I apologize for the duplication of content from the distributed conversation regarding iTunes U, but I thought it might be interesting to post my five “what would it take for me to be satisfied with iTunes U?” items here and invite comment, additions, deletions, etc. to the list. With apologies to Martin Luther, then, here are my five theses.
I will be grudgingly satisfied:
1. if Apple makes it easy to copy URLs from iTunes to other podcatchers.
2. if Apple drops the specious talk of liberation. I’ve too much Orwell in me to think that the words don’t matter. 🙂 I don’t think that the fact we’re all sophisticated enough to recognize their jive for what it is furnishes a good justification for overlooking their appropriation of this language. I resent seeing all the passionate appeals for educational transformation that many tireless and unrewarded visionaries have crafted over many years become nothing more than ad copy. (But hey, I also resent Pete Townshend’s selling “Bargain,” a song he elsewhere calls a prayer, for use in car ads.)
3. if Apple doesn’t allow colleges or universities to configure iTunes for closed, “secure†access to content.
4. if Apple explicitly disavows any responsibility for copyright enforcement for school-generated content.
5. if Apple drops branding services/opportunities to make iTunes U look like “your college or university but act like iTunes.â€
EDIT: 6. if Apple makes the Music Store link an “opt-in” item rather than a default link on the standard iTunes U menu. This item is probably the most quixotic of all, probably impossible from a technical point of view, but if I knew the primary interface didn’t promote a store in this way, I’d feel better. I don’t want to deliver teaching and learning materials inside a store, just as I wouldn’t want my reading of a novel to be interrupted on every thirtieth page with an ad. If you tell me that the ads would make the novels cheaper, that they’d help to put quality literature into the hands of more people at a lower cost, that I can just skip the darn things by turning the page, I’d respond that the price for these savings is just too high. When I read, I don’t want the merchants at my elbow. That’s why I paid for the book: to get some time with another human being, not to be targeted by commerce over and over.
Why grudgingly and not completely? Because I don’t want to create a de facto iPod campus, and iTunes U reaches maximum effectiveness as the campus gets closer to being iPod only. That prospect bothers me. Maybe it shouldn’t. There are plenty of campuses that support only one computing platform for students, and for very good economic reasons. (Ironically, that single platform is usually Windows, not Mac.) So far, though, the argument for diversity seems more persuasive to me. It’s important to note that for all its “think different†talk, Apple isn’t thinking different. It’s trying to leverage market dominance into a near-monopoly, just the way “evil†Microsoft is. I’d be less outraged, though no less troubled, if Apple hadn’t dressed itself in robes of righteousness for so long.
One more thought: Alan and Chris and others (I imagine) don’t take the verbiage on the iTunes U page too seriously. Alan writes, “The ad material Gardner finds offensive (and i just find dull and glazing) seems to be totally written by marketing people, not the people behind the program.” But that’s exactly what I’m alarmed by: the marketing people are the people behind the program. The program is, at heart, a marketing program. Thus there’s no distinction between “the marketing people” and “the people behind the program.” But it’s telling that Apple’s marketing tactics are aimed at helping us forget that fact. When I read all the technorati links to blogs saying “yippee, Apple to the rescue!” I see a reality distortion field that’s effective. Worryingly so.
Nicely summarized, Brother Gardner… 5 theses down, 90 to go?
Seriously, I deeply appreciate your pushing on this issue, ti helps to temper the irrational exuberence for something which is not even built yet. I am curious if you hage gotten ANY, public or private, response from Apple. This is the opaqueness that I guess supports the RDF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field)
If I understand #3 correctly, you would prefer all iTunesU to be 100% public, no content behind passwords? Why is that critical? Are you worried more will be hidden than revealed?
On #4, are you saying you do not want Apple to perform any function of copyright enforcement, that like an ISP, the responsibility lies on the institution that posts content? At the San Diego ELI conference lunch, an Apple rep at our table was hounded a bit on the “report a violation” button in iTunes and could not even explain what it does. Should this information go to the content poster or not even be part of the system?
And is it clear what happens to content stored on Apple servers? Do they have some future righrs to re-use?
