Slashdot Mirror


Gates v. Jobs, continued...

FJCsar writes "The New York Times has an interesting story about the continuing battle between Microsoft's Windows Media Player and Apple's iTunes from the perspectives of both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs."

343 comments

  1. For the tinfoil-hatted: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where do you get tinfoil? I can only find aluminum foil at my grocery store.

      People, where do you get your hats???

    2. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by mangu · · Score: 5, Funny
      You can get tin here.


      Get it in granular form and the make your own foil. Tin foil bought ready made isn't effective, since "they" can insert micro-transceivers into it that let the mind-control rays pass through.

    3. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by TRS80NT · · Score: 1

      You make your own. Out of tin cans.


      --
      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
    4. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by looneyboy784 · · Score: 1

      http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html go there for your own sake fight the evil corporations save yorself.

    5. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      The fact that tinfoil is so hard to come by is part of the conspiracy. fnord They want to make sure you can't protect yourself.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also go to www.bugmenot.com it has passwords for nytimes.

    7. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get it in granular form and then make your own foil.

      The current nano technology makes your information oudated. You have to mine and mill your own tin. They put small heat resistant nanobots into the granular tin. These nanobots can read your thoughts and phone home through any networked computer running Windows. Have you ever wondered where Microsoft puts their huge engineering resources? Not into a buggy software! It's all carefully planned. BSOD is their way of initializing the transmission through a networked computer. If you've ever seen a BSOD, they've already caught you.

    8. Re:For the tinfoil-hatted: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet go to bugmenot.com.

  2. Spooky pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    in TFA

  3. Re:slashdotted04 by Examancer2 · · Score: 1

    That idiot you speak of would probably not have thought of changing the password had you not given him the idea. Good job.

  4. Re:slashdotted04 by Flatline_hun · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just in case someone doesn't know: http://www.bugmenot.com/

    --
    Yeah, free Ipod! He is innocent!
  5. Gates & Latifah by stevejsmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    That picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

    1. Re:Gates & Latifah by Otter · · Score: 1
      I, myself, was going to comment that the story was worth reading, if only for the picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah.

      But an "Offtopic" seems appropriate, even if it is the picture at the top of the freaking article...

    2. Re:Gates & Latifah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it offtopic if he not only read the article but found humor in the photos that accompanied it?

    3. Re:Gates & Latifah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because most of the mods are stupid fucking dipshits who should have thier net connection severed...along with thier schlongs to be sure that they do not reproduce.

    4. Re:Gates & Latifah by hitmark · · Score: 1

      and for some reason, jobs reminded me of the guy in nightmares on elm street...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Gates & Latifah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahah i couldn't agree more.

    6. Re:Gates & Latifah by node+3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

      Queen Latifah attempts to save the world by incapacitating Gates with a Vulcan neck pinch. But lo', Gates is not only unphased by the rebellion's last, best, hope, he laughs triumphantly as he manages to reverse the effects!

    7. Re:Gates & Latifah by node+3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And don't leave out the Bono/Jobs picture!

      Caption:

      After being handed a black and red U2 iPod, a confused Bono makes alien antennae with his fingers and says (in a funny voice not his own), "nanu nanu, take me to you leader."

    8. Re:Gates & Latifah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

      -Zorilla (Posting annonymously due to too many inappropriate offtopic mods to my on-topic posts resulting to my IP ban)

    9. Re:Gates & Latifah by litac · · Score: 1

      Is it worth mentioning that Queen Latifah has a celebrity playlist on iTunes? Would think that she'd have some exclusive deal with M$, if she's gonna be hanging with the Gates.

  6. LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark
    Zeikfried - Reuters, Nigeria

    In a self congratulatory press conference described by one historical analyst as to be "worth 10 Dresdens", the now world famous egalitarians of the Gay Nigger Association of America announced to the worlds press that their highly successful open source lastmeasure project has now reached over one hundred thousand homes across the world.

    Amidst a snowstorm of tickertape and parade like festivity, Penisbird, one of the founders of the LastMeasure project, screeched triumphantly from his now gold plated dong perch that the exponental growth of the sought after shock site can only continue. And even those outside the GNAAs dark skinned sphere of influence can only agree, in the face of the cutting edge "xangadot" marketing techniques applied by GNAA LM sales reps Incog, Saturn, Trake, qat, and Zeikfred Tuvai.

    The sheer ferocity of the xangadot effect has caught many by surprise, none more so than xanga spokesperson AzN_ThuG_08, who was quoted as saying "MUTHAFUCKA TAKE DOWN MAH SITE...BITCH IM LETTIN U...FUCK DIS SITE AND FUCK U TOO. I CAN MAKE A NEW ONE I GOT THA TIME u stupid muthafucka" before driving his nitroglycerin laced riced up honda into GNAA Headquarters in a suicidal and dastardly attempt to decapitate the GNAA leadership. Thankfully the 140 decibel exhaust of the now vapourised vehicle allowed the surrounding buildings to be evacuated several minutes before the atrocity took place.

    Speaking from his converted 1970's brothel, overpaid financial analyst Gary Niger told Reuters, "The effects of what has been dubbed the 'Open Source Final Solution' can be felt in almost every area of digital society. A striking example of this would be the once worthless .info TLD being re-energised with a huge cash and semen injection from the GNAA LastMeasure project, punctuated by Netcrafts recent confirmation that the GNAA has now gained a massive controlling stake in .info over the course of the past 2 months".

    Can this momentum continue? Or has LastMeasure reached its unsurpassable xenith, with the only way left down? GNAA President timecop refused to comment, instead choosing to bathe naked in a pool of Yen laughing insanely. The future seems bright.

    About LastMeasure:

    A primitive version of LastMeasure was concieved by Penisbird of the GNAA after playing with an AIM utility named AIM Invader. It offered Penisbird a myriad of ways to crash AIM clients. By far the most powerful crash was the "last measure" crash, which would inundate an AIM client with file transfer requests, buddy list sends, messages full of smileys and colors, until the AIM client crashed due to lack of RAM.

    The LastMeasure site originally consisted of Penisbird, Goatse, Tubgirl, Lemonparty, and Shitfaced Lady. But has expanded to include many other of the internets treasured icons. And with the addition of StatsMeasure, the clipboard data of thousands of unwitting victims has now been exposed for the world to see.

    For more information about LastMeasure, visit the official website, LastMeasure.com

    LastMeasure is licensed under the BSD Version 2 License.

    About GNAA:

    GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

    Are you GAY ?
    Are you a NIGGER ?
    Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

    If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
    Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a

  7. Re:slashdotted04 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The password is indeed correct.

  8. PLEASE MOD GRANDPARENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as something other than offtopic.

    "But an "Offtopic" seems appropriate, even if it is the picture at the top of the freaking article..."

    There have been a few morons with mod points this weekend.

    See you in metamoderation fools

  9. Re:Borrrrring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, then MS wouldn't be beating Apple at its own game dummy...

  10. 1984 was broadcast twice by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was, of course, the commercial that introduced the Macintosh. It was broadcast exactly once, during the 1984 Super Bowl

    Ummm, it's not exactly true. Super Bowl commercials are often broadcast the year before in obscure local stations to be eligible for the same year awards. The "1984" commercial was aired on 1 AM in Twin Falls, Idaho on December 15, 1983. Of course the question is - can you actually BROADcast anything in Idaho...

    1. Re:1984 was broadcast twice by Rantastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, not only that, but Microsoft was far from tiny and unknown at the time. Jobs just mistakenly thought that Gates was his pal. Gates' only pals are money and power.

      --
      Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
    2. Re:1984 was broadcast twice by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      can you actually BROADcast anything in Idaho...

      Yes, there are many remote locations in Idaho which would be perfect for chucking your insolent wife off a cliff.

  11. Re:what battle by geniusj · · Score: 3, Informative

    They owned quite a few shares at one point which have since all been sold (should of held on to them considering apple's stock has tripled in the past year)

  12. Re:This link seems to work without registering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Works just fine.

  13. Re:This link seems to work without registering by Scrapheap_Challenge · · Score: 1

    You can login using unreg:unreg

  14. Iconic stature by chia_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a difference the two companies (Apple and Microsoft) have in terms of public perception. Microsoft is seen as a necessary evil. Apple has always been seen as "pretty" and "innovative". The one fact that really drives that (and a few other things) home though in this article was this beautiful quote:

    Speaking just after the event, Bono, U2's lead singer, said the band was not charging Apple a penny to be in the ad. (The band says it had turned down as much as $23 million to use its music in other commercials.) In its three-year life, the iPod has achieved such "iconic value," Bono said, that U2 gets as much value as Apple does from the commercial, by promoting its music and the new Red and Black U2 edition of the iPod, for which the band gets royalties.

    It's just another example of how Jobs has his pulse on the entertainment industry (ie, Pixar, iTunes being THE music service to break through, etc). Microsoft on the other hand is relying on OS marketshare dominance to try to get into the game.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Iconic stature by mordors9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But M$ has a huge hammer to rely upon. They will start making Itunes break everytime there is a MS Update run. While making the Windows Media Player more similar to Itunes. Pretty soon it won't be worth the hassle to keep Itunes running right.

    2. Re:Iconic stature by jr87 · · Score: 1

      if they try that let's break the other program in updates shit, the anti-trust lawyers are going to swarming them again..I doubt they will try that again.

    3. Re:Iconic stature by chia_monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But M$ has a huge hammer to rely upon. They will start making Itunes break everytime there is a MS Update run. While making the Windows Media Player more similar to Itunes. Pretty soon it won't be worth the hassle to keep Itunes running right.

      I have two thoughts on this. First, MS updates will break a lot of things, not just iTunes. I constantly hear horror stories of how each update breaks some program or another. Granted, it may break iTunes a bit "harder", but that's a price to pay. I also wonder if Apple could say "look, these guys are acting very uncompetitively and intentionally breaking our software".

