Slashdot Mirror
Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far
Graff writes "This was found on SiliconValley.com. In an article for the Mercury News, Dan Gillmor talks about how Apple is still standing firm against the Digital Rights Management (DRM) efforts which the entertainment industry is trying to force on the public. There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress."
Apple knows that as the little guy they have to actually make their users happy. DRM doesn't make for happy users, but "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercials do.
"Then, one day, I tried to burn a mix CD on my PC, and it wouldn't let me. That's when I bought an Apple."
Seriously, though, that's the best argument I've heard so far to buy a Mac.
Finally, well, if Apple pisses the studios off enough, we will see some OTHER brand of computer in the movies besides Apple!
;-)
Yes, I know about the "guest appearances" of SGI in "Twister" and others, but this may lead to more "reality" in my action movies. Like using a Cpmpaq to upload a virus to aliens
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Remember that Microsoft is the one that A) voted AGAINST legislation for DRM and B) has opted to make it a consumer choice as to whethor or not you want Windows to boot in "DRM" mode or not. If you're not in DRM mode, you simply can't play purchased digial music. Big deal - I'm not buying crippled music. However, you can still play all of your "insecure" MP3's and WMA's.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
... to see the day when (non-IT) people say, "You're running Windows?! Why would you want that? You can't do anything with that!"
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
One of these two things will happen:
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress.
You gotta fight... for our digital rights... in Connnnnn-gress!
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Trust.
Intel, AMD, and Microsoft basically believe that we are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy. Even when we prove it, it's only for that exchange.
Apple believes their customers are trustworthy.
Which company would you rather do business with?
Mox
Pixar is /not/ owned by Disney. Pixar has a 5 film distribution deal with Disney. But it is it's own production company.
The thought that Microsoft "voted" for or against any legislation at all is kind of unnerving. I thought that's what we had legislators for.
That was worded inprecisely. It should have read 'Microsoft's Senators and Represnetatives' instead. Unfortunatly they're up against Senator Disney and Representative Sony.
I read the internet for the articles.
Should DRM become so bad that users can't do some of the most basic actions that would fall under fair use, I really think Apple would be missing a major opportunity if they did not start advertising their lack of DRM. As long as Joe Average knows that not every platform restricts you in such a way, there will be a strong temptation to switch.
:)
"Step 1: Insert CD
Step 2: Click import
Step 3: There is no step 3..."
Like I said in one of the previous articles, I think that the only way Apple would include DRM is if they become legally required to, or are forced into a situation by the entertainment industry that could cut Apple's users out of the picture...that is if they were to only release material in a DRM approved format. Now I know that there would be computer saavy folk who can work around the DRM, but Apple's average user won't. (heh, unless that simply requires a magic marker)
Regards,
Sean
Apple is setting themselves up as the computer to own if you want to work with multimedia, and installing DRM (which restricts fair use on a host of multimedia types) gets in the way of that vision.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I suppose I'm glad that Apple isn't implementing DRM into their products, but this is simply a strategic business move, not some brave defense of our rights. Believe me, if they stood to benefit financially from DRM, it would be there (and very may well be in the future).
Before we all have to endure the ensuing "Apple cares about us!" and "Yay for Apple!" posts, just remember that Apple does not equal freedom. Free, open source software does.
Apple, Inc. does not care about you or I, in fact, no ones gives a shit about you or I, so take control yourself by using, developing for, and advancing Linux. If you don't like having others make your choices, start making your own.
DRM is coming -- it's too useful not to catch on.
define useful. Draconian? opressive? interfering? sure...those are "useful" to a small handful of people. But to the masses it makes something utilitarian become considerably more difficult to do anything with.
The question is not will we be able to resist DRM, but rather, who will be empowered by it? With the right laws, the answer could be "the public". It will be hard to get the right laws, given the evil influences of Microsoft and the entertainment industry, but it's not a physical or moral impossibility.
That's where you're even more wrong. Resisting the use of DRM is important. Your comments remind me of the people who are just accepting any restrictions of fredom and "guilty until proven innocent" legislation or motion made since 91101. What we need is a serious revamp of copyright laws to expand fair use and decrease the time of copyrights. Joe Musician creates music in his computer these days or his garage and can make his own music to distribute easily. Therefore, pandering to the music industry, for example, and begging for their table scraps is stupid when there are lots of bands out there who are as good or better who just don't get airplay. Your defeatist attitude towards the future of freedom from DRM systems is not helping.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
One day Apple is lauded for bringing unix to the masses.
