iTunes Genius = 1984

Remember when the Mac first made its debut in 1984? It was that commercial that opened with an Orwellian "overlord" on the screen with all the enslaved subjects being brain-washed into accepting what was said at face value.

Then, from the back, comes a pretty white woman in a running uniform carrying a sledge hammer and being chased by guards - and throws it through the screen and "frees" the captives. The tag line is "On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984."

That is, of course until September 14, 2008 - when Apple brought out iTunes 8.0 and introduced the new "Genius" bar on the right hand side. It's billed as an "assistant."

The idea is to suggest music choices you don't have - based on what you do have. It's a good idea - like a suggestion engine that you see all the time in other sites like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. The problem is - in order for it to work - you need to agree to upload ALL the information about your music catalog, play lists and downloads to Apple.

Hmmmm. That's a pretty big "opt-in" if you ask me. Right before you decide to take the plunge - here's how Apple describes what you're about to do:

"Genius is able to make play lists and give you great recommendations by periodically sending information about your iTunes library to Apple. This information will only be sent to Apple if you choose to turn on Genius."

"The information sent to Apple includes details about the media in your iTunes library such as track names, play counts, and ratings. This information will be stored with an anonymous Genius ID and not linked to your iTunes Account. When using the iTunes Store or Genius sidebar, Apple will also use your purchase history to give you better recommendations."

Ummm.... yeah. So Apple is now the world's biggest distributor of music, and it will now also have data on millions of people's catalogs - including music that was bought elsewhere and "ripped" from CD's etc.

But it will also get all the other nuggets that are stored along with just what songs you have. It'll also get the ratings, how many times you've played them, what pluralists you've put them in, etc. 

In other words - Apple will have some of the most up-to-date and complete information in the world to predict music trends and to (potentially) capitalize on that knowledge.

Now I haven't turned on the feature myself, yet - but I know people who have. They liken the Genius sidebar to an overzealous used car salesman. There are "buy" buttons all down the thing.

Whatever happened to that cool aesthetic, the subtle sell, providing the user with rankings and gently nudging them toward a sale? Now it says "Top Songs You're Missing" and "Recommendations".

Top songs I'm "missing?" Really? Maybe I think those songs totally blow - and aren't worth the $0.89 or $0.99 asking price. Maybe I ripped those songs from a CD I'd made 5 years ago. Who died and made YOU boss?

Sorry, I digress.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: nice try, Apple. You make some good products (I really do like my iPhone), have some snazzy advertising, and have been terrifically successful in selling music and iPhone applications.

Just get your hand out of my data pocket - and keep your distance, less you start to become like all of the other "greedy" non-Mac companies out there. The only reason people like you is because you're different, not the same as everyone else.

Try to stay that way.

Cloud Services Can Have Thunder Storms

The latest winner in the battle for the land-grab over consumer digital music goes to... well, NOT Yahoo. Seems that they've decided to throw in the towel when it comes to the DRM (Digital Rights Management) servers they use to make sure that the music you've purchase is legit.

The only problem is - once they do that... ummm... you can't move your music - you know, the stuff you paid for - to any other computer or device.

Um... yeah.

Hey - MORE good news for the shareholders of Yahoo next week! Ol' Carl's dance card is going to be full, that's for sure. I guess when your stock tanks (called it!), Carl Ichan now owns 33% of your board (called it!) along with 12% of your stock - and he says "cut the losses and get out" - I guess you get out.

Now, it's not happening until September - so if you bought music on Yahoo - then hurry the hell up and copy it to every single device known to man. Yahoo is also offering folks the option of either a) getting all the money back they spend on buying all that music (Carl Ichan rolling in grave); or b) DRM-free copies of all the music they bought (the way it should be anyway!).

I can't get that Queen song "Another One Bites The Dust" out of my head. RealNetworks is the venue that Yahoo picked back in April to take over their service - but to me it just confirms that Amazon got it right with DRM-free music that you can actually buy and OWN - versus the "buy it - and own it virtually" concept.

This is one instance where "in the cloud" went horribly wrong.

At least, to be fair, they're trying to take care of their customers. But that leads to a bigger question about "cloud" services - what happens if your particular vendor decides ("for business reasons") to shut down it's data centers or turn off its servers? Not all companies will "take the high road" as Yahoo has with regards to its customers.

It's inevitable that in the future one of these large vendors will just go tits-up and leave their customers (and all of their data) in the lurch. The smart bet is to make damn sure you have a backup (on "paper" if necessary) of all of your important data in a way that you, personally, control.

Or, at the very least, back it up to more than one online, virtual datastore. I think you see my meaning here. As more and more of services go SaaS - and more and more companies and individuals buy into PaaS - you can't just abdicate control of your digital future.