I’ll be with you at the walls of the Apple Church, asking them to put out some official answers. Others ought to ask to. Stop being so vague out there in Cupertino.
Quick response, brother Alan! Many thanks,
#3 is my wish that Apple not enable higher ed to reinforce one of its worst tendencies: locking away knowledge creation inside a CMS (or LMS, or whatever one wants to call it). I’m old enough to remember the profusion of routine (and interesting) teaching materials posted on the Web from 1994-98 or so, and how much of that began to go away once Blackboard et al. offered schools a way to keep that stuff inside. I confess I’m also trying to force some copyright issues back into the conversation rather than have iTunes U help keep the copyright status quo robust and not so visible.
#4: you’ve got it. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Your question about reuse of material stored on Apple servers is interesting. I haven’t seen the contract, and no one from Apple has contacted me to respond to any of my concerns. (I’m small fry and I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to.) Given the apparent lack of knowledge even within the organization itself, I’m wondering if Apple even has answers at this point.
From my understanding, the main selling point of iTunesU is #3 – controlling the access. Otherwise it is basically just a directory in iTunes, isn’t it? I have a password protected podcast and vodcast for one of my classes now simply because I haven’t cleaned out all the copyright issues in one of my courses. I just use password protection at the server level where the mp3 and m4v files are located and give out one password for the class. I would be interested in seeing (or hearing about) how iTunesU handles security. If it is done on a student by student basis, I wonder how difficult it is to add a new student and if the instructor can do so.
Pingback: Simpson-ized Self-Portrait … at bavatuesdays
Well, I guess you’ll never be using iTunes U, then.
Number 2 will never happen because Apple is going to continue to market what they see has the value they’re offering as posiively as they can–as would any company. And by the way, they believe it. I’ve spoken with a number of their employees, all the way up to their VP for Education. They see it as being about their core culture. You may not see it the same way, but I don’t think it’s fair to make a blanket judgment that it must be a disingenuous ploy.
Number 3 won’t happen either because it would defeat the purpose of iTunes U. This isn’t an offering to individual teachers; you can just broadcast your podcast via the iTMS right now if that’s all you want to do. iTunes U is explicitly about enabling entire schools to provide this capability en masse. Said institutions have legal obligations to support proper use of copyrighted material, should faculty decide to use it (which most do). They also have a need to provide some automated support capability via LDAP or whatever, and that leads down the same road.
I’m pretty sure that Apple can’t legally comply with number 4. If it’s on their servers, then they are legally responsible. The Napster defense wouldn’t do them any more good than it did for Napster.
Number 5 is undesireable from a usability perspective. To begin with, the fact that iTunes U works like software that many students already know means they don’t have to learn how to use it. Why break that? Why would Apple re-invent the wheel just to scrub any “taint” of branding?
There are plenty of folks–many of whom are participants in the edublogosphere–who just don’t like the constraints that they would have to accept the constraints and strings attached that come as part of the package that comes with institutional (or corporate) support of online learning. I get that. But there are lots and lots of faculty who won’t get into the game at all unless you give them an easy-to-use, familiar interface, help them avoid doing anything illegal (whether or not you agree with copyright law), and reduce their administrative overhead by supporting single-sign-on, blah blah blah.
From my own perspective, Apple is thinking different. They are creatively re-using their existing infrastructure to provide a free service to universities that is useful for bringing more online affordances to more traditional classrooms. Is it 100% philanthropic? No. But it’s not an evil plot by the marketing droids either. Ideally, it’s win-win for the school and the company. What’s wrong with that?
Thanks for all the ideas and responses. One quick response to Michael, whom I thank for taking the time to post his thoughtful and clearly-reasoned response here. I obviously have strong opinions about iTunes U, but I want most of all to be fair, and I’m thinking hard about every single response I’ve received.
Michael writes, “They are creatively re-using their existing infrastructure to provide a free service to universities that is useful for bringing more online affordances to more traditional classrooms.”