The next they're hated for keeping Aqua closed.
A week later, they're lauded once again for making development tools free.
Then they're hated for pushing specific look and feel.
They're loved again for ignoring DRM pressure.
But only a day before, they're scoffed at for keeping people out of the GUI cusstomization business.
And to top it all off, they're even disliked for having a monopoly in their own segment.
Either Apple doesn't know what one hand is doing while the other isn't looking, or we're a bunch of really fickle damn people. With me, it's come down to a comparison between Apple, Microsoft and Linux on the areas of usability, who has whose best interests in mind, and price.
Apple is by far the most usable. Bar none. Linux may have more uses, and Microsoft owns the market. But neither Linux or Microsoft actually seem to develop intuitive interfaces and software that Just Works.
Apple is only slightly more expensive than a comparable PC. Your typical linux box is kludged together from parts and duct tape, or built significantly cheaper from new parts. Linux wins this hands down, but is it enough?
But the real key is the question of who has whose best interests in mind. There's no debating the fact that Bill Gates wants your first born. MS EULAs are so easy to find fault with that it's become a hobby here. Microsoft wants to control your computer and accepts no responsibility when things break. Linux is all about freedom, your software, your gear, your control. Great in theory, but things just -break- on Linux as soon as you start installing post-distribution software unless IT is your life. Great for professional IT guys, but Linux seems to continue failing to make mom and dad comfortable.
Steve Jobs on the other hand, is a very odd type. He wants things his way, but he's utterly convinced it's' because it's better for everyone else. And oddly enough, he's usually not too far off. Apple makes their entire reputation based on making the system something anyone can get into and take the reins of. With XServe, they're on track to some badly needed credibility in the IT segment. They might be a scary monopolistic bunch in some pretty noticable ways, but despite it, they've got the best system for anyone.
I wish I were of enough stature to suggest a truce. I'd suggest this. Apple should open up the interface for a bit more customization, expose the API's and maybe work in some kind of X11/Aqua hybrid feature so X11 applications can run on Aqua without extensive modification to the Aqua look and feel. In exchange for this, Open Source advocates can shut up about how Apple isn't entirely Open Source, and accept the fact that Apple's survival counts on them having the exclusive control of their own interface.
Sound fair?
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Yay Microsoft.
Seriously, though, the notion that Palladium is okay because you're not forced into booting into it is a joke. Microsoft built a billion-dollar industry by understanding that there are many kinds of forces, and some of the most powerful are market forces.
Once a large installed TCPA compliant processor base exists, you're going to find yourself forced into booting into Palladium mode because you won't be able to access the content you need without it. Your boss will send you e-mail, for instance, which will only be able to be read in Palladium mode. So you'll have to boot into it. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft is counting on it.
That's why it's so important that we refuse to upgrade to TCPA chips. We know from the DivX debacle that consumers have the ability to reject bad choices. We need to draw the same kind of line in the sand with TCPA chips. If AMD and Intel take a massive economic hit on the Trusted Computing architecture, they'll reject it. My fear is that a shallow understanding of the Palladium future by consumers + naive, buzzword-driven purchasing by PHBs will enable Trusted Computing to establish a market foothold. The battle lines are being drawn and I think we have a lot of work to do.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Apple's real business is selling Macs, the iPod is simply a Mac accessory. They hope that cool toys like the iPod will sell more Macs. Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers. If DRM was good for their computer business they would dump the iPod faster than you could say "Newton."
They want people to see the Mac as the platform for folks who are making their own cool mix CDs, and that are making their own movies. DRM would put kinks in these kinds of uses, and so Apple opposes DRM. Besides, they have seen the writing on the wall, a lot of people actually like getting on Kazaa (or whatever, I have never really gotten into P2P) and sharing music, videos, and other assorted files. For many people that is their primary reason for owning a computer. The last thing Apple wants is to be cut off from this market.
DRM is not a person. DRM does not stop you from archiving your CDs to mp3. DRM is not a law. DRM merely allows companies to protect technologically that which they can already protect legally. That's a good thing, because it encourages people to release content in formats they otherwise would be forced to avoid.