      Second...the reason many people don't switch from PCs to Macs is because of all the software they have for their PCs and they don't feel like buying all new software, etc. The same argument could hold true for the iPod. With dominance of the market and their own format, iPod owners may not make the switch to other players and formats for the same reason as PC users sticking with that platform.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    4. Re:Iconic stature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But you forget, the administration that pulled the rug out from under the antitrust people in the justice department the first time arround just got reelected.

    5. Re:Iconic stature by peragrin · · Score: 1

      MSFT isn't able to due this as often though. Everytime they do people yell at MSFT for breaking things. Look at SP2 i would say the majority of XP machines still haven't upgraded to it, because of the apps it breaks.

      MSFT is begining to be outflanked. What's funny is that they are outflanking themselves, as often as anyone else is.

      The Matrix 2 did have one good point, People need choice, even if they don't accept it they still need it. Gates doesn't like choice.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:Iconic stature by Xenna · · Score: 1

      So for allowing Apple to sell their music together with a black iPod they agree to let them use their music for commercials. How is this anything other than a normal business deal.

      I don't see any reason to start seeing 'beauty' in this deal.

      I have no iPod and I don't like U2 either. They're both to messianic to my atheist tastes.

      X.

    7. Re:Iconic stature by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I would agree with your second point except the Itunes store isn't that big yet. Sure, its big as selling music on the net goes for right now, but nothing compared to say, Kazaa. out of all the people I know who own an ipod(about 7) only one uses the Itunes store at all. This can be really bad for Apple when people begin shopping for a new MP3 player. Maybe that expensive Ipod doesn't look so good when you can get something that does all the same things for 100 dollars cheaper.

      When the Music stores get big, unless the Ipod can play other stores' music, it loses out on hardware sales. All these things add up and can whittle away the dominance you do have.

      Maybe if the Itunes store gets large enough, they can survive with their brand lock, but its not nearly strong enough yet to do it. P2P might be the biggest problem the Ipod faces.

    8. Re:Iconic stature by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      actually, I need to modify that first paragraph, my friend who uses the Itunes store doesn't own an Ipod yet. So I actually don't know a single person that uses Itunes and the Ipod together.

    9. Re:Iconic stature by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Apple are perfectly happy with that arrangement. iTunes doesn't really make a profit (if any it's negligable), it's there to sell iPods.

    10. Re:Iconic stature by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

      MSFT isn't able to due this as often though. Everytime they do people yell at MSFT for breaking things. Look at SP2 i would say the majority of XP machines still haven't upgraded to it, because of the apps it breaks.

      Again, I see two things here that confuse me/make me wonder. First, with all the security flaws, udates, and apps breaking, I wonder why people don't make the switch to something better. Flaw...fear of breaking apps so no updates...messed up computers...install patch...messed up computers. It's a nasty cycle.

      But that's the thing...people now simply accept the fact their computer will be filled with bugs and apps breaking and just deal with it. So will MSFT really get crushed from this vicious circle of death, or will people continue to accept what's going on?

      I guess a few battles to watch will help us predict what may happen. Like Firefox gaining ground on IE is a good one.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    11. Re:Iconic stature by BeerCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, to quote Bill Gates in TFA:

      I think Apple will do things the Apple way, and Microsoft will do things the Microsoft way. I'd say the long-term factors all favor our approach

      Anti-competitive practices still seem to be far more of the Microsoft way

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    12. Re:Iconic stature by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      Switching to something 'better' would mean that that 'better' option would have to run all their existing apps. Can't switch to Mac as a result, and WINE isn't quite there yet (plus Linux is still a little tough for the average user)..

      Microsoft has one big advantage here in that everyone has invested so heavily into the applications they're running. Switching platforms is truly expensive in terms of relearning and in terms of application cost (either time in the case of FINDING free alternatives, or money in terms of commercial replacements.)

    13. Re:Iconic stature by hhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They (U2) might not have charged for the Ad, but they are certainly getting there money's worth. But it's a bit like someone signing a programmer to a 500k a year contract and then the programmer decides to help that person by spending a hour or two helping them fix a spreadsheet FOR FREE...

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    14. Re:Iconic stature by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      Of course, you must remember that in Gates' mind, the future will see hardware prices going to zero while software will be what people pay for.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    15. Re:Iconic stature by Ollierose · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, has anyone seen the Black iPod?

      Its an abomination compared to the others, with its silly red central dial. I would have bought the black one if the dial fitted in with the black theme, or even if it was the same white as the other iPod dials.

    16. Re:Iconic stature by BeerCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly, it looks as though IBM has taken the line "Hardware is what you have (and if we're lucky, you'll pay us loads for it), Software is what you use (you can pay for it, or we'll let have Linux), but Services is what you need (Confused? We'll put it all together for you, and make it work. At a price)

      So maybe in time people will regard Microsoft as "just a software company"

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    17. Re:Iconic stature by plog · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Maybe that expensive Ipod doesn't look so good when you can get something that does all the same things for 100 dollars cheaper.

      People on /. often make this nerdly assumption: spec sheet = function.

      In a device like this, aimed at non-nerds, function is largely about the gestalt package, especially its interface. Does the user interface work well, and get out of my way? Does using it feel good? Does the social interface work well, and boost my status by getting noticed? These things represent function as well, aren't articulated by specifications but by experience, and are more important than obscure codecs or universality.

    18. Re:Iconic stature by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It didn't stop Novell from getting half a billion from Microsoft last week for pulling that very stunt.

    19. Re:Iconic stature by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      iTMS is bigger than all the other music stores put together. You say "When" other music stores get big, but really that's an "If". And there's no sign yet of it happening. Nor any sign that being $100 cheaper than iPod is good enough to outweigh the attraction of the cool brand.

    20. Re:Iconic stature by CaptainPinko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually one of the biggest concerns is that they don't want to pirate all their software again. They already have a cracked OfficeXP but do any of their friends have a copyof Office for OSX? Nope. They might have to buy it. Now if they need some Windows only apps they now need VirtualPC (they don't need XP of course thanks to DevilsOwnz or various other crackers).

      --
      Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
    21. Re:Iconic stature by anothergene · · Score: 1

      I have two thoughts on this. First, MS updates will break a lot of things, not just iTunes. I constantly hear horror stories of how each update breaks some program or another. Granted, it may break iTunes a bit "harder", but that's a price to pay. I also wonder if Apple could say "look, these guys are acting very uncompetitively and intentionally breaking our software".

      I really don't think Microsquish intentionally "breaks" other software. Think about it. How man customers are you going to hang on to if you keep breaking things. Your average user doesn't really know what's broken when something isn't working. They just know they can't do thier job or play their game or buy their music.

      How many of these things break because some third party software developer out there didn't stick to the API's and took some shortcuts?

      --
      Who's leg do I have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
    22. Re:Iconic stature by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't think Microsquish intentionally "breaks" other software.

      Some would disagree.

      And let's not forget when they explored the idea of coding stuff into Windows 3.1 so that it displayed error messages if it was run on top of DR-DOS, for the sole purpose of making people who wanted to run Windows go out and buy MS-DOS as well.

      And what about the spurious "improvements" they make to the .doc format with practically every new version of Word? That's just to screw everyone who wants to use competing word processing apps and to keep Word users upgrading to the newest version to avoid file-format hassles.

      ~Philly

    23. Re:Iconic stature by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah, because that last anti-trust case really showed them the error of their ways.

      Not.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    24. Re:Iconic stature by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      1.) Soulseek is far better than Kazaa. http://www.slsknet.org.

      2.) If I didn't have a miniPod, I would have NEVER installed iTunes. What does that say? It says the user must pay $300 for a miniPod before there is a reason to try iTunes.

      3.) For iTunes to gain ground, Apple must sell the miniPod in the $150 range. The iTunes music-buying experience is mind-boggling when you can sample every song in the entire store at lightning speed. Too damn expensive when you got walmart.com selling songs at $0.88 a song, and 40GB players everywhere for cheaper.

    25. Re:Iconic stature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a Mac user, I can't say anything good about MS's Windows Media Player for OS X, not because of any hatred toward the company, but because their player is a phenomenal piece of shit (POS). It doesn't support the following technologies: drag-n-drop of files, MPEG (including MP3), AVI, realmedia, quicktime, ogg, etc. etc, as well as completely ignoring Aqua design standards. Pretty much everything that is not WMA or WMV coupled with WMA in an AIFF container won't play in WMP. Often times these days WMV9 files come in AVI container with Lame VBR MP3 for audio, so WMP's suckiness is truly a problem. iTunes on the other hand is an excellent application, and I can tell that Apple put a lot more time and resource into making it a rediculously awesome and amazing software, in comparison to, say, Apple's Safari browser, which is another topic...

    26. Re:Iconic stature by jcr · · Score: 1

      If I didn't have a miniPod, I would have NEVER installed iTunes. What does that say?

      Not much, since we're talking about a sample of one person.

      Many other people buy an iPod long after they start using iTunes.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    27. Re:Iconic stature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf, this is insightful not overrated mods.

    28. Re:Iconic stature by Raffaello · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it did. Not because the DOJ got big damages against MS (we didn't - remember, the DOJ represents us).

      No, because the DOJ antritrust action legally established MS as a monopoly in the PC OS market. This opened the door for walkover victories in lawsuits by other firms damaged by MS's monopoly. Now, competitors do not have to do the hard work of establishing that MS is a monopoly - this is, by law, already accepted as established fact by any court in the land. All a competitor must do is show some real monetary damage caused them by MS's use of its monopoly market power. This is much easier, and it's why Novell just got a half billion dollar settlement, as BasilBrush just pointed out.

    29. Re:Iconic stature by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I had iTunes installed long before I had an iPod. In fact, before the iPod was even announced. I had a Rio 500 and was using Cassidy & Greene's SoundJam when iTunes came out and I switched. For those who don't know, iTunes was based on the SoundJam source which Apple purchased from C&G.

