to encase their content in drm?

[guyanonymous]

In that case, Apple saw the writing on the wall (just like Amazon with $9.99 books, I believe, though they are still way too high!). They also had an exploding mainstream piracy problem to deal with.

They managed to find a price-point that people would pay, providing content they wanted (one song, not whole albums), and provided convenience (for a subset of the market). Other companies were trying to do it, but it wasn't until the ipod actually exploded in popularity (and thereafter sales of music) that companies agreed. I'm sure that there was some, "and if you don't we'll remove your music from our catalog and you'll lose the $200million in profits in the future" sorta stuff. Kudos if so!

Anti-kudos for them charging to remove the drm from music already purchased. Would it have cost them $ to do so, of course - relative to their profits? Minuscule amounts (and yes, I'm making an assumption here). Could they have simply released an application, free, for users to download, or added the functionality to itunes? YEP.

I don't remember, but was Apple pushing for DRM'less stuff from day one, or did this come a while into their process; my mind (admittedly faulty at times) is saying that early statements were of the, "down the road this is where it will be" form.

Other sales organizations were promoting and trying for the same thing, but didn't have the market share to push through the drm-less business model.

[kilron]

you know, i'm not sure how it all shook down from the beginning, but my feeling was that apple always knew that the user experience was better without DRM and that was always their policy, but the music industry on the whole was VERY stupid and the only way apple could get them to buy into the online marketplace (iTunes music store) was to add drm to it. and thus they did.

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by kilron

...the music industry on the whole was VERY stupid and the only way apple could get them to buy into the online marketplace (iTunes music store) was to add drm to it. and thus they did.

I can agree with you here...especially the first part!

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

[SNIP]
Anti-kudos for them charging to remove the drm from music already purchased. Would it have cost them $ to do so, of course - relative to their profits? Minuscule amounts (and yes, I'm making an assumption here). Could they have simply released an application, free, for users to download, or added the functionality to itunes? YEP.

I don't remember, but was Apple pushing for DRM'less stuff from day one, or did this come a while into their process; my mind (admittedly faulty at times) is saying that early statements were of the, "down the road this is where it will be" form.

An acquaintance of mine was directly involved in Apple's original discussions with the record labels (although I probably shouldn't say on which side!). He/she told me that Jobs and Apple pushed very hard for no-DRM from the very beginning — almost to the point of torpedoing the entire deal. When it became clear that some degree of DRM would be required by the big labels, Jobs and Apple negotiated terms that were unbelievably favorable for the consumer (at least by comparison with what the labels wanted). Up to 5 computers and as many iPods as you like was nearly inconceivable by the standards of the day. The Steve Jobs open letter that came a few years later was a continuation of the argument, not a change of heart on Apple's part.

It is important to note here that I'm not claiming that Steve Jobs or Apple are some kind of champion of the rights of the people! They had a good solid business reason for preferring no DRM; to wit: DRM reduces value to the consumer, adds complexity, increases support calls, adds costs—either per-sale if you buy someone else's DRM, or development costs if you build your own—and depresses sales of both content and devices. It's an all-around lose for both buyers and sellers. So pushing against DRM is very much inline with Apple's desire to make a profit. They just don't always win the argument.

Xenophon

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

The Steve Jobs open letter that came a few years later was a continuation of the argument, not a change of heart on Apple's part.

This is also what I have heard.

[guyanonymous]

Thanks for providing some clarity!