FUD if i ever saw it. DRM makes it a pain in the ass to archive your CDs to MP3 and to play them on other boxes, and to reinstall your OS, and oh yeah...it also makes it a pain in the ass to run what you want to. It also makes it pointless because I don't want a vapor copy of something that I could have hardcopy of. Why would I purchase an MP3 or MPEG4 when I could just buy a DVD or CD and then make it myself, making it less suceptible to loss? DRM is nothing more than a system of control that they want to implement to make it a pain in the ass to use your fair use. you can't resell a digital file of a song, but you can resell a CD. It's pure marketing evil. Look beyond the surface...theres a lot more to it than just protecting their works
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
What we need is a serious revamp of copyright laws to expand fair use and decrease the time of copyrights.
And the easiest way to get that is to provide technical barriers to replace the legal ones. Technical barriers like... DRM.
Joe Musician creates music in his computer these days or his garage and can make his own music to distribute easily.
But he can't make money off that music because distribution over the internet is not profitable. So instead the big names with the big marketing budgets and the ability to cut CDs and more importantly to distribute those CDs make it and the little guy loses. DRM has the ability to change this. Instead of needing to beg the RIAA to get you on a radio station you can release time-limited copies of your music over the internet. With DRM there will be many more artists willing to allow streaming digital audio transmissions. Just take a look at Rhapsody. That's DRM, and if it had enough people willing to use it I think it'd be a positive thing.
DRM and such in effect really create a different product line. One that is more constrained then what we all have come to understand is the highly versatile power of "computers".
Incorporating DRM and such constraining technology
is to create a lessor in versatility product line.
There is a real and notable difference in such product lines. The DRM being closer to a consumer appliance then a computer.
It is outright FRAUD being directed at the consumers to deceive the consumers into thinking these two different product lines are one and the same, which they are in fact not.
Further more it is slanderious, libelious and inherently defamation of consumer character to base the proved false need for the incorporation of such constraning technology on the false claim that consumers are theives.
I have no problem with hose who want to create and sell such a product line inclusive of DRM and such. Nor do I have a problem with those who produce works only accessable by such DRM oriented devices.
What I have a problem with is the very clear intent to subvert consumer choice and free enterprise thru acts of deception and collusion on the part of industry and Government.
There are now two clearly different product lines.
One constrained by DRM based and like technology and the other not.
Knowing this is the first step towards properly addressing the deceivers and colluders.
but it's pronounced Digital RESTRICTIONS Management.
I'm not sure who originated the term, I first saw it attributed to RMS.
Digital Rights Management is total Orwellian double-speak.
Absolute statements are never true
Remember how big a deal it was back in the days when Intel released their microprocessor serial number and everybody hated it (even though it would probabbly have brought more good to the world than palladium EVER would?) and they disabled it *BY*DEFAULT*?
that, my friend, is what i am hoping for with microsoft. we all know that palladium will be released regardless of what happens, but if we make enough impact for it to boot into the "insecure mode" (without too much bitching and whining) by default, we can have a good chance of killing it. all it needs is really some (okay, a lot of) bad publicity. the thing that did the intel trick was the "privacy" deal (even though, actually, it wasn't so much a big deal) -- being that Palladium has the potential to do THAT much harm, it makes you wonder why no newspaper has did any kind of real columns on it...
oh wait... you don't mean the newspaper (media) is ultimately the same group of people as the RIAA / MPAA (content providers)? outlook not so good, eh?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Where can I get myself a senator?
"Can I keep him?"
"I don't know, he looks pretty hungry. Here, give him some booze."
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
I think this has more to do with Apple's strategic position than with currying favor with users per se, but I'm sure they would like to be seen as more user friendly than other computer manufacturers, and this does fit in with that.
It's obvious that corporations exist to make money, but if we are successfully voting with our dollars, we will encourage PC manufacturers to give us the kind of open hardware and software we want. Granted, Debian will always be more Free than Mac OS, but that doesn't mean we ignore a position that an important company is taking that supports our stance on user rights and freedoms.
This is fairly ridiculous.
Yes, Apple is a business. The business isn't there to make us happy and protect our rights. However, it does happen to believe that doing these two things is in the company's best financial interests. So they are doing great things such as this shunning of the DRM. Why does it make a difference if Apple is doing this out of love for humanity or because it just makes sense? It doesn't change the fact that it is a Good Thing, and seems to be a trend with Apple these days.
It's just like with legislation. If our Congressmen voted against DRM, I wouldn't care if it was purely out of the desire for votes in their next election and didn't care a whit about actually helping people. So long as they are motivated to do the best thing for the people.