      Just by itself, iTunes is a nice program for managing MP3s. Once you have it installed, the iTMS beats the hell out of driving all over town to different record stores looking for something.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    30. Re:Iconic stature by dourk · · Score: 1

      And I can find a .torrent for OfficeX and VPC in under 5 minutes, and by morning they'll be ready for install.

      Or, so I hear.

      --
      Wake up.
    31. Re:Iconic stature by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      All a competitor must do is show some real monetary damage caused them by MS's use of its monopoly market power.

      Almost perfectly correct. I think you mean "abuse" instead of "use". Specifically, MS must be proven to have unfairly used their advantage to stifle competition. Otherwise, MS might also have settled with Novell over Wordperfect at the same time. I'm guessing it's not a slam dunk and will likely go to trial. (This isn't to say that Novell doesn't have a case and won't ultimately prevail.)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    32. Re:Iconic stature by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has one big advantage here in that everyone has invested so heavily into the applications they're running.

      You are absolutely right. Part of the reason it took so long for me to switch was fear of the bill that would be involved to buy all of my old Windows apps for the Mac. When i did switch, I bit the bullet and bought them all, even the ones that I'd P2Ped, I bought legit for the Mac -- sort of a fresh start on the high road.

      Apple needs to better convey the message to people that the same, better, or equivalent applications they need from the Windows world exist on the Mac platform.

      Further, Apple should financially encourage software companies to allow people to send in the discs or whatever to cross-grade from one platform to the other for free or for only a nominal fee. I envision more switchers if that were the case.

    33. Re:Iconic stature by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, has anyone seen the Black iPod?

      Its an abomination compared to the others, with its silly red central dial. I would have bought the black one if the dial fitted in with the black theme, or even if it was the same white as the other iPod dials.


      The red dial isn't my cup of tea, either. But it's my understanding that it matches the cover art for the upcoming U2 album, which I have not seen.

    34. Re:Iconic stature by bot24 · · Score: 1

      I don't like Windows Media Player OR iTunes. Besides only running on non-Linux computers, both of them have "features" in them that I, and at least a few other people, can't stand. Both will change your file associations. Both will try to organize your music in a manner that you did not intend it to when you sorted it into folders(you did sort it, right?). Both are made by people who want to sell you stuff. Both are designed to not work with the compitition. iTunes installs QuickTime(slowtime), and that hijacks your browser when you try to download .mid files, makes your computer run slower, tells you to go pro, and crashes a lot of older computers, but it looks nice. Windows Media Player doesn't look nice, and it only saves into Windows Media Player only formats.

      You should all run Linux for the obvious reasons, so why is this media player question even being asked? It is obviously MPlayer(Xine can't play some Windows Audio files correctly).

      What do you mean by "They will start making Itunes break everytime there is a MS Update run."? Everything breaks when the update runs. Just a few days ago that update program crashed Windows just because it wanted me to reboot to finish installing an update.
    35. Re:Iconic stature by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative
      Second...the reason many people don't switch from PCs to Macs is because of all the software they have for their PCs and they don't feel like buying all new software, etc.
      I bought a Mac, and I haven't spent a single cent on software for it. Between Fink and VersionTracker, let alone all the stuff that comes with it to begin with (Xcode, AppleWorks, etc.), I didn't need to!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    36. Re:Iconic stature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M$ updates only break applications that rely on the pieces of system code whose API or functionality is updated. If I were Apple I'd make sure that my iTunes for Windows app relied only on OS code that a LOT of other applications rely on as well. Break iTunes, aggravate lots of Windows users (even those that don't use iTunes). Would keep the M$ and application vendors' Help Desks busy, though.

    37. Re:Iconic stature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, I'm no fan of WMP, nor the windows version of quicktime, but if you're too stupid to uncheck the "Associate files" boxes and to NOT click the "Organize my files" box you deserve to have your files rearranged. I take no pity on people who don't read SIMPLE instructions and information.

      As for selling you stuff, here's a hint, everyone is trying to sell you stuff. But neither iTunes nor WMP actively do anything to remind you of that.

      Of course neither are designed to work with the competition, that's stupidity. The only reason third parties are designed to do so is because they can't do anything else.

    38. Re:Iconic stature by 0racle · · Score: 1

      People also believe that the moon landings never happened, doesn't mean they're right. If MS deliberatly broke competing software, every software company on the planet would be sueing them and their chances of winning would be pretty good. You might like to think of MS as the devil but its just a company, and its not going to do something so obvious to harm its self.

      Microsoft isn't the only company that changes its file formats with every release or so, in fact I believe a recent change in a minor release to db4 breakes OpenLDAP if you upgrade. Did it even occur to you that someone made the changes because they thought they were needed or were a good idea?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    39. Re:Iconic stature by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did it before. Stated in "Helloween" memo, years ago.

      They purposely broke Quicktime with a OS update. Not that plugin thing, much before!

      Its not a rumor , it was told at court:

      http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,3902039 6,2069820,00.htm

  15. Re:slashdotted04 by Examancer2 · · Score: 1

    yes, i know this... just pointing out that if it is changed it will probably be because he gave someone the idea.

  16. More of a battle of distribution formats by Vandil+X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Microsoft vs. Apple battle in music players is bigger than the two computer software giants.

    The last half of the 1990s demonstrated two things:
    1. People want to listen to music in a digital format
    2. The Internet is a viable digital music distribution "medium".

    Until the online purchase/subscription model battle is won, the battle over music players isn't going to be over anytime soon.

    Although I think the subscription model might win out in the end, there's something to be said about owning the music you purchase.

    Personally, I don't want another monthly bill. I have enough of those, plus student loans. I want to buy a song online like I buy a CD in a store and be done with it and not be worried about subscription fees.

    Whether or not you use Windows Media's DRM or FairPlay, it's clear that you'll eventually need to upgrade (purchase) newer versions of the OS to continue to play your music, whether if it's subscribed (borrowed) or owned outright (iTMS).

    Maybe I'll just stick with transcoding everything to MP3s that play just fine everywhere, including my iPod.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by johnpaul191 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well in a way the iTMS works on a mac or pc...... it will always play on that ipod, as long as the ipod is alive. if you own a mac or pc now and switch to the other in a few years there will still be free iTunes software to play your songs.

      if you are buying the other types of music and want to switch to a Mac.... i think you are screwed? none of those stores support Mac OS except Apple itself. you can throw around numbers of how many PCs and how many Macs ship per year, but a lot of those PCs end up in business enviroments. Macs are way more common in homes, plus they live longer, add the fact that some houses have both machines and would want to play the same songs (iTunes allows multiple computers to play a DRM'd song).

      looking at it fromt hat standpoint... if you own or ever might own a Mac or live with someone that may own a Mac.... then you can only shop at Apple's store. as for Linux/BSD users.... well i don't know.

    2. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Vandil+X · · Score: 4, Interesting
      if you own a mac or pc now and switch to the other in a few years there will still be free iTunes software to play your songs.
      My point is, Operating System license fees are the hidden cost in DRM'd online music store purchases.

      iTunes currently requires version 4.2 as a minimum to play any DRM'd songs you have purchased from the store. This means you have to be running Windows 2000, XP, Mac OS 10.2.x, 10.3.x to play your music.

      2 years from now, those restrictions could change to requiring a theoretical iTunes 5.0 which would theoretically require Windows XP & Longhorn and Mac OS 10.4.x & 10.5.x.

      Even if iTunes remains free, I'll eventually have to pay $199 for the next version of Windows or $129 for the next version of Mac OS X (and possibly a new Mac supportable by the OS X version) to continue to play music I purchased from the iTMS this year and can play this year.

      MP3 files, however, will play on any playback app that supports them, regardless of the OS or the age of the hardware, long after my iPod dies.
      --
      Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    3. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      as for Linux/BSD users.... well i don't know.

      Linux/BSD users can use PlayFair/Hymn to remove the DRM and then play their purchased music on anything that supports AAC (e.g. XMMS). I don't believe the same thing is possible with WMA DRM'd music.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      The following all work on both Macintosh and Windows, since they don't use that DRM bullshit.

      (IMHO, DRM hurts consumers.)
    5. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you won't have to buy an OS upgrade to keep using your old music.

      iTunes 4.2 can and will still play FairPlay v1 protected tracks. So all you'll ever need to play your v1 encoded music is iTunes 4.2. Period. Of course, once FairPlay v2 was devised, they started selling songs using that instead of v1, but your v1 songs haven't changed at all.

      As a matter of fact, there's no way to update songs from v1 to v2 without repurchasing them.

      Thus, your FairPlay v1 songs purchased before the store updated to v2 will always work on any platform that can play v1. Your v2 songs will always work on any iTunes that supports that encoding, which (as far as I know) is 4.5 and now 4.7.

      I don't think iTunes 4.2 supports FairPlay v2, but it might. Anyone know for sure?

    6. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by sh00z · · Score: 1

      One point: iTunes 4.2 actually runs just fine on 10.1.5, which was a free upgrade from 10.0, and which runs on every Mac built since 1998. So, yes, two years from now, things could change, but the fact that it works well *right now* on a six-year-old machine is a lot more leeway than you seem to be willing to admit.

    7. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by jdogs60 · · Score: 1

      You know, you don't have to upgrade. The computer and software and songs you use now will work now and for a long time to come. You don't have to shell out $199 for the next version of Windows, you can just stick with what you have.

      But it is more fun to bitch about something, right?

    8. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Hamhock · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you use Windows Media's DRM or FairPlay, it's clear that you'll eventually need to upgrade (purchase) newer versions of the OS to continue to play your music, whether if it's subscribed (borrowed) or owned outright (iTMS).
      How do you figure? Apple can't magically change my music files, or my installed version of iTunes. I may need to upgrade the OS to get new versions of the iTunes music store to work, but the file format of my existing music isn't changing by itself. If I keep my current version of my OS and iTunes, I'll be able to play my existing files as long as I want. I can also (and do) burn them onto CD as .aiff files, so I can play them on any machine that can read a normal music CD.

