Archive for the 'DRM Rant' Category



1,388 views

Google Granted Dangerous Monopoly, DMR Requirements in Settlement with AAP

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on February 24, 2009
in DRM Rant and Disruptive Business Models in Content
. 0 Comments

Timothy Lee reports that Association of American Publishers and Google have reached a tentative agreement with the courts regarding the class action lawsuit between the two. The point of the suit by the AAP was to stop Google form innovating and making books more useful on Google’s own terms. The terms of the settlement were negotiation in secrecy, and the voice of the public was left out. This is troubling on many levels.

The stodgy book publishing industry and copyright owners, who themselves recognize that their books are no longer commercially viable to reprint, are handed a solution by the courts to Google to once again see income generated. The real value publishers provide is in the act of publishing physical books. They could just use Google’s data to figure out what books to actually reprint, since this admittedly would not be a competence of the publishers. While the publishers have every right to assert a copyright claim on these works, they had no motivation commercialize since, to them, commercialization in mainly in print sales. If the publishers were not as short-sighted, focusing solely on the sale of new, scarce goods, they would have a their solution to make out-of-print books available digitally. However, this was a job for a company like Google to develop and create terms for. I trust Google much more than the courts and the AAP on how to make this knowledge available in a manner that is fair to all parties. Google bypasses inefficiencies, it does not prop them up unnecessarily. Most web publishers understand this, and allow search engines to scan and cache web content for this purpose, and without having to opt-in (only to opt out with robots.txt). Now, there is a double standard: one for content that is printed in a book and registered with the US Copyright Office, and another for html on the web. Why? Only because of the print industry’s lack of foresight. All web content automatically receives copyright (with the exception of license such as Creative Commons), without the need for bureaucracy. Google, will you pay me to cache this post?

Google will receive exclusive right to profit from orphaned works. This would seem to go against Google’s own motto: Do no evil. Google themselves should understand that creating an exclusive right for work that should either be entered into the public domain or to not allow competing services such as the defunct Microsoft book scanning program does not jibe with their own ethical compass. Google seeks only to win by meritocracy. Google search points to the better source, and most if the time it is not Google’s own content. Google wants competition. It should want to allow it to find the best interpretation or organization of orphaned works. For this reason, I could not imagine it sending DMCA nastygrama to sites that republish these works. Google would want to open the orphaned works to the general public and to any developer so that they may mine even more public value from it. There is now a Books and Interest Registry for copyright holders and publishers of any book to register their works so, they too can get a cut of Google profits on sales to orphaned book access. Now, anyone can receive this welfare, just write a book.

The settlement of this suit grant protection to foreign, non-US works, but if is a domestic work, it has to have been registered with the US Copyright Office. No doubt, this is to “live up to international treaties” at the cost US publishers’ convenience in comparison.

Lastly, Google will be providing works to libraries and selling book access (not downloads) to individuals, but with DMR. If and when the Google Book program is terminated, so will the access to purchased books be terminated too. While we have the technology to preserve writings for an eternity, short-term commercial interest seek to limit access to knowledge when it no longer suits them. And since Google will have the exclusive right, to orphaned works, these digitizations lost forever, or sold to another private party. We all know when happens when DRM servers are shut down. Digital media become less useful than real, physical media.

These terms are still modifiable, and the court will hear objections up until June 2009. But you have to wonder if Google’s own Dan Clancy has any objections to the monopoly that they will be unnecessarily granted. We all lose out, just because AAP does not want to spend resource to whack another questionable mole.



937 views

Using Social Media to Market Music

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on June 9, 2008
in Consumer Electronics, DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content, I heard it on a podcast, Innovation, My Projects, New Marketing, Photoblogging, Product Support and Customer Service, Social Web and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

My colleague at Heavybag Media, Jackie Peters has a post about the great opportunities record labels have in using social media as a marketing strategy. The challenges they are facing: they must switch from selling music in physical packages to selling musical experiences, allow fans to interact with the music in meaningful ways, and allow music to be an experience to share with friends. The convergence of downladable, infinitely available music along with the ability to learn about new music via word of mouth/social media in the form of music blogs, podcasts, recommendation (both algorithms and friend) is the perfect fit.