If you found out some major app or utility for Linux was made by a programmer who didn't give a crap about freedom or rights, but just wanted to have that app for free (read: motivated by money), would you discourage people from using it?
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Apple is very sensitive to both its own copyrights and such, remember the recycle/trash bin discussion and the lawsuits of the 1980s, but Apple was started by hardware freaks, and not software freaks. Steve knows the work-arounds are too easy, that's why Apple never really bothered with copy protected software in the first place.
Bill Gates is focused on software, and since the mid 1970s he has been obsessed with preventing programmers, uh, oops, consumers from copying his programs bootleg style.
This is a very old difference between these two camps. DVDs, CDs, digital media, whatever, for Steve it's all the same. Hardware has a much greater profit margin, and he wants to sell primarily hardware. See how much of the current i-Suite is bundled or downloadable free of charge?
It's to drive the sales of hardware units.
Sony and BMG have their own problems. BMG bought Napster to try to outrun this problem. But it's not Steve's problem.
Even for his Pixar films, he controls the rights to the lucrative movie theatre sales. Again, to really see a movie, you have to have a large screen and a popcorn machine. Bill doesn't work that angle, Steve does. Steve makes his money without worrying if some kid is going to copy his digital wares, because he has already turned his profits.
Let's not see Steve as an altruist, but simply someone who knows how to pick profitable models, that don't require unnatural market protections.
Remember, DRM is not only a pain in the @$$, but they will also have to raise taxes to reinforce it with police and the courts. FUN. ;-(
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This post will be filled with tangents -- bear with me. =)
I'm a big PC fan and I love Linux. This post made me really think and actually consider buying an Apple. What I want to see is options. When I can customize my desktop to the extent I can with GNOME, I'll start recommending it to folks. However, I'll still probably use Linux for 1) Game compatibility and 2) price.
I agree that Linux doesn't "just work", it does work most of the time. I put RH 7.3 with Ximian GNOME on a box and everything just works for me. No issues with word docs, no issues getting my browser and email to integrate with other apps... etc. I've got my parents and a family friend on Linux, and none of these people are "computer literate." I think the only thing they really need right now is easier installation and management of programs and files and more interoperation.
One of the things that gets me is that some folks arrogantly say Linux is so hard to use, but in fact they haven't touched it past a two year old version of Slackware or they only use Debian. Linux has been moving very fast in the past few years and it's starting to speed up even more. Ximian has been out for a while, I like it and I think it works well. A lot of people are collaborating well on interoperability and things are changing. Linux moves faster than proprietary stuff, so it's a fallacy to base your views of it without having used the stuff that's come out in the last 6 months.
As for Apple, I think the Slashdot readership is just that -- a group of readers. A bunch of different people. You can't call slashdotters fickle when there are overwhelming differences in opinion one day to the next -- some folks are just being quiet, some folks are speaking up and some folks are just expressing their views regarding individual issues with Apple separately.
As for my opinion, I say that Apple should move more towards OSS and prove that it's possible. Not all of their money is based on software, although I'll admit I have no figures. I would be behind them all the way, but they have the mantra that "What's good for Apple is good for you."
Default options are wonderful if you don't want to research configurations. But locking configs down is ridiculous, IMO.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
"Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers."
The margins on the iPod are likely much higher than the ones on the PC because you can get away with higher margins at lower prices. A lot of people see a candy bar for a dollar and will pay for it, even if the candy bar takes 5 or 10 cents to make. That's a 100-200% markup. Most retail stores need a 50% markup over costs of merchandise to cover expenses of staff and make a nice profit as well (after all, if you're not turning a profit, you are going out of business soon).
The iPod has some plastic, a few chips, software, and a laptop HD. Total cost to Apple is probably 40 to 60% of the price of the device at the store because of their volume purchasing power. The store takes in maybe 10% of the price, the rest is divided between Apple and the company that ships things to stores.
Ever notice how the 10gb and 20gb models are only a little bit apart (compared to the 5gb and 10gb models)? That's because they could probably sell the 20gb model for very close to the price (if not the same price as) the 10gb model and still make a profit similar to that of the 5gb model. The extra cost to them of making it a 20gb drive instead of a 10gb drive is small enough that they want to make it look more attractive to buy the 20gb version, because they make ~99% of the price difference between it and the 10gb model straight into their pockets. That's why FastFood places will "supersize" meals as well -- an extra 5-10 cents of cola and fries to gain an extra 60 cents of money is a very smart thing to do if you want more in your margins.