      --
      Two Minus Three Equals Negative Fun -Troy McClure
    9. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting
      iTunes currently requires version 4.2 as a minimum to play any DRM'd songs you have purchased from the store....2 years from now, those restrictions could change to requiring a theoretical iTunes 5.0 which would theoretically require Windows XP & Longhorn and Mac OS 10.4.x & 10.5.x.

      The only reason you can't play iTunes DRM music on older versions of iTunes is that the DRM scheme wasn't in use yet, and of course software created before the creation of a standard won't support that standard. However, the songs purchased from iTMS have never been "upgraded" (so to speak) to require a higher version of iTunes than what was used to purchase it in the first place. So, if you bought songs with iTMS, and you've never upgraded your copy of iTunes since then, they still work. So I don't see Apple releasing upgrades as such a big problem.

      A bigger problem, in my mind anyway, with the DRM is this: Imagine, 3 years from now, Apple, or iTMS, or both, fail, and I buy a new machine that runs some other hypothetical operating system, and no existing version of iTunes will run on it, what do I do then? I have to keep an old OSX/Windows machine around just to listen to a few CDs I bought on iTMS? Or will it then be legal to break the DRM?

      It gets to be a little like the problem of: I have a bunch of data on old 5.25" floppies, but new computers don't have floppy drives, only with the difference that it would be illegal to copy it to a more reasonable medium. So, you see, my worry isn't so much that Apple will continue to upgrade their software, but that there will come a time when they won't continue to update their software.

    10. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Support for DRMed songs started with version 4.0 of iTunes and it hasn't dropped support for any OS since, so since there is no proof that Apple has done this before, what you say (drop of old OS support) doesn't seem likely to happen.

      Even if Apple did drop support for an OS though, there is nothing forcing you to upgrade your iTunes (except perhaps critical security falws).

      That said, DRM is stupid in general. It adds no value to the pre-existing old, raw high res audio CD. You can't even get an upgrade discount if you later want to buy the audio CD version. You can't even download twice what you've already purchased! It's like the opposite of analog-TV-to-HDTV. DRM audio is like a downgrade to shit TV with lower quality resolution, pay for it, making copies suck more, and don't get an upgrade discount in the future! Woo hoo!

    11. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's clear that you'll eventually need to upgrade (purchase) newer versions of the OS to continue to play your music, whether if it's subscribed (borrowed) or owned outright (iTMS).

      Do you have the ability to read the future, or is this something that's been coming out of you ass?

    12. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 1

      2 years from now, those restrictions could change to requiring a theoretical iTunes 5.0 which would theoretically require Windows XP & Longhorn and Mac OS 10.4.x & 10.5.x.

      There's no reason to think that iTunes 4.2 would suddenly stop working. They locked out older versions of iTunes from the music store, because they wanted to offer newer features, but that did nothing to stop older versions of iTunes from playing music you already own.

      Even if iTunes remains free, I'll eventually have to pay $199 for the next version of Windows or $129 for the next version of Mac OS X (and possibly a new Mac supportable by the OS X version) to continue to play music I purchased from the iTMS this year and can play this year.

      MP3 files, however, will play on any playback app that supports them, regardless of the OS or the age of the hardware, long after my iPod dies.


      Don't forget that you can always burn all of the songs you bought on the iTMS onto ordinary audio CDs, and play those CDs wherever, or even rip them back to MP3s if you so choose.

    13. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by nacturation · · Score: 1

      A bigger problem, in my mind anyway, with the DRM is this: Imagine, 3 years from now, Apple, or iTMS, or both, fail, and I buy a new machine that runs some other hypothetical operating system, and no existing version of iTunes will run on it, what do I do then?

      If that were to happen, someone would see it as an opportunity and purchase the rights to iTunes from Apple. Companies rarely just abandon technology and an established market since that userbase can be sold to someone else for profit. The exception to this is unless there's a much more profitable alternative for them -- in which case, you'd likely see Apple offering an upgrade path... for a small fee, of course.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by madbeaner · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that somehow, the machine you're using right now to play the songs you own right now will stop playing the music once newer iTunes or Tiger (or later releases) come out? While it's possible that they'd change DRM rights, leaving users out in the cold seems a distant possibility, and even then no one is forcing you to update.

    15. Re:More of a battle of distribution formats by pioneer76 · · Score: 1

      The last half of the 1990s demonstrated two things:
      1. People want to listen to music in a digital format
      2. The Internet is a viable digital music distribution "medium".


      You forgot 3.People don't want to pay for it.

      MP3s would not have taken hold, or even be in existence today, if it were not for the fact that they are free. Same goes for the Ipod, no one would have bought it if it weren't for the fact that there are millions of free and widely available MP3s to download for it.

  17. Re:what battle by cob666 · · Score: 1
    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
  18. Silly marketing... by Krankheit · · Score: 1

    I am not going to buy a peice of hardware or software just because it has been endorsed by some obscure celeberties I have never heard of. Even if I did know them, I still wouldn't. Apple and Microsoft are only going to get impulsive buyers who buy just because there is a famous name on it. They won't encourage informed consumers, however they might annoy them.

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
    1. Re: Silly marketing... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Apple and Microsoft are only going to get impulsive buyers who buy just because there is a famous name on it."

      That would be roughly the same 90% customer group currently using Wintel/IE systems, right?

      "They won't encourage informed consumers, however they might annoy them."

      That would be the remaining 10%, using open source software & reading /.

      Uninformed maybe, insignificant? NO. Most consumers don't care about details, just take what is presented to them. Give'm a PC with Windows pre-installed on it, they'll use it. Give'm Firefox and lable it "internet", they'll use it. Give'm an iPod with U2 songs on it, they'll love it.

    2. Re: Silly marketing... by strider44 · · Score: 1

      A question for you (off topic but I'm curious): What operating system do you use?

      I personally use debian linux and pretty much all open source software (except for my favourite and most used app, UT2004). I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious as to what you are classing as "using OSS" in your comment.

    3. Re:Silly marketing... by anthropos9 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Apple and Microsoft are only going to get impulsive buyers who buy just because there is a famous name on it.
      And that makes up about 85% of consumers. Pretty good marketing on their part if you as me.
      --

      ==
      "Now the problem with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you often succeed." -
    4. Re:Silly marketing... by slavetrade55 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not going to buy a peice of hardware or software just because it has been endorsed by some obscure celeberties I have never heard of... They won't encourage informed consumers, however they might annoy them.

      I'm afraid that if you haven't heard of U2 or Queen Latifah (love 'em or hate 'em), then you hardly qualify as an 'informed customer'. And they definitely aren't marketing to you.

    5. Re:Silly marketing... by argent · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, Krank, let's say you've got two otherwise identical computer cases you're looking at. One's $45 and the other's $55... but it's got a "tux" theme and comes with a Debian CD autographed by Linus.

    6. Re:Silly marketing... by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      So U2 and Queen Latifa are obscure? What color is the sky on your planet?

    7. Re:Silly marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he meant Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, I've never heard their music.

    8. Re:Silly marketing... by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      No, I think he's never heard of this Bach chick and what kind of songs she sings.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  19. Re:This link seems to work without registering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can always view articles using links from the rss feed without registering. It won't even prompt you to login.

  20. Choice quotation by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Over time, proprietary standards always lose because industry standards always win because you get more for less," said Michael A. George, the general manager of Dell's consumer business. Dell has just introduced a 5-gigabyte music player, using the Windows standard...

    I wonder if any of the general public will realise what contradictory behaviour this is?

    "Proprietary standards always lose, so that's why our media player uses a proprietary standard (WMA) and the iPod uses an open format (AAC)".

    (Mp3 has delibarately been left out of the above sarcastic statement, due to its obvious ubiquity).

    1. Re:Choice quotation by dannywoodz · · Score: 3, Informative

      AAC may be an open standard, but the DRM Apple wraps it up with isn't. An open standard that can't be openly inspected is no better than a proprietary solution.

    2. Re:Choice quotation by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if I, as the tech-savvy computer user, wish to rip some of my CDs (or vinyls, whatever) to a digital format for playback on my portable device, I'd appreciate being able to use an open format.

      I can't do that with WMA.

      Of course, the masses won't care, since WMP will rip to WMA by default, which will work (we hope) on all the MS-supporting media devices.

    3. Re:Choice quotation by imkonen · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I read that line and thought to myself, "wait...WMA is NOT a propietary standard?!?!". If it's percieved as an industry standard it's only because more companies have agreed to support it than AAC. Just because MS allows companies to licence it NOW and apparently allows them to licence it cheaply NOW (according to the article), in no way shape or manner guarantees the situation will remain after MS has stomped out all the competition yet again. It's still MS who owns the so-called "industry standard" if that's what we're calling WMA these days.

    4. Re:Choice quotation by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      there is open-source software that can play these protected AAC files... for example VLC. It's just that Apple is preventing it from being "drag and drop easy". Simply a matter of locating the keys and running them through the right program. It's similar to Apple's burning restrictions... only there to "keep honest people honest", but are also easily worked around.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  21. The trouble with DRM by acomj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I bought songs with itunes music store..I have an ipod, I butned ausio cds, life was good..

    Then I got a car with a cd mp3 player... And thats where things started to crumble. I coulldn't burn mp3 cds with songs I had bought , only songs I had ripped. I could convert them to mp3s, but its time consuming. If I was using real/microsoft I would have the same problem. So all my purchased itunes songs are on regular cds.

    While I understand apples need to include DRM to keep music b iz people happy, unless the DRM is ubiqitous its not going to work well, Even MS is going to have trouble doing this.

    DRM free is the way to go..

    1. Re:The trouble with DRM by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Informative

      May I humbly suggest connecting your iPod either directly to the car player (if it has mp3 support, it might have also line-in jack) or indirectly beaming music via devices such as Griffin iTrip and similar? That's what I do.