But for now, the transition is rough for music industry veterans. Almost every week for the past two years the music industry manages to make one puzzling move after another, while independent artists are free to make decisions who’s only stockholders are themselves along with their artistic and commercial aspirations. Increasingly, independent artists commercial strategy is not in selling CDs, but in the more scarce goods such as early access to new releases, performances, and limited edition vinyl or DVDs, reliable discovery and immediate access to files on iTune or Amazon MP3 . They now they need to sell their fans something they cannot get for free.

People love to talk about the music they love. Allowing them to share it easily and legally, and talk about it online, and put it in new contexts is the new path to commercial success.



941 views

How Open Source and Social Media are going to Eat SEOs’ Lunches

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on April 23, 2008
in Consumer Electronics, DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content, I heard it on a podcast, Innovation, Social Web and Web 2.0
. 4 Comments

(Sphinn this)
Search engines react to behavior of its users and site owners. Search engines measures these behaviors to deliver value to each, but ultimately to serve the search engines’ best interests. At first, search engines used what they could by implying relevance and rank by link behavior. But as the web evolves to the social web, social media connections are going to have an increasing weight on search result relevance. Let’s face it: social media strategy is going to cannibalize black hat and some current white hat SEO strategy. Social media strategy is the new way to do SEO (figure out how to give value to your client’s web strategy). It is Matt Cutt’s job to figure out how to measure this relevance, and he is seeing that it is social media.

Right now, there are a bunch of SEOs listening to what Danny Sullivan has to say about social media strategy because they trust him. But some SEOs refuse to re-evaluate what brings value to their clients, (note: this Sphinn user was not in attendance) even saying that Jason should not be allowed at conferences. These sentiments just prove to him that what he is doing is right. It is innovators dilemma. SEOs got where they are today by being great at SEO strategies. Asking them to adopt social media as a new strategy is new and foreign. As Danny tries to lead his followers to new territory, some think he is betraying them and the strategies that made them the stars they are today. Some might be too afraid to go back to their clients to tell them they are going to try some new strategies to help their clients succeeded. They should remember that this does not mean the work they did in the past did not allow for successes or was a bad idea. SEO definitely has been one of the main ways to help clients succeed on the web for the past 10 years. But, there is no need to defend past actions with future ignorance. They need to redefine their metrics. The longer they wait, the more likely they will get their lunch eaten.

Thus, the knee-jerk reaction to Jason Calicanis’s rhetoric that SEO is a dying or bad strategy. Yes, let’s admit that Jason loves to agitate people by rubbing strategy decay into SEO’s faces, bad Jason ;) . No one is going to tell an SEO that they are not giving value to their clients using SEO techniques. It just that the tactics they are using need to evolve.

Less attention is going to be paid to traditional SEO because (especially in the creation of static pages) now it is so much easier and valuable to create site with an open source blog, CMS, wiki or other application platform that may or may not rely on search engine traffic. Sure, even with these there are some ways to tweak them from an SEO perspective, but not as much as you might have needed to do 10 years ago. This is disruptive technology, bad news for the traditional SEOs that build sites from scratch, sprinkling in their elusive, magical SEO code. But, the developers of these open source CMS apps have figured out how to do the complicated SEO work for you (why else would Matt Cutts speak, attend, and endorse Wordcamp?). Here (along with social media application designers) is where good SEO needs to happen, and smart web strategists will realize that this is where it should continue to happen, because it scales and eliminates redundant work. You just need to wait for the search engines to spider your site. Now, traditional SEOs (which should now be called web strategists) should have more time available to add additional types of value for their clients by either engaging in social media on their behalf, or teaching them how to engaging with their prospects in a way that will help them efficiently meet their goals over the web. This is done by creating “meaningful relationships” (for lack of a better term) with people. At this point, SEO is just one of many tactics used by a web strategist. So calling a person an SEOs or SEM will soon be a way to show how outdated or limited that person’s strategy toolbox is. SEO competes with other value-adding strategies if all you do is SEO. Thus, SEO people see social media strategy as a threat. Being a web strategist is where it’s at.

Update 4/25/08: Oh yeah, add semantic web to the list in the title.