What about computers? Computers aren't as simple, and the parts cost more overall. Most places have very, very slim margins and rely on economies of scale to give them a healthy profit margin. That is how Dell is so succesful(their margin is larger because you pay it all to them, with no $$ going to the stores or other middlemen). That's why VA systems got out of the computer hardware business --- teeny, tiny margins, even on server hardware. That's why Compaq and HP merged (slimmer margins mean more must be shipped). That is also why white-box computers flourish (speciality shops charge more, but give more in terms of selection and control). Electronics Boutique charges more than Wal-mart on games, but they have a much wider selection, and they will buy back used games (as well as sell used goods).
So keep in mind that the iPod is a very smart move for Apple, not just a Mac accessory designed to push their computers. Just because something costs more, doesn't mean they're making more.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
MS would be strongly against a government mandated DRM system.
Why?
Simple, standards. If the government says how DRM will work then everyone will be able to write to that and have DRM. If MS gets to make their own DRM system they'll be able to ensure that only the companies they want can play along.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Just because Apple doesn't actively support altering of Aqua doesn't mean you can't, or for that matter, that it's not allowed.
DualityApple has pursued those who create an Aqua style theme for other computers because the LOOK and FEEL does belong to them. They paid artists and graphic designers to come up with it. Using it elsewhere is like using the Apple logo elsewhere, and Apple has the right to keep what's theirs theirs.
X11 already runs on Mac OS X, in the same screen space as Aqua (if your turn the option on), and personally I feel as though it's a Good Thing(TM) to have X11 not look like Aqua. After all, it ISN'T Aqua and thus I am made aware of the enviromental differences simply by observing what kind of window it is. If I'm the type of person who can't handle that, why am I running X11 in the first place?
XDarwinIf you're talking about doing screen drawing, Aqua is meerly the look and feel (interface philosophy, if you will), it doesn't HAVE an API. You may be thinking of Quartz, QuickDraw, and QuickTime, which are pretty extensively documented, as they always have been. For free, too. If you're intrested in what Aqua actually is, read the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines.
As for Aqua, anything you need to do to make Aqua windows/widgets when coding are there. Check out the Window Manger documentation, or the Cocoa flavor, if you liek that sort of thing ;-)
There are no "hidden APIs" (unlike M$ Windoze). There are however, system internal functions for performing tasks that need to be done (Window widgets, double buffering, etc), for which there is no need of programmer intervention.
Claiming those functions are a "hidden API" is like being pissed you can't call functions in a library because they where only implemented to assist the programmers while writing the library. In fact, that's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Hmmmmmm.....
This is one of the ways Apple is achieving greater system stability, through abstraction of the OS and hardware to the programmer. MacOS 9 (er..."Classic") was hacked to shreds by anyone and everyone, and there where all kinds of problems with INITs and CDEVs and such running amok on everyone's system. I have no less than 175 INITs and CDEVs on this machine right now (yes, a Classic box, 8600/250) and I use most of that functionality. The OS sometimes gets slow, sometimes crashes. A clean install of MacOS 9 will be damn quick and DAMN stable. Throw all this crazy hack-job business in the mix and it's easy to hose your whole system in no time. With Mac OS X, Apple has abstracted many things and it keeps programmers from being naughty and say, writing directly to WindowDef structures, which reside in system memory space. So should it be allowed? Imagine a loop with a bug which, under certian conditions, will write forever to that WindowPtr. Now remember it's in the system heap. Oops.
I can put it better with a quote from Super Troopers: "The less you knew, the less you could fuck up."CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Not to be left behind, all the other distros made similar proclamations, except Debian, which is late and expected to follow suit sometime next year.
Pretty shortly, the OS/2 development team will make a similar announcement, as will the FreeBSD teams, as will the QNX team, as will that guy down the road who wrote his own OS in assembler.
Secondly, this is a non story. Apple HAVEN'T made an announcement! Incredible. I haven't made an announcement today either, can I get a story on slashdot? In fact, the ONLY people who have announced their intention to support DRM are the one company that do in fact have a monopoly and can therefore do such an unpopular thing.
Finally, all those people who've posted things like "Wow, Apple you are clearly sticking up for my rights, I'll buy a Mac" are talking rubbish. Apple are famous for abusing the legal system whenever it suits them. They are a corporation, and know all about legal pressure points. If it turns out that this mystical all encompassing DRM strategy isn't working because the pirates are using Macs, then the RIAA will have a quick chat with Jobs, who will see where his best interests lie, and bingo suddenly QuickTime has DRM.