    2. Re:The trouble with DRM by Whalou · · Score: 2, Informative
      DRM free is the way to go..

      I agree. However since that's not likely to happen anytime time soon, possible solutions are to not burn CDs but use the iPod itself to play the songs using:

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    3. Re:The trouble with DRM by Chemical · · Score: 2, Informative
      I dunno. Many newer car mp3/cd players support WMA. I'm not sure if that includes DRMed WMA files from online music stores. My first generation Pioneer MP3/CD player (7400) doesn't support them, so I've never tried.

      But also, Alpine makes an iPod adapter for their decks that let you control the iPod using the deck controls and stash the iPod in the glovebox, similar to the system BMW has be touting. Most newer Alpine decks support mp3 cds too, so you get the best of both worlds.

    4. Re:The trouble with DRM by acomj · · Score: 1

      I have a cassete adapter.. New radio doesn't have tape player..Don't have a radio one. I have been thinking about that option. I like the mp3 player because the controls are local and the mpe player has a big old display..

      The fm option does look better.

    5. Re:The trouble with DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better iPod your Car

    6. Re:The trouble with DRM by node+3 · · Score: 1

      May I humbly suggest connecting your iPod either directly to the car player (if it has mp3 support, it might have also line-in jack) or indirectly beaming music via devices such as Griffin iTrip and similar? That's what I do.

      The guy doesn't say he owns an iPod.

      So the choices are:

      1. Go all Apple, and life is good.
      2. Go all WMA, and life is good.

      The WMA route provides more options, but is uglier and more evil. The Apple route is very cool, a bit expensive, and not all that varied.

      or

      3. Buy CD's, use whatever you want, and life is good.

      Apple really really really has to license fairplay for devices. Choice of stores is no big deal, no one really cares if they only use one store, if all the stores are essentially $0.99 and have comprehensive selections.

      One day, Linux might be the superior (in the ways that it isn't now) desktop OS. What am I going to do with my iTunes (or WMP 10) purchases? In the '90s it was "I'd switch to Linux, but I need Office", in the '00s (or maybe '10s) it will be, "I'd switch to Linux, but I have 500 DRM'd songs!"

    7. Re:The trouble with DRM by MyThoughts · · Score: 1

      You think that if Linux gains a larger market share that Apple wouldn't produce an iTunes player for Linux? Apple isn't dumb.

      --
      It's my thoughts. So let them be.
    8. Re:The trouble with DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy doesn't say he owns an iPod.

      To quote the guy, I have an ipod, end quote. Kindly do read the second sentence.

    9. Re:The trouble with DRM by davesag · · Score: 1

      i too buy music through the iTMS and have an iPod. I have made a habit of running every track I buy through Hymn to strip out the DRM bollocks. 90% of my collection is in AAC format ripped from my own CDs. IANAL but figure it's well within my fair-use rights to keep the music I buy digitally in whatever format I like.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    10. Re:The trouble with DRM by G-funk · · Score: 1

      I've got an iTrip, and the quality blows. It's not a solution. For my car, I'm just going to rig up a line in direct to an amp, powering some old 7"x10" speakers which are left over from my previous life as a ricer.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    11. Re:The trouble with DRM by ckedge · · Score: 1

      .
      I wonder if you can use Daemon Tools or something similar to mount a "Virtual CDRW", write the audio CD to that, then rip from there...
      .

  22. Based on the pictures in the article by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think a much more interesting matchup would be Bono versus Queen Latifa in a steel cage deathmatch. I wonder what the Vegas odds would be on that fight?

    1. Re:Based on the pictures in the article by kulack · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the picture where, at a quick glance, the musical note overlay on Gates looks like old Billy boy is... er... um... Doing what 98.2% of slashdotters call sex. 8-)

      --

    2. Re:Based on the pictures in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's banging out a few notes? He's practicing his scales? He's trying to hit Steve with his rhythm stick? He's working on his fingering technique?

    3. Re:Based on the pictures in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Bono would agree, even a nearly 7' tall Irish white guy is no match for Queen Latifa.

  23. These programs certainly epitomize these guys.... by overbyj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just the very nature of the programs are the technological embodiment of Jobs and Gates.

    iTunes: Steve Jobs is overall a very straightforward guy who values simplicity over all else. Things should just work without a lot of hassle. We can argue all day if iTunes is the best jukebox or not but at least it represents what Jobs wants out of software. Something that does the job well without a whole lot of fuss.

    Windows Media Player: Gates has always played catch-up to Steve Jobs. You know deep down he is envious of Jobs. Gates seems like that kid at school who didn't fit in but tried really, really hard by trying to impress everybody with his gadgets and his knowledge. But overall nobody cares.

    Gates wants to desperately wave his hand and say "This IS the media player you are looking for! Why, you ask. One, because I said so! Two, because it does everything you could ever want on a computer. It plays music, movies, it slices, it dices, it makes mounds of juliene potatoes. And three, because I said so bitch! (apologies to Rick James)"

    It just always comes across that Gates introduces stuff to try impress people by throwing a lot of stuff into products. Unfortunately, more is not necessarily better. Keep trying Bill.

    --
    No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
  24. Nice going Microsoft... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now, when I think MSN music store, I'll think "annoying, loud-mouth fat bird."

    1. Re:Nice going Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I thought it was funny. :)

  25. Re:Borrrrring by gordo3000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    not really,
    it is simply giving away its own music standard and letting everyone make players for it. It is is betting that no matter how pretty an apple Ipod is, when people see equivalent stuff for 50 adn 100 dollars cheaper, they will start to turn. And you know, I think apple will again lose out because it is being a damn fool trying to lock everyone into its file type and hardware.

    But this has always been apple's way, make money on hardware. Right now Ipods are the in thing, so they are riding a huge wave of sales. I know people who needed a reality check before buying them so they didn't waste their money on an overpriced music player. And slowly I can see them losing out as more people want to save that 50 dollars when there are no quality differences.

    Of course, then we will hear whining about how Microsoft crushed the innovative apple again, even though it was just apple charging too much well into a time when the market wouldn't support it. Yes, apple is the real innovator, but you know what, I don't care when they try and charge me out the ass. I buy the cheapest product that does the job, and so do a lot of people.

    this quote sums up why apple has so much trouble winning: "The iPod cannot play songs from most other stores, and Apple's iTunes store won't sell songs for other players". I you don't make things work together, you end up being the lone man out. Slowly the other music stores will begin to gain customers, and then they will want a music player. And then apple loses, because its Ipod, which is what everyone wants, can't play those songs. Suddenly people see options, and apple's little monopoly begins to fall apart.

  26. Re:slashdotted04 by aycaramba · · Score: 1

    What a great job the mods are doing modding parent flamebait...

  27. Good quick read ariticle by amichalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you didn't RTFA, please do so. It's worth it.

    I found many quotes interesting including this:

    Mr. Jobs rejects the comparison between the music players and computers. The Macintosh had an uphill battle, Apple says, because so many corporate customers already had applications based on Microsoft's operating system that they didn't want to abandon. By contrast, Apple's iTunes Music Store sells pretty much the same songs that the others do, but they cannot be moved onto non-Apple portable devices.

    This is the glory of the iPod/iTunes combo.

    Basic marketing speaks of product differentiation and competitive advantage as keys to sales growth. In all the on-line music stores, the differentiations are:
    (1) price for which there is either a .99/9.99 model or the subscription ideas which (some) people either love or (mostly) hate
    (2) catalog which is by and large the same (at least for mainstream current music the labels want to sell) with some larger stores securing exclusives and international market access.
    (3) format of encoding which directly dictates which devices the store works with.

    Apple is so damn smart because they set (1) so low there is no margin in it for companies that just sell music only to compete, (2) is so big and robust that at best a competitor has the same catalog and at worst, a smaller one, and (3) locks all the Windows Media Format people into a "push" for product differentiation. This forces them to look at (1) or (2) and since their small market share will prevent (2) from getting exclusives that really means (1) is the only way to go. But as mentioned before, margins are too darn low so no matter how you slice it, they can't compete on price alone.

    Which brings us back to that quote by Jobs above. If you start buying from iTMS, which 70% of the market has, it costs MORE to switch because you have comitted yourself to (3), the format, and you have to giveup all your music, and all those 0.99 that added up, to move.

    Brilliant he is, just brilliant.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    1. Re:Good quick read ariticle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      good reasoning, but there are two facts that bring your argument down.

      a) your argument of continued success is predicated on the continued dominance of ipod sales over other digital audio players. indeed, ipod sales and NOT music track sales are where apple makes its profits in this whole venture. however, pricing pressure WILL do the ipod in. it is only a matter of WHEN everyone notices that other players cost less, have more capacity, and have more battery life. this is the wal-mart model, and it WILL work against ipod sales...and with it, apple profits.

      b) you do not seem to realize that the record labels, NOT apple, are in charge of pricing. the labels are not happy with the $.99 pricing. they're more inclined to think "wow, this digital music thing is new. people want it. let's charge them MORE than physical cd media." alternatively, the subscription model is more attractive to them than the pay-per-song model because it more strongly provides them with a continuous revenue steam. think about it: "$20 every month to have access to our ENTIRE library, without the possibility of burning to physical media" would appeal to many, many consumers. the record labels are the alpha and omega of pricing. jobs, gates, real networks, napster, etc do as they say.

    2. Re:Good quick read ariticle by rusty_rusty_rusty · · Score: 1

      Brilliant he is, just brilliant.

      Brilliant in his own right, absolutely.

      But also brilliant in terms of the folks he hires and decides to listen to. There is no doubt that there are a LOT of very luminous people at Apple. These "Gates v. Jobs" press articles so often seem to elevate these figures to Greek gods who are 100% responsbile for inventing and strategizing everything to come out of their respective companies.