506 views

Blockbuster + Circuit City May Mean More DRM

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on April 14, 2008
in Consumer Electronics, DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content and First Amendment
. 0 Comments

Today, Blockbuster Inc. announced its offer to acquire Circuit City. This is not good for consumers.

Big box electronic retailers control the consumer electronics industry more that you might think. In the US (and maybe elsewhere), Circuit City and Best Buy can pretty much tell consumer electronics manufacturers what to make buy telling them what they will buy in their buyers meetings.

Blockbuster can be influenced very easily by their primary vendors, the big Hollywood studios. If and when the acquisition occurs, Blockbuster could be a proxy from which big content content owners can exert control over consumer’s fair use and free speech rights. Hollywood studios could possibly push further anti-consumer efforts such as HDCP (high definition copyright protection), which is designed to stop piracy at a higher priority of satisfying paying customers. The false positives of anti-piracy mechanisms have a chilling effect, whether the content was fair use or if it was used to censor dissent at just the right time.

For this reason, this deal should not take place. Anti-trust watchdogs should take note. This is not “synergy.” It could be more infringements of free speech using consumer electronics. If the anti-consumer moves TiVo has recently made concern you, it is possible you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Update: Some think the merger is a joke because both companies are such weak players in their own marketplaces. I must admit that current with each companies financial positions until I read this post on CNet.



314 views

Free e-books

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on February 11, 2008
in DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content and New Marketing
. 0 Comments

Mike at Techdirt points to some half-hearted efforts at free e-books. The books will only be available for a limited time, and they cannot be printed. It is all posturing by the book publishers who still believe that completely free pdfs will cannibalize physical book sales when authors like Cory Doctorow and Lawrence Lessig have proved otherwise.

The new definition of “free” is DRM-free as well as free-as-in-beer. The restrictions on printing and the books’ availability for a limited time are just other forms of DRM.

It is true that it is cheaper to buy books than it is to print them. Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine is a free to download/print/read book I was looking into printing at Kinkos, but it is going to cost $43 when the book will probably cost $25 in stores and $20 from Amazon when it comes out (thanks to someone who linked to it in the comments on Techdirt.com from a post a couple of months ago).

Also newly available to to freely download/print/read is The Medici Effect by Frans Johansson.

And finally, Neil Gaiman is deciding which of his books he should release as a free download.

Technorati Tags: ,


525 views

How Kindle Could Have Appealed to Passionate Evangelists

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on November 20, 2007
in Consumer Electronics, DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content and Innovation
. 0 Comments

When it comes to web services and logistics, Amazon is a rock star. Not only did they figure out how to make hundreds of small applications work a across their networks (the Amazon home page is connecting to hundreds of different servers providing hundreds of various applications), they sell this infrastructure as a service. They aggregate 3rd party sellers. They build widgets for affiliate sales. They popularized recommendations engines.

But the core of what they do is selling and shipping packaged goods. So, it is no wonder that they want to leverage the content of their packaged, scare goods (books) to sell non-scarce goods (ebooks). They are using Sprints Wispernet along with their own web services; an analogy to their logistics infrastructure interfacing with UPS/FedEx/USPS. Apple’s core business was not in content delivery when iTMS was introduced. With the Kindle, Amazon is betting on content sales and delivery as the key strategy.  They don’t want cannibalize their traditional sales channel because that is what made them successful, it is how they make most of their money. But that is only partially true. It was also their internally developed web services that helped them to beat out brick-and-mortar competitors.

Tim Lee points out, Kindle does not let users kick ass with the product the way the iPod does. Apple has raised the bar for anyone playing in a similar area (great gadget UI). You can load your iPod with podcasts at no charge, even using iTMS as the aggregator for no additional charge. You can rip CDs and then put them on the iPod without having to pay a service. But you can’t use Kindle to subscribe to any blog you want to (there are a select few only), and not for free, and not while using a delivery network other than Sprints Wispernet.  The iPod is so cool becuase of the  iPod + iTMS + iTunes experience.  Sprints Wispernet is elegant solution (although it is not free). The reason they need this elegant solution is because their web services and logistics is elegant, and that is how they earned their position as the best e-commerce experience. But Apple shows that connecting to the computer once a day (or even through WiFi) would have been good enough. But that is not what Amazon wants you to think. Amazon will use tactics that got them where they are today. They are not Apple so, that cannot learn Apple’s lesson of successes as well as an outsider to Amazon or someone with no past strategies to defend.