I understand this argument, and I am very much in favor of spreading interest and support for rich media authoring and distribution in higher education. But as Colonel Tom Parker once said, “How much does it cost if it’s free?” Or to put it another way, what exactly does Apple win if a scholl goes with iTunes U, and how does that stack up against what the school wins? against what the school stands to lose, now and later, if it goes with this solution?
Let’s add number 6 to my list: if Apple removes the iTunes Music Store link from iTunes U. The link can be put back when an individual user requests it. Isn’t the iTunes interface itself, with an easy way for the student to put the music store back in, enough for Apple to declare a win?
Michael, what do you make of all the sweetheart revenue-sharing incentives Apple provides, all based on purchases from iTunes? Any conflict of interest there for the decision-makers? I understand that there’s often a fine line between an incentive, a proffer, and a bribe. (I’m not being facetious–it’s a real question.)
I agree that the iTMS is a tricky issue. On the one hand, I don’t have a problem with a school, say, making a revenue-sharing deal with a restaurant chain in exchange for giving them space on campus. If kids are going to eat pizza, there’s nothing wrong with making it convenient for them and getting a little money for the institution in the process. On the other hand, Apple effectively can place their store right next to every student’s (virtual) classroom, and they have a monopoly on that position. If the school decides that it doesn’t want to make a deal with Apple, it’s not like they have the option to leave that real estate empty or offer it up to somebody else. So, while I don’t have strong feelings about the issue, I would agree that that having the ability to turn off the iTMS would be a Good Thing to Do. I would add, that, if and when Apple extends iTunes U to k-12 (as they hope to do), then removing the iTMS will become very important. When you’re dealing with underage kids, leaving the iTMS in place would be the moral equivalent of putting soda vending machines in every classroom.
Agreed on all counts. You’ve stated this very well. You’ve also raised another red flag, unfortunately: I didn’t know Apple wanted to get to K-12 this way as well. That seems to me to be over the line.
I used a lot of books in college (and assign more than one) that have advertising inside– most often at the back– so I can’t complain about the iTMS link. But it strikes me that what you really want is a wholly philanthropic effort, and I just can’t see that it is going to happen. I’m sure many Apple derived entities do that kind of thing, but the company itself just can’t be expected to. Given that, it becomes a question of how much marketing is too much and as far as I can tell, ANY amount is too much for you, while I am willing to accept a certain amount of that as the price that is paid for the convenience, power, etc.
I have to admit that, when it comes to the marketing language, I probably should be more worried than I am. I used to be much more passionate about such things, but I used to think that the meaning was much more improtant than I think it is in the here and now. For the people that matter in terms of making use of iTunes U as an administrative issue– the instructors– it is very clear what this is (a way to drive business, ultimately to Apple) and what it is not (a philanthropic giveaway). I don’t much care what the average Joe thinks, and more and more I don’t think the students care where it comes from as long as they get it (thus the explosion in publisher-originated commercial materials that come with textbooks, etc).
Just to clarify, Chris, I’m not looking for a wholly philanthropic effort. I’m looking for a commercial effort that is fair and measured. I really do think Apple is looking to do the same sort of thing with iTunes U that Microsoft did with Internet Explorer: make the integration tight not just to provide better service (though this will be the rationale), but to grab as close to a monopoly as they can. Apple will protest they’re just doing what’s best for the educational community, and I’m sure they really believe it, but on one level I’m sure Microsoft believes it’s doing what’s best for computer users as well.
If higher education had built these channels themselves, Apple would have little to work with.
None of the novels, anthologies, or film texts I assign have advertising inside, but if they did and it were at the back, well away from the material students looked at every day, I wouldn’t be too worried. If they took care to make sure the ads were interleaved with the text throughout, I’d cry foul.
Speaking of ads and literature, I was rather surprised to find a glossy cigarette ad in the middle of my paperback copy of Marathon Man:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/100169914/
Ouch! I loved the 70’s–everyone so beautifully dazed and confused–but some ideas would be better forgotten. Like cigarette ads in paperback novels. Who published the copy you’re holding?
Holy Timing, Batman! The book is on its way back to the thrift store today… that was published by “Dell Publishing” (before they got into PCs ? 😉
Ha! God does have a sense of humor. 😉