    3. Re:Good quick read ariticle by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful
      a) iTMS sales are boosted by iPods success and iPod sales are boosted by iTMS. It works both ways. And the "iPod can't compete with cheaper players" argument is dead in the water. People have been saying that for a couple of years, and as these new players have come out, iPod has continued to GAIN marketshare. It's not that people haven't noticed that there are cheaper iPods out there, it's that you haven't realised why people want an iPod and not a cheap MP3 player.

      b) It certainly started out that the record companies have the price setting power in the relationship, but as iTMS continues to get bigger and more iPods are sold, then Apple gets more bargaining power in the relationship. When iTMS sales are a significant percentage of record company sales, it becomes more or less impossible for them to pull out, and not have a big revenue hit.

    4. Re:Good quick read ariticle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) You are forgetting that there were many cheap MP3 players before iPod was introduced. How long ago was it when Dell introduced their player at cheaper price? Rio? Samsung? Or have you forgotten the articles on /. about iPod killers and yet by all indication they do nothing like it? Or iPod death prediction because it was so expensive when it was intro'ed? The fact is, price is not the only thing. If the internal Apple report on the Net to be believed, not only is iPod holding their own, they are going to get even bigger with 4 millions units predicted for the Christmas quarter. In the long term, Apple may have to cut their margin and I am betting they know this too. Jobs would be stupid to yield the hard-won market just because he can't cut the margin. In the meantime, iPod evolution is enough to keep it going.

      b) Well, your theory had been tested. The labels wanted to increase their price and Apple stood up to them. And now iTMS is much bigger than then and Apple's clout is stronger. Moreover, the labels need iTMS. It will be another PR disaster if the labels shut down iTMS to jack up prices. Another thing is, this also applies to any download services out there. So, jacking up prices does not automatically help iTMS competitors.

    5. Re:Good quick read ariticle by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly why I'll never ever buy a single 'tune' from iTMS, even though I own an iPod for listening to my MP3 collection on the go.

      Again: not a single AAC is ever going to be stored on my iPod, /. posters be damned.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    6. Re:Good quick read ariticle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I am a fan of iTunes and iPod, but not DRM, iTMS's catalog is really weak. If you ignore the specials, exclusives, iMixes, and various creative things Apple is doing on iTMS, the bare fact is that you don't have the Smashing Pumpkins, you don't have Radiohead, you don't have the Beatles, you don't have Madonna, you don't have Godspeed You! Black Emperor, you don't have Múm, etc. etc. The suck sucks even more. Wonder if Apple got to artificially inflate their sales numbers with the free prize giveaways and the Pepsi free song giveaways they had, and how unpopular it really is without those boosts. But, in reality my guess is consumers know the downside and buy the M4Ps anyway because they're rich and don't care enough that audio CDs (what we had before) are SUPERIOR.

    7. Re:Good quick read ariticle by FredFnord · · Score: 1

      Really? That's a pity. What format do you use?

      I don't buy iTunes Music Store tunes, by and large (though I do download the free ones once in a while, when I see something that interests me). But when I encode stuff, it's typically into AAC, because I find it superior to MP3 and I don't have enough hard drive space to do everything in the lossless formats.

      Or are you another person paying so little attention that he doesn't know the difference between AAC and FairPlay, Apple's DRM?

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    8. Re:Good quick read ariticle by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      A late reply:

      Yes, I know the difference between the AAC cake and Apple's DRM topping. In theory there is a difference, but in practice there isn't because Apple is the only one who is actively promoting the format.

      I'm mostly using 192kbps VBR encoded MP3s. That quality is fine by me; I don't hear nary a difference with the original, and even if I did I wouldn't care as I'm listening more to the MP3 files than to the originals, so they have become the de facto original...

      Like it or not, MP3 is the standard for compressed audio. Tools and players abound. There are more than 10 times as much references on the web to MP3 as there are to AAC. With AAC you feel locked up in a single store. I prefer to roam, and I like the fact that no DRM topping for MP3 is in actual use so there is no risk I would ever be deceived by a file that turns out to be DRM'd.

      BTW the same reasoning applies to WMA (Windows Media Audio). Even though WMA promises better quality for the same bitrate, or the same quality from a smaller bitrate, it loses out for the same reasons.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    9. Re:Good quick read ariticle by amichalo · · Score: 1

      Lame.

      You a missing out on a great music shopping experience. Apple isn't exploiting a market like some suppliers and retailers do.

      Too bad for you.

      --
      I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    10. Re:Good quick read ariticle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "By contrast, Apple's iTunes Music Store sells pretty much the same songs that the others do, but they cannot be moved onto non-Apple portable devices. "

      Except this isn't true.

      I listen to iTMS-purchased songs on a non-Apple portable device all the time.

      It's a CD player. I just burn an audio CD.

    11. Re:Good quick read ariticle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good reasoning, but there are two facts...

      Watch as you are slapped-down by someone who Thinks Different as opposed to two dimensions:

      a) your argument of continued success is predicated on the continued dominance of ipod sales over other digital audio players.

      All that needs to happen is that iPod-compatible products are more successful in the marketplace than non-iPod-compatible products. You assume that only Apple will sell iPod-compatible products. You assume too much, especially in light of the recent HP-licensing deal. For example, by willing it, all next-gen phones produced by long-time Apple partner Motorola (and its CDMA licensees) could become iPod-compatible. Larger than life figures like Bono (U2) and Sir Richard (Virgin) can come out with private-label versions of iPod. In addition, Apple can release other devices that are iPod-compatible, such as iPhoto-compatible and iMovie-compatible devices --or even an iMac PDA. Also, do you want to be a poor kid running around with a $75 MP3 player that costs you $20/month to keep running, or spend the $200-$250 and "own" your music? (Many will come to see the $20/month deal for what it is and move-up to the iPod.) As for Walmart.com and their $0.70/store and $75 players --they have their market. (If you like the selection of music at your local Walmart, go right ahead...heh) It's clear that to save those kids being dragged around Walmart by their parents, Apple needs to license iPod technology into Sir Richard's Virgin mobile phones or something, but really those people steal most of their music anyway, so it's not like Apple is "losing" anything to Microsoft by not addressing this right now.

      you do not seem to realize that the record labels, NOT apple, are in charge of pricing. the labels are not happy with the $.99 pricing.

      Again, you twit --YOU do not seem to realize that no Hollywood executive is going to go against The Steve. Jobs is not only larger than Bono in their world, but he's managed to make a billion dollars saving Disney's ass. On top of that, he has unlocked untold profit potential from the music locked-up in the vaults of these companies with the smashing success of iTMS. While they may hedge their bets by experimenting with the hopelessly flawed Microsoft subscription-music plan, these execs are not going to do anything "against" Jobs. Personally, I speculate that XM and Sirus will do the Microsoft model in long before iPod does.

    12. Re:Good quick read ariticle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either a fucking thief or a fucking liar. Either way, you are a fucking idiot.

  28. Re:slashdotted04 by strider44 · · Score: 2, Informative

    or you can just go to www.bugmenot.com and download the firefox extension!

  29. Why Queen Latifah? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A U2 iPod containing all the music the band has ever produced is a great idea, because it's like releasing an album, but using a much more advanced media storage medium. But what's the point of having Queen Latifah at the Microsoft launch?

    1. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you look at her quickly you might think she's Oprah and (if you're the average American idiot housewife) do whatever she says. I didn't notice that it wasn't Oprah until I read the caption under the photo.

    2. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why the hell does she calls herself "QUEEN Latifah" anyway?

      Can't royalty sue her for name infrigment or something?

    3. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by tb3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard they were going to get Ashlee Simpson. but they couldn't get the dub to sync up.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    4. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by fryingpan · · Score: 1
      Because she is a musician and an actress in Hollywood movies (some taxi movie). The Windows media devices demonstrated at the launch (where the picture was taken) could play her movies, as well as her songs.

      The iPod can't do movies. It was a good differentiation.

    5. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it wasn't like she was launching an album or a movie, or a packaged player with all the work she's done throughout her career. With the budget Microsoft has, they could have gotten some real big shots in the entertainment industry. They could have coincided it with a current chart-topping musician's music video release and demonstrated the video on the device. Not to put Latifah's career down or anything, but they could have gotten someone like J-Lo or Beyoncé. They too are singers/actresses and are more popular at the moment (despite Gigli). Even then, they could have done something different, like get MTV rather than an individual. It seems like they just tried to copy Apple by getting a celebrity to help their promotion, and just didn't seem to get it right.

    6. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'll get a better celebrity by the second service pack. V 3.0 of the software at the latest.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    7. Re:Why Queen Latifah? by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Lesee:

      DUKE Ellington
      COUNT Basie
      Nat "KING" Cole

      Of course, for the band "Queen" it meant something diferent.

  30. And don't forget the price by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Years ago, I bought some CDs at BestBuy for $1.99 each. They were made by Pilz, a German company, with classic music played by Eastern European orchestras. Which shows the true cost of producing music when the RIAA is left out and the copyright for the author has expired. Why pay $1 for a Mariah Carey song when you can pay $0.12 for a J.S.Bach song?

    1. Re:And don't forget the price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because (1) Bach no longer has a copyright on his music, and (2) the market demand for classical music is not as high as for pop. You nitwit.

    2. Re:And don't forget the price by vijayiyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The price is low because the demand for classical music is low, and the demand for classical music from lesser known orchestras is even lower. Price is driven by demand, and the profit to the company is determined by the cost to them.

    3. Re:And don't forget the price by Sunnan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Price is driven by demand, and the profit to the company is determined by the cost to them.

      No.
      Price is driven by demand and supply, and the product duplication monopoly that copyright currently allows makes it easy for the corporations to artificially limit supply, thus having a larger degree of price control. Copyright is first and formost an anti-competitive measure.
    4. Re:And don't forget the price by Xyde · · Score: 1
      Because maybe you want to listen to a Mariah Carey song and not a J.S.Bach song?

      If people will pay $1 for a Mariah Carey song (I know I wouldn't but, I would for a Britney song :P) then they will. iTunes isn't having trouble selling tracks.