To innovate, Amazon should get people hooked to their platform at no cost. They are not really selling gadgets, they are selling ebooks and a delivery platform. When the iPod launched, it wasn’t until several years later that iTMS launched. Amazon is launching the device, the platform, and the content all at the same time. With Apple, people fell in love with the iPod’s user interface. Everyone says Kindle is ugly because Apple has raised the bar so high for user interface.

So, to get people hooked on the platform, they should give away public domain books and allow free subscription to any blog. Next, they should license their DRM (I hate DRM but the luddite publishing industry will not have it any other way for now) to multiple 3rd party gadget makers who specialize in kick-ass user interfaces. Next, they should roll out their store and delivery network.

I would not be surprised if Apple decided to answer this with a larger version of the iPod Touch as Rex Hammock recommends, and then cut a deal with Amazon to sell and distribute content via AT&T and/or WiFi and/or Whispernet.

I think another one of Jeff Bezos’s strategic mistakes is trying to appeal to the mainstream and not to people passionate about gadgets who could have evangelized the platform/device/delivery network assuming it was good. The iPods took about three years with multiple products at multiple price points to go mainstream.

Update 11/25/07
Scoble has a great review of the Kindle after using it for a week, reading two books on it.



782 views

Amazon blows it with their Kindle E-book Reader

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on November 16, 2007
in Consumer Electronics, DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content and Innovation
. 1 Comment

Amazon is going to release their e-book reader on Monday, called Kindle. The thing that got my attention most is that part of the delay in its release is that they were working out deals with content providers! For copywritten books, I can understand. But when there is so much more content that states that it wants to be syndicated by providing an RSS feed, licensing should be the last step in developing some type of monetization with this platform (step 1 being to get it out there, step 2 being allow early adopters to experiment). This probably means that Kindle will not be your portable RSS reader. I would say that an open platform is not in Amazon’s DNA until their recent DRM-free MP3 store (although it s really the media that is open, and not a platform that Amazon is providing). Not only might this news content be available only for a fee and have DRM, but it looks like it will be a closed platform. In the way music publishers are allowing MP3s to be purchased knowing the files could appear in file sharing networks but allowing sales of MP3s anyway, so to do (most) content providers state their permission by providing RSS feeds of content.

Out of 70 million blogs on the web, you, Amazon had to first go after the ones that are requiring licensing? If anyone can pull off this account stunt like this, it will probably be Amazon, but why go through the headache? Because Jeff Bezos thinks that success in this space means first catering to the mainstream newspaper reader. But I think it may be safe to assume that primarily the mainstream newspaper reader either prefers the actual paper and secondarily they read the online version. And anyone who is geeky enough to go for something like an e-book reader is probably getting their news online right now. And, I think it is safe to assume that anyone who is geeky enough to use an e-book reader is right now using an RSS reader to read news. Mainstream adaption might follow later.

If Kindle could aggregate and make viewable content from RSS feeds, all the newspapers sites would have to do is disable RSS if they did not want others to incidentally monetize on their content. But if the restrictions on this are because commercial incumbent dinosaurs might sue Amazon for happening to monetize their content, this is a very sad state.
<<--This is the print button from the New York Times. When I click on it, it does not figure out that I have an HP printer (or any other particular brand, hypothetically) and then grant me the rights to print because a deal has been worked out between the news agency and the printer manufacturer. I can print on whatever printer is connected to my computer assuming my computer has the correct drivers. However, when I click the button, it does present me with an annoying ad. Also, it does not check to see that the paper I have loaded meets the requirements of the publisher. If I choose to, I can print any article that has the print button. In this case, the paper and printers add value to me, but the newspapers are not making any money of this printing. Sure they might have an ad on it. The computer I am using right now is running Microsoft Windows (I am at work right now otherwise it would be Mac OSX), but I can run a browser from Mozilla, and I can go to websites without any restrictions because of content deals cut between Microsoft and my ISP. It is a free and open marketplace. Kindle (from what I can tell this early) is not.

