Weekly interest and loan rates | Northwest stock contest 2003 Tax tips | Consumer affairs | Home values

E-conomy / Paul Andrews
In some cases, openness may be moot issue

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

A recent column on Apple Computer's iTunes for Windows touched off a digital debate worth exploring a bit further.

In the column, I mentioned how Microsoft, snubbed by Apple for its iTunes for Windows launch event, was critical of the "proprietary" nature of iTunes. On launch day, Microsoft posted an interview on its Web site with Dave Fester, Microsoft's digital media chief, who called iTunes "a closed system, where iPod (Apple music player) owners cannot access content from other services."

By contrast, Fester said, several services and more than 40 music players were compatible with Windows media formats.

Fester's comments brought a storm of sarcasm from Internet denizens, who hooted at any suggestion that a convicted monopoly should be permitted to arbitrate what constitutes open or closed.

"I have no great love for Apple," one reader wrote me in e-mail, "but I feel that somebody ought to point out Microsoft's sophistry in this instance."

In follow-up queries from me, Fester refused to budge. "Apple has done a fine job building a solution, but it is a closed solution — their service, their device, their player and no one else can play in that island."

His point seemed reinforced by news last week that the iPod disables MusicMatch's Jukebox now that MusicMatch is offering a download service competing with iTunes.

What interests me about this case is not who's right — both sides make legitimate points — but whether openness really matters.

Philosophically, there's something democratic and all-American about the notion of openness. Open government, open communications, open systems.

But openness in a technology platform has an Achilles' heel as well. Offering compatibility means accepting all comers, no matter what their expertise or the quality of their products. Windows indeed supports far more developers and devices than Apple but suffers attendant reliability and security woes partly as a result.

Where does that leave Apple? I frankly don't think it matters to 99 percent of consumers whether a player or service or format is open or closed. What matters is whether it works.

The fact that the iTunes-iPod pairing has turned into a phenomenal success means that the issue of openness is pretty much a moot point. Even before iPod gained Windows compatibility, I encountered users who had switched to Macintosh just because they loved the little pearlescent player and the seamless way it interacted with the Mac.

Contrast the iTunes-iPod synergy with the digital-media hodgepodge of Web media. Sometimes the video comes up, sometimes it doesn't. And even when it plays, it seems intent on spoiling the experience with constant "Upgrade now!" pop-ups.

At this point, Apple has little incentive to make iTunes compatible with Windows players. Apple wants to sell more iPods, and the best way to do that is to keep customers in the Apple universe.

Hollywood may well favor Apple's approach. By keeping its music business under one roof, Apple makes tracking and restricting unauthorized uses of iTunes music far more manageable.

Microsoft's argument — that Apple's closed loop eventually will limit its users to too few songs — may prove true if music companies withdraw or refuse licensing. If they do, it could stem more from opposing Apple's dollar-per-song price point than from the accessibility of its technology. In any case, system openness will have little, if anything, to do with the breadth or success of Apple's offering.

Digital-rights management in fact ultimately may force more proprietary technology on content of all kinds. That will have a negative impact if it results in onerous pricing and limited access. But it will be positive if it creates new market opportunities outside the cloistered halls of Hollywood and multinational corporations.

Wherever the future takes us, one thing is certain: When it comes to digital content, there's no such thing as an open-and-shut case.

Paul Andrews is a freelance technology writer and co-author of "Gates." He can be reached at pandrews@seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company