You need to actively manage your digital assets (music as well as email, database data, website pages, etc.) as you would data in an "old fashioned", on-premises data center. Back it up in more than one place, and be ready in case of a natural disaster - or an "economic slowdown" - or some other unforeseen event.

Cloud services are great, don't get me wrong. But we've all seen how the shiny promise of MobileMe, Salesforce, iPhone activation, get us to part with cash and then the absolute backlash and worldwide flogging of those same companies when their .0001% of downtime (inevitably) happens.

As we come to rely on services that are outside our control - we need to realize that sometimes digital sh*t happens - and it's all technology that's based on a text-based rendering engine that didn't even exist 15 years ago.

It will get better and more reliable, but in the mean time - just remember that these services are not like the (hardwired) telephone service, not like an electric utility, and they will go down, merge, un-merge, go broke and in innovate like hell in the wild west that is the digital communication age.

And if you don't like it - dust off your 78's, and buy a pad of paper, a pencil and some stamps.

This Just In: Music Industry Greedy

It may or may not come as a surprise, but the music industry is out for your wallet - again - I mean still. It seems that the unlocked MP3 game isn't making them as much money as they expected hoped for will settle for.

So, they have a new latest-and-greatest idea: "Let's RENT songs to people." Yep, now they want to the be Hertz or Avis of the online media world.

Now that you can finally (through huge fits, starts and lawsuits) actually buy DRM-free music and listen to it, download it and *gasp* burn it to CD - they want to turn the model on its head. The only downside is - people will have to think it's a great idea and actually use the "service."

The premise here is that people don't really want to "own" music - they just want to listen to it. So, let's give them a way to "buy" (the rights to listen to) a song for ten cents each. Then, we'll put it into a "locker" for them - and they can listen to that song as many times as they want.

As long as they're online.

Yep, no rights to download to anything, no rights to burn, no rights to nothin' - just to listen to it via a browser. And, after you've ponied up the cash - you can just hope that the company (Lala) will be there a year from now. If not, then thanks for the cash - sorry, you're S.O.L.

Does this sound nuts - to anyone other than me?

Apparently not to Warner Music Group - who quietly invested US $20 million into Lala late last year (2007). At that time they also agreed to put printed advertisement for Lala into 25,000,000 CDs in exchange for the right to greater ownership, and the good folks at Lala have managed to raise a whopping US $34.7 million in funding.

So, will people go for it? I hope not! What kind of half-baked idiot would pay ten cents per tune when there are other services like Napster, Imeem or even YouTube? If you only want streaming - there are all-you-can-eat plans for under US $13 per month - that's the same as "buying" 130 songs on Lala.

It's a pretty stupid idea, if you ask me. I think people want to actually buy their music and and do with it what they would do with any other type of purchased music: download it, rip it, burn it AND play it on their computer. If you're not one of them - or just have money burning a hole in your pocket - here's a secret URL you can use to check it out for yourself.

Apple's Stumbles with Bombs and DRM

Besides all the hype and "unconfirmed sources" cited in the run-up to the release of the 3G iPhone - Apple is finding itself in another round of bitch-slapping regarding it's Safari browser and it's DRM-protected content in iTunes.

First off - the "carpet bombing" hole in Safari. This little baby raised its ugly head over the last couple of days. Turns out Nitesh Dhanjani originally discovered that it is possible for a booby-trapped Web site to litter the user’s Desktop (Windows) or Downloads directory (~/Downloads/ in OSX) with executables that look like "real" application icons.

“This can happen because the Safari browser cannot be configured to obtain the user’s permission before it downloads a resource. Safari downloads the resource without the user’s consent and places it in a default location (unless changed),” Dhanjani said, warning that it could be used as a drive-by badware distribution mechanism.

Even Google-backed stopbadware.com got in on the act - questioning whether Apple should take a look at this bug (or feature, depending on your perspective) and determine whether it qualifies as a security risk or not.

DUH! Hmmm... some baddie can just create cute icons in the default download location that are shortcuts to a website or app that can cause damage? I'd call that a security hole. I mean, the least they should do is put in a preference for it - so the user has a choice.

The other area where Apple is wearing a "kick me" sign has to do with it's retarded instance on crippling its iTunes downloads (most of them, anyway) with their FairPlay Digital Rights Management (DRM) encoding. Of course, anyone can get around it by burning stuff to a CD and then re-ripping the thing - but really, who has the time to do that?

Now that everyone and their dog from Amazon, to Napster, to Netflix has DRM-free MP3s - how long does Apple think it will take for folks like Yahoo, Zune, and RealNetworks to ink their own deals?

Not long. Really.

Hey Steve, now that you're you're striking royalty-free iPhone distribution deals (in other countries) - what about making FairPlay = DRM-free? And for goodness sake - add a damn preference to Safari while you're at it.

Remember Newton? Remember OS 7? Cool - but eventually both technologies got their asses kicked by the competition. Don't let it happen again!