    5. Re:And don't forget the price by ktakki · · Score: 1

      Which shows the true cost of producing music when the RIAA is left out and the copyright for the author has expired.

      Wrong.

      This shows the true cost of producing music when:
      • You're not spending millions of dollars on advertising and promotion.
      • You're not spending hundreds of thousands on a music video.
      • You're not spending tens of thousands on promo men who in turn grease the palms of radio music directors everywhere.
      • You're not spending tens of thousands on tour support.


      You don't think that if Britney Spears recorded an album of public domain songs it wouldn't be priced in the $14 to $16 range?

      Copyright is irrelevant here. It's not an up-front cost. The songwriter gets a share of sales (mechanical royalties) and from airplay (performance royalties). It's not an up-front expense (like promo), so it has no bearing on retail price.

      Besides, Pilz holds the copyright to the recordings of those Bach pieces, regardless of whether the underlying work is public domain or not.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    6. Re:And don't forget the price by danila · · Score: 1

      You didn't notice the first part "RIAA is left out". By that the author meant that the music is not produced by major labels that are members of the RIAA cartel. And if music is not produced by the members of such cartel, then there is no need to spend all those millions on unnecessary stuff. Without the cartel, music would be really cheap, the choice would be bigger, the quality higher. But alas...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:And don't forget the price by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on whether you consider the supplied product "music" or "music by Mariah Carey". I would liken the latter to a brand name, and it seems that current copyright law would be fair to allow her to do as she will with her music (including signing the rights over to a record label). Obviously, I agree with you that copyright is anti-competitive and does allow for higher prices, but I would argue that it is fair (though the _length_ of copyright is a different, more problematic issue). I doubt that demand in the music market is as elastic as you claim, to the point that a company would make more money by selling on lower volumes at a higher price, especially when the marginal cost of production is practically zero. The prices are not a supply problem so much as the monopoly issue.

    8. Re:And don't forget the price by Tragek · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'll take my Bach to Carey any day. I'd pay more for Bach in fact.

    9. Re:And don't forget the price by ktakki · · Score: 1

      I don't think that membership in the RIAA has anything to do with this aspect of record company business practices. RIAA or no RIAA, the major labels would still spend millions for promo and marketing. They'd still engage in "legal" payola. They'd still be buying shelf space and end caps from the big retailers. The product would still suck, and cost the same to boot.

      In trying to explain the price disparity between the Pilz recordings of Bach and the usual major label tripe, the poster relied on straw men (RIAA, copyright).

      Promotion and marketing is the biggest sunk cost in major label products; more than recording, more than manufacturing, more than contractual obligations to the band. Membership in a cartel has nothing to do with this.

      k.

      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    10. Re:And don't forget the price by danila · · Score: 1

      Not directly, perhaps. But there are reasons to believe that if they couldn't use this monopoly to shove this overpriced "junk" towards our collective throats, the business model would have to change towards lower prices, which would mean significant changes to current marketing practices (and business practices in general). For example, imagine that labels had to make profit on each and every artist to survive.

      Of course, it's very hard to predict what changes would result from the destruction of this "cartel". And it's equally hard to even tell how it should be destroyed. What exactly the RIAA does that is so bad for the customers and the industry? I don't know, but I know that the industry is not healthy, it's outright rotten. Any change would be for the better and one consequence would be the ability of some labels to sell quality cheap music.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    11. Re:And don't forget the price by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      I tried to avoid talking about what I thought was fair or not; but I will say that I consider "counterfait", or brand fraud, something very different from regular copying. Saying "this release is endorsed by (say) Mariah Carey" is different from saying "here's a cheap disc with tunes by Mariah Carey".
      The prices are not a supply problem so much as the monopoly issue.

      The monopoly issue leads to the supply problem which leads to the prices.
    12. Re:And don't forget the price by nacturation · · Score: 1

      ...the profit to the company is determined by the cost to them.

      Partly correct. Maybe you're just simplifying this, but the profit isn't simply a function of cost. There are many products which sell for 100x their actual cost whereas commodity products might do well to sell at 5% above cost. Think of software which you can purchase and download online. What's the actual cost of the sale? 40 cents plus 2% of the transaction to the credit card company, and maybe 10 cents extra to cover bandwidth, hardware depreciation, office overhead, personnel costs, etc.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    13. Re:And don't forget the price by ktakki · · Score: 1
      Not directly, perhaps. But there are reasons to believe that if they couldn't use this monopoly to shove this overpriced "junk" towards our collective throats, the business model would have to change towards lower prices, which would mean significant changes to current marketing practices (and business practices in general). For example, imagine that labels had to make profit on each and every artist to survive.

      You know, nobody is forcing anyone to buy this shit. The existance of boy bands and Britney affects me not a whit. I prefer indie rock and have no problem finding radio and retail outlets that specialize in this genre. Oddly enough, the retail prices are often within $1 of RIAA product.

      Actually, it's not that odd. Consider that of the $16 retail price of a CD, the retailer gets $7, the distributor gets $1, and the label gets the rest. Retailers have as much a stake in the price of a CD as the labels, yet I never hear anyone railing against their pricing and business practices.

      As for labels having to make a profit on every band, that though should have been prefaced with the phrase "In a perfect world...". The truth is that the majors typically sign 100 acts, of which only one goes on to success. The rest are dropped.

      Indie labels are somewhat better about this (and I should know, having run one during the '80s and '90s), since it costs money to sign a band, but business is business whether you're pulling in billions or thousands.

      Of course, it's very hard to predict what changes would result from the destruction of this "cartel". And it's equally hard to even tell how it should be destroyed. What exactly the RIAA does that is so bad for the customers and the industry? I don't know, but I know that the industry is not healthy, it's outright rotten. Any change would be for the better and one consequence would be the ability of some labels to sell quality cheap music.

      It will never be destroyed. It can, however, be managed like a chronic illness.

      "Cheap" and "quality" are relative terms. We'll probably never see CDs fall below $10, but single songs for 99 cents are a start (45RPM vinyl singles were $1 when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s, albeit with two songs each).

      Quality is too subjective to address. Remember that there are millions of people out there who consider Britney or the Grateful Dead or Anal Cunt or Coltrane or Mozart to be "quality". Your mileage may vary.

      k.

      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    14. Re:And don't forget the price by Golias · · Score: 1

      What if Mariah Carey plays Bach?

      For that matter, what if she sings his stuff? I don't really care for her music, but she's probably one of the only pop singers who would have anywhere near the range required to vocalize the "Toccata and Fugue in D minor." I think I would actually pay to hear that, just for the novelty of it.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    15. Re:And don't forget the price by Golias · · Score: 1

      45RPM vinyl singles...

      I guess it's a sign of the times that you couldn't have just said "45's" with the expectation of being understood by everybody here.

      I suddenly feel very old.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    16. Re:And don't forget the price by Tragek · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. Maybe she could be good, if she got of the candy pop kick.

  31. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I think apple will again lose out because it is being a damn fool trying to lock everyone into its file type and hardware."

    well, maybe i don't want to be locked into Microsoft's format either.

    "And slowly I can see them losing out as more people want to save that 50 dollars when there are no quality differences."

    Take a walk around nyc or any city for that matter. you can't throw a stick without hitting an ipod owner. i don't think it's a style-statement either, people are just sick of dealing with buggy virus-laden software and bad design. it doesn't help that MS are everything bad about big business in this country as well.

    "apple is the real innovator, but you know what, I don't care when they try and charge me out the ass. I buy the cheapest product that does the job, and so do a lot of people."

    and this is the attitude that is creating a third-world economy in the US and shaping much of our foreign policy; "I don't care if something is made well, i just want it cheap and in bulk so i can stuff more crap into my life."

    --


  32. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by zpok · · Score: 3, Informative

    No they don't. You refer to the time Gates bought a bit of stock and signed a deal to ensure 5 years of Office and IE development on the Mac.

    The stock has been sold and it was a token amount anyway.

    What does help Gates is the fact that the Mac unit at MS does brisk business. So in that sense he wins either way.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  33. Re:Borrrrring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Rocket Scientist....ever hear of mp3. Get the cluestick!

  34. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by xirtam_work · · Score: 5, Informative

    Micrsoft bought $150M of shares as part of a settlement years ago and later sold them later at a massive profit. Microsoft do not 'own' part of Apple. Please get your fact straight.

  35. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    yeah, captain obvious.

    my ipod is filled with them. tons of them. but if i want to buy music online instead of from converted cds, i need to pick a format since the record industry hasn't created their own form of DRM

    --


  36. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    the above was my reply to this comment:

    "Hey Rocket Scientist....ever hear of mp3. Get the cluestick!"

    --


  37. Re:Borrrrring by Arru · · Score: 1

    Borissimo indeed. And you know what would at least making it slightly more interesting? For once getting the facts right!!!

    In many ways, the story sounds eerily familiar. As was the case in computers, Apple has sprinted ahead in the music market with an innovative product, elegant design and tight links between its hardware and software. Plodding along after it is a vast army, organized by Microsoft, of rivals that may be less skillful than Apple but offer a broader array of options and cheaper prices.

    Sound familiar in what way? Apple's never had more than, like, 20% marketshare for the Mac. I believe the Apple II did a lot better but making it with vaccum cleaners won't guarantee success in the jet plane business...
    OK, honestly, we all know the Mac was too good. That was its one and only weakness. Now analysts all over tell us the iPod is the best music player. Which obviously makes it a sitting duck for inferior products (aka. "iPod killers") See? Not to bad, eh? Geez, I really should become one of them clever columnists.

    --
    There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
  38. FM sucks. Cassette sucks by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Neither FM transmitters nor cassette adapters are a good solution - both greatly reduce the quality of the signal provided to the stereo.

    I have an MP3 player in my car, and was using a cassette adapter to interface to it until I could get the head-end adapter (that fooled the stereo into thinking it had a CD jukebox attached) for the car. The difference between the two was not merely night and day - it was night and nova. The cassette adapter had no bass, no treble, and poor stereo seperation.

