You do not like DRM? You just do not know how to cook it!
Although for many users, DRM sounds like a curse, in some cases, the use of DRM is not only justified by itself, but does not even cause users to experience a violent rejection. Examples? Please - rent movies on Apple TV , Nokia Comes with Music phones.
I defined a rule for myself: users are tolerant of DRM, when they are offered a service, not a purchase (possession) of content.
When a user buys, for example, a digital film (music, book, etc.), he considers himself (not without reason) to be the owner and wants to dispose of it as he wants - to watch the purchased film on any devices he has or will have , give a look to friends or friends, etc.
')
Almost always, DRM imposes restrictions on how the user can (legitimately) use the purchased content and this causes a rejection of the model itself.
Therefore, if you sell digital content and the user becomes the owner of the purchase, then you should forget about DRM.
The opposite example. Rental movies in Apple TV take 2. In the scheme there is DRM, imposing restrictions - on which devices the user can watch a movie - when and how much. In spite of this, users accept (so far in absentia) this model, because they are offered not content purchase, but service. The user buys the opportunity to watch a movie and he is happy with the proposed service or not. The further fate of the content he does not care.
I must say that there is one subtle point - often the line between selling content and providing service is very vague: you can say that iTunes does not sell music, but provides a service that allows you to listen to music on your iPod and PC. In such cases, it is important to understand how the user perceives the service - as a service or as a purchase of content.
I defined a rule for myself: users are tolerant of DRM, when they are offered a service, not a purchase (possession) of content.
When a user buys, for example, a digital film (music, book, etc.), he considers himself (not without reason) to be the owner and wants to dispose of it as he wants - to watch the purchased film on any devices he has or will have , give a look to friends or friends, etc.
')
Almost always, DRM imposes restrictions on how the user can (legitimately) use the purchased content and this causes a rejection of the model itself.
Therefore, if you sell digital content and the user becomes the owner of the purchase, then you should forget about DRM.
The opposite example. Rental movies in Apple TV take 2. In the scheme there is DRM, imposing restrictions - on which devices the user can watch a movie - when and how much. In spite of this, users accept (so far in absentia) this model, because they are offered not content purchase, but service. The user buys the opportunity to watch a movie and he is happy with the proposed service or not. The further fate of the content he does not care.
I must say that there is one subtle point - often the line between selling content and providing service is very vague: you can say that iTunes does not sell music, but provides a service that allows you to listen to music on your iPod and PC. In such cases, it is important to understand how the user perceives the service - as a service or as a purchase of content.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/19873/
All Articles