Coral Consortium wants Steve Jobs and Apple to join
Tech News
By Steve Ragan Feb 14, 2007, 16:05 GMT
Talkback
Add your comment (no registration required)
page: 1
DRM does absolutely nothing to stop pirating.
It's better to give people a pleasurable experience than to worry too much about profits. That's why companies like Fry's Electronics allow returns to the store - because it keeps the customer happy, and they will end up coming to the store more often. That is a lesson music executives need to learn.
'They are listed on the list of Coral’s list of active members.'
So you're saying they're on the list...
The music industry has to realise that if the status quo is not working, maybe they should try something else.
sounds like Coral is saying 'put up or shut up' to Steve Jobs words about DRM protection. obviously if he joins coral, then his words werent just empty rhetoric. If he does not, well you know.
As an average consumer, I don't mind being 'locked' into one particular music store or device ... I just want access to all the music in a format that will play.
Thanks for the introduction to Coral Consortium. I never heard of this group til now. It's interesting to see all the content owners/providers in the membership. Indicates to me that they're frustrated with closed DRM solutions and want something more standardized/interoperable too.
Which I imagine is precisely what the dominant vendors (microsoft and apple) don't want - they'll want to keep the solutions closed as long as possible, as long as it protects market share. In which case, it seems like the next step for the Coral Consortium should be to get some market acceptance in service provider business models to get some teeth. Maybe the OMA could help them with that.
page: 1
Latest Headlines in Tech
- 1. On the road with your notebook (Feature)
- 2. Jackson virus and spam spreads on internet
- 3. Perfect your digital photos with plug-ins
- 4. New Firefox browser released
- 5. EU to have standard mobile phone chargers by 2010
JFeb 14th, 2007 - 17:20:47
I think that they are referring to a 'letter' and not a 'litter'. Real lame editing...
Report this comment