There is in fact only 1 type of OS that will never have DRM, guaranteed. Say no more.
The day CD-DA disappears because "everyone" has magically switched to Windows Media, I will eat my hat.
Sure, I mean this isn't the industry that forced us all to transition to LP's from 78's, or that convinced us to rebuy all our music on cassette after that, and then 20 years ago convinced us all to upgrade all our music to CD again. Is it?
Tried getting hold of any mainstream music on vinyl recently? Even cassettes are pretty hard to find now, and the sound and cassette assembly quality of pre-recorded cassettes is at an all-time low. Of course, you probably don't notice this, because chances are, you buy everything on CD.
The content industry has proved at least 3 times that it knows exactly how to get us all to upgrade our media formats, whether we like it or not: the transition from LP to cassette was in all sorts of ways a step backwards, but it still happened. Cassettes didn't last too long in the mainstream either, because they allowed you to record. The content providers pushed for a more desirable format, and up popped CD, which you could only copy to analogue cassette for the first 15 years of its life or so, significantly downgrading the quality.
Today we face a situation fairly similar to how things were in 1981 or thereabouts: a recordable, fairly open format (Then: cassette, Now: MP3/Ogg) is going mainstream, and is slowly killing off an older, more cumbersome, more expensive but arguably better-sounding format (Then: LP, Now: CD). The content industry is unhappy about this, because they feel that the recordability/copyability of the newer format is going to affect their bottom line. So they lobby for new laws in the US (Then: 1976 Copyright Act, Now: 1998 DMCA) to give them some legal standing, and to enable them to clamp down on those encouraging copying, and then they push for a new, virtually uncopyable format (Then: CD, Now: Windows Media/Palladium) with their technology partners (Then: Sony/Philips, Now: Microsoft/Intel/AMD). The new format has benefits for the consumer (Then: better sound quality and robustness, Now: no more trudging round music shops - entire catalogues available for easy download, all with pristine encoding and no blatant P2P spyware/stealware included).
The parallels are stark, and it only took 10 years for CD to dominate and for other formats to start dying, niche markets aside. If the content industry and Microsoft gets the marketing right, I fully expect exactly the same to happen with WM/Palladium - it will come to dominate in 10 years and CD will die.
The situation isn't entirely identical - the evolution of digital technology has made the stakes higher for both content provider (free P2P distribution is their worst nightmare) and consumer (breaking strong encryption on trusted systems seems a lot harder than simply waiting for recordable CD technology to become available and affordable). So you can expect much more of a battle than was the case with CDs. Nonetheless, I still expect the content industry to win this one - they are the ones with all the strings to pull. We don't have to let them walk all over us though - if we make noise now, we should be able to at least get some concessions towards fair use. If we shout loud enough, there is still the outside possibility that we can kill it dead.
However, if you simply sit tight and see what happens, maybe buying a Mac rather than a PC in a token gesture, then I hope you've got lube and an unwanted hat (not a red fedora by any chance?) because you'll be bending right over for the content industry and you'd better be hungry.
``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
Somehow I doubt that I could download a million movies a day. But I would love to see what kind of internet connection he has!
What Apple is really doing is sticking up for what Jobs believes in, which happes to be that DRM is a bad idea for consumers and for companies.
Some companies are basically giant extensions of a leaders personality. I would argue Apple is such a company, as is MS, as is Oracle, and to a lesser extent, Sun.
Your argument that Microsoft can "afford" to do this so they do, is silly. Why would any company do something if they knew it would hurt them? MS does it because Bill Gates believes in this stuff, just as Apple thinks it's stupid so they don't.
Just think of it as a giant war fought with huge robots ala Anime, except that the robots are replaced by companies. That's exactly what we are in the middle of, and you should be damn thankful that one of the giant robots is protecting the peasants instead of firing giant fricking lasers at the Barn of Rights where all the Animals of Freedom are housed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
First off you can get X11 precompiled. In any case "fink install oroburus" will do the work for you. As for screwing up your system the whole point of using /sw was so that fink doesn't touch the Apple stuff.
As for Apple starting to bundle; while I support Fink Apple has started their own project called "Darwin ports" which is going to be like Fink except supported by Apple and thus "in the know" about future developments.