If Amazon forced newspapers to make this tough decision: allow people to consume their content at no additional charge (possibly ad supported), or remove their RSS feeds and become less relevant, Amazon would be doing them a favor. They would be forcing them to get become more innovative in the ways they monetize. But no, Bezos wants to support newspapers' dying business model and alienate their potentially most passionate users: current users of online RSS readers. This device caters to the incumbent news providers at the expense users’ freedom to choose.

Sony failed miserably in the digital audio player market when they first entered by stupidly requiring users to use their proprietary ATRC format and not MP3. And their Sony Connect music store was even a bigger failure. I expect the Kindle to do the same unless it is open.

As we can see with the iPhone, customers do not like to be locked in to one service provider. IF this device happens to have a killer user experience, hackers will find a way to make it work with any mobile service providers, and they will find a way to make it work with ANY RSS feed. Of course, the hack will be open source and probably come from some kid in Europe. Amazon will update the firmware, and the hackers will hack that, and so on. Amazon, do you really want to fight in another pointless and expensive cold war with hackers like so many others have already?

If anyone is going to innovate in this area, is it not going to be Amazon or Sony. It could be someone like Apple who can put the user experience first and then carefully balance the concerns of the content publishers. A bonus to Kindle functioning as a portable RSS reader, it could also include 1000’s of books in the public domain pre-installed, but now I am really dreaming. This would surely piss-off Amazon’s lifeblood: commercial publishers. It’s a case of Innovators Dilemma. Bezos, I thought you were smarter than this. You have really disappointed me for not being remarkable enough in this e-book venture.

Simply put: the standard for e-books is PDF and the standard for news is RSS and it appears this supports neither.

(can ya Digg it?)

11/19/07
Update: #1
Favorite thoughts from Nick Carr and Tim Lee.

Update #2
Boing Boing Gadgets has the scoop regarding the details of the file formats, USB stuff, and e-mailing files to yourself.
PaidContent has a first hand report on the user experience.

Update #3
TechCrunch reports it does have a browser and you can log in and read Bloglines, a sort of “hack” so that it is an RSS reader.

11/20/07
Update #4
Check out my next post, How Kindle Could Have Appealed to Passionate Evangelists.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


203 views

Cory Doctorow to Steve Jobs: Oh yeah? Remove DRM from Pixar Movies

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on March 3, 2007
in Consumer Electronics and DRM Rant
. 0 Comments

I took the liberty of downloading this clip provided by ibiblio.org of Cory Doctorow’s latest talk on DRM, Pwned: How copyright turns us all into IP serfs and uploaded it to YouTube becuase I recognize YouTube’s value, that YouTube will help more people will see it, and that the idea can spread with more ease, unlike some other people.

Cory asks Jobs to remove DRM from Pixar movies since he as the power to do so. DVD Jon, EFF, and Engadget have all made the same request.

Update:
Defective By Design joins in.

Technorati Tags: ,


325 views

Senator Feinstein responds on The Perform Act, I respond back

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on February 4, 2007
in DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content and Uncategorized
. 2 Comments

I reported that I e-mail Senator Feinstein on my concerns with the Perform Act. Senator Feinstein has responded.

February 1, 2007

Mr. Nicholas Dynice

Dear Mr. Dynice:

Thank you for writing to me about the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music (PERFORM) Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

I believe that our nation’s intellectual property is vitally important and needs to be protected. In fact, the promotion of the creative process is so important that our Founding Fathers gave Congress the express authority to protect it in the U.S. Constitution. Still, we must ensure that any protection afforded to intellectual property is also balanced and fair to all who are affected by it.

The PERFORM Act, which I introduced with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Frist (R-TN), would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music. Currently, these providers are treated differently and pay different rates even though, as technology advances, their services have become increasingly similar. Additionally, the bill would require the use of readily-available, cost-effective, and feasible technology to prevent music theft.

As such, the PERFORM Act would help strike a balance between the promotion of technological advances in digital music delivery systems and the protection of, and fair compensation for, the intellectual property of artists and musicians.

The PERFORM Act has received the support of various music, artist, and songwriter groups, as well as digital music service providers. However, let me say, I believe the bill as it was introduced is the beginning of the legislative process; and while there may be disagreements over how to strike the proper balance on these difficult issues, I am certainly open to a robust dialogue. Please know that as the legislation moves through the process, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any further questions or comments in the future, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

My response:

[The Perform Act] would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music. Currently, these providers are treated differently and pay different rates even though, as technology advances, their services have become increasingly similar.

I have no problem with requiring similar compensation scales for the various types of paid music service as long as it does not require customers to pay even more for services they are currently receiving and does not unjustly hurt innovative American companies such as Sirius Radio or XM Radio. We should not punish innovators at the expense of dying business models such as the recording industry’s who’s business models is due for massive restructuring in light of this new technology and the music end users’ mode of consumption. We only need to look back at the railroad industry’s lobbying to produce the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act (which created a price fixing railroad cartel), to find that regulating innovation with law and not with open markets can have mixed results.

Additionally, the bill would require the use of readily-available, cost-effective, and feasible technology to prevent music theft.

I do not believe measure that use law and technology to prevent theft of music is worth the inconvenience the end users must endure. Furthermore, the music business has changed so drastically, that it is no longer possible and even futile to use resources (tax payer’s dollars) to fight it. The music industry is scrambling to figure out what to do, and has tagged Mrs. Feinstein as the savior of their defunct business model. The value of music recordings is less and less in charging for a recording, but in delivering an experience. The Perform Act seeks to make the music experience for paying customers worse and more difficult simply to to appease the more powerful and more wealthy music industry.

As such, the PERFORM Act would help strike a balance between the promotion of technological advances in digital music delivery systems and the protection of, and fair compensation for, the intellectual property of artists and musicians.

It has been revealed that organizations such as the RIAA do not have the artists’ best interest in mind. They seek to pay artists even less than they do now, blaming piracy while simultaneously reaping the benefits of new licensing opportunities such as ringtones, satellite radio, and video game music.

The PERFORM Act has received the support of various music, artist, and songwriter groups, as well as digital music service providers.

Please point me to the artist and songwriter groups who support the Perform Act. In an internet search for “Perform Act Supporters” or “supports the Perform Act” I find zero results. I could only find evidence of outspoken and progressive artists and record labels such as Canada’s Nettwerk Records who oppose rhetoric such as the one proposed by the Perform Act.

If you have not yet done so, take action here at EFF.org. You can get the text only version of my counter arguments here.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


246 views

Farce: “Without D.R.M., legal online music stores would not exist.”

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on January 14, 2007
in DRM Rant, Disruptive Business Models in Content and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Via TechMeme, the New York Times is rehashing Apple’s DRM now that the iPhone has been announced. They quote Apple’s lawyers in Melanie Tucker v. Apple Computer Inc, where Mrs. Tucker complained that she could not buy music online from any other service such as Microsoft. Part of the defense was,

“Without D.R.M., legal online music stores would not exist.”

First of all, illegal online sharing system like Napster helped to prove that there was a demand for music music files, and a business could be built from it. Secondly, Emusic, an online music store that sells unrestricted MP3s exists. The NYT article goes on to say that as the major labels lean more towards DRM free music files in MP3 format, Apple’s FairPlay DRM will only server to lock customers in to iPods+iTunes Store.

Apple PC ExchangeWhat happened to the Apple i used to know? Back in the early 90s, Apple introduced what at the time was called SuperDrive and PC Exchange which software which allowed DOS/Windows floppies discs to read/write on a Mac and convert files from PC format to Mac format. They understood lock-down at that time would be bad, becuase they had only around 5% of the market. Perhaps it did not matter becuase the files in question were created by the users, and not purchase from Apple. Microsoft has never had an interest in building a Mac file system reader into Windows. But with the iPod having 70% of the MP3 player market, they can afford to be the bully. For all of the perceived good will and praise of design Apple gets from its loyal customers, it is interesting to see that they are just like any other corporation. Apple only give customers what they want when it is in Apple’s interest. This will always be the problem with public companies. Even though it went public 20 something years ago, Apple has finally sold its soul.