    FM transmitters are just as bad - the maximum frequency is limited to 15 kHz, and the stereo seperation is poor due to the multiplexing of the L-R signal onto the 38kHz pilot tone.

    If his stereo has a CDR MP3 player function, it likely has support for a CD jukebox - go to Precision Interface Electronics and order the appropriate adapter, it will be much better.

    1. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, you really don't even need something that complicated to get really good sound. I'd be happy if I could find a car stereo that just had a phono jack in the front - then I can use ANY player.

    2. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by amper · · Score: 1

      I'd be even happier with an Apple head unit with built-in AirPort Extreme or long-range Bluetooth so I could wirelessly sync the hard drive to my iTunes connection from my driveway.

      Even better would be a docking port for an iPod instead of a fixed-mount HDD...

    3. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I got an aftermarket car stereo with digital radio, cassette player, and an 1/8th inch headphone jack for my crappy high-school car ('84 Toyota Carolla) in '96, I'm sure you can still find them. When I eventually got an iPod (the stereo had been moved through 2 other cars be then), it sure came in handy. No FM, no crappy tape adapter, just line-in!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    4. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Informative

      If his stereo has a CDR MP3 player function, it likely has support for a CD jukebox - go to Precision Interface Electronics and order the appropriate adapter, it will be much better.

      Or go to DensionUSA and see if their ICElink product is supported on your car's stereo-- then you can keep the iPod out of sight and control it (to a degree) with your head unit's controls.

      I was using a PIE cable for a while along with a RemoteRemote RF remote, but the remote would often miss keypresses and/or I couldn't tell if I had pushed the mushy buttons sufficiently for the command to be sent. It was a distraction I didn't want to deal with while driving-- I want to hit a button, know I hit it, and have the command register, all without thinking about it or looking away from the road.

      ~Philly

    5. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by dema · · Score: 1

      Neither FM transmitters nor cassette adapters are a good solution - both greatly reduce the quality of the signal provided to the stereo.

      Greatly is quite a stretch, but you can have it. I appreciate the quality of music, but if you are looking for very high quality playbackk, get out of your car and into a studio.

    6. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by snStarter · · Score: 1

      This is your CAR you're playing music in. Are you SURE you can hear the difference while motoring down the interstate or backed up in the noise of the city?

    7. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, time to be anal retentive. :)

      The pilot tone is at 19 KHz. The subcarrier which contains the L-R signal is at 38 KHz; the receiver uses the pilot tone as a phase reference to make sure it demodulates the subcarrier in phase with the L+R signal. Otherwise the channels would have unpredictable and variable separation.

      The major difference between FM and the original source is primarily a degraded S/N ratio, and secondarily, increased distortion. I doubt either is noticeable with the typical crap car speakers (or even the expensive ones). Even less will you notice a loss of high end, few source signals containing usable info above the 15 KHz cutoff.

    8. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by tfoss · · Score: 1

      Really not that hard to find, check out some Aiwas.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    9. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously being obnoxiously retarded or really, really missing the point. He's saying that the line-in jack should come standard since it offers no loss in audio quality, costs nothing, and requires no additional circuitry as opposed to all the gizmos that companies are potentially trying to push onto customers, like the ones that you list.

    10. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by GrahamCox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FM transmitters are just as bad - the maximum frequency is limited to 15 kHz, and the stereo seperation is poor due to the multiplexing of the L-R signal onto the 38kHz pilot tone.
      Yes, these things are vitally important when you're inside a thin metal box full of bits of odd furniture and strange surfaces, with speakers wedged into odd corners wherever they can be fitted, the whole thing being moved by a powerplant putting out many dBs of noise and vibration, with other similar ones going past every few seconds, plus the variable levels of white noise caused by the airflow. Hmmm, I'm sure you can pick out the difference between 40 and 50 dB of stereo separation, or the fact that the high frequencies are rolling off a few kHz early.
      Personally, I find the iTrip more than adequate for car use. The quality isn't bad at all once you get the right levels and an appropriate equalizer setting dialled in (I found it needed quite a bit of treble boost for my car). Yes, on my home hifi the iTrip's drawbacks are fairly obvious, but in the car it's fine.

    11. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      One of my peeves is that car manufactuers don't put in car stereos that would take a simple miniplug. This would probably cost them a whole couple of dimes...wtf?

    12. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want to be sued when your portable player flies off the dashboard (or off the seat as the airbag deploys) and becomes 1 with your cranium during an accident. SUBARU went so far in their late models as to change the design of the dashboards so they are all slanted/curved so badly that you can't set anything on them.

    13. Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Wow thats gay, if true. Batman Forever gay, if it had been any gayer they would have had zippers in the ass gay.

  39. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    I don't think Gates goes to work every day for the money.

  40. Re:Borrrrring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry reso... This was in comment to the parent gordo3000... "this quote sums up why apple has so much trouble winning: "The iPod cannot play songs from most other stores," ...and you Can buy mp3 online. I'm screwing up...one day at a time...whats your excuse?

  41. The key to Apple's success - lately by Lysol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as u may deny the Jobs mind-warp marketing slogans, he is dead on the money when he says (compared to the rest of the market) they make "insanely great" products. And what makes them great is not just the hardware design, but software design.

    For years and years, years back, I enjoyed the x86 cuz of the way the Mac hid everything. If you wanted to upgrade, well, good luck with the OS and the parts were an arm and a leg. But that was then. Now, it's all about portability for me and that only means one thing: a laptop. For the past 4 years the laptop has been king with me and thusly, since I usually get them maxed out, there is no upgrades. Coupled with an OS that, while not perfect and sometimes a bit more sluggish than Linux, I have a machine that just runs. I do my development exclusively on that and it goes with me everywhere. My 1st gen iPod still works great too (when does 1st gen anything work anymore???). True, many people have had probs with the battery, but I still have the stock everything on it and it's still very useful. Much more so than my previous MD players. As for Apple'ss DRM, it's easily circumvented and Apple's service of 'get out of my face and gimmie my song' does just that. Period.

    In a world where it seems the only way for corps to go is to try to own everything (which is not sustainable in the long run, but of course, corps are never really concerned with the long run), Apple was marginalized (somewhat) and forced to do things differently than the Dells and M$s of the world - of which there are only a few now.

    Look back at the last 5 or so years and you'll see the PC industry's knee-jerk reaction to quite a bit of Apple 'innovations' (I think that term is pretty silly and over used, but whatever):

    - 17" laptops
    - Wi-fi for the home/soho (and recently, AirTunes)
    - Lcd desktop displays
    - dvd-burners on desktop as well as laptop
    - iMac colored cases (yes, pc manufacturers tried to jump on this)
    - iPod
    - iTunes
    - Encrypted home dir on the fly (heh!)
    - Rendezvous
    - Firewire
    - Gigabit ethernet in laptops
    - backlit laptop kbds & screens that adjust to room brightness automatically

    Now when has any of the above come out of M$ or Dell or Hp/Compaq?

    Like so many other aspects of life, I feel that the diluted, lesser quality - not in terms of design or manufacturing, but in terms also of idea conception - cannot be sustained at critical mass levels. So you get a Dell plastic laptop that is 'good enough' but feels like, well, the cheap plastic it is. Or you get a M$ XP OS riddled with security holes throught the core of the OS, but has the widest appeal and ubiquity.

    Big organizations are a slow moving giant. They like to put on a pretty face to attract cutting-edge talent, but in the end, they pound that talent into the ground and the result is sorta like the Apple 1984 commerical. Sure, there are definitely smart and creative people at big companies, but I have to say most of the creative people I've met and worked with don't survive long in the corporate environment. And most of the time the creative folks take a back seat to the suits. I say this cuz when you look at the Queen Latifa & Billy G pic, you can just see that moment where she rattles off somethin, throws in a little slang, and then Billy pops in afterword with some canned Windows-media-can-do-everything-u-want-and-more-in -your-cab-and-home remark (chuckle from the audience). The suit. Jobs, on the other hand, while I don't think he's some perfect guy, has much more 'entertainment finesse' than Bill or Ballmer. When you have these fundamental elements of getting it at the highest levels of an org, then it makes it much easier to those lower creative types on the pole to gel with those above. Why? Cuz like minds think alike.

    So, when you take all of Apple's successes over the past we can say they've been possible because some creative and smart people had some wiggle room to take c

    1. Re:The key to Apple's success - lately by switcha · · Score: 1
      Look back at the last 5 or so years and you'll see the PC industry's knee-jerk reaction to quite a bit of Apple 'innovations'

      Don't forget
      -Losing those nasty-ass disk drives. =)

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    2. Re:The key to Apple's success - lately by norkakn · · Score: 1

      I am so glad that the floppy is now (almost) dead.

      Long live USB keydrives!

  42. "Brilliant he is, just brilliant." by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1


    I'll have to agree.
    Personally I have little interest in purchasing an ipod or itune, precisely because of this 'lock-in'.
    I'm not a typical consumer though.

    1. Re:"Brilliant he is, just brilliant." by Nine+Mirrors+Turning · · Score: 1

      Personally I have little interest in purchasing an ipod or itune, precisely because of this 'lock-in'.

      But can't you burn a cd of your ITMS bought songs and then rip that cd?

      --
      (Elegance is not an option)
    2. Re:"Brilliant he is, just brilliant." by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      I'm not a typical consumer though.

      Exactly right. You're unique, just like everybody else.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    3. Re:"Brilliant he is, just brilliant." by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      I'm not a typical consumer though.

      Exactly right. You're unique, just like everybody else.
      ---
      Ain't noting but a little vernacular. Yep, that's what the doc said. Rub a bit of this cream on it and you should be better in no time.

    4. Re:"Brilliant he is, just brilliant." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can make a preset number of CDs from your iTMS purchases. The record companies signed-off on this and it is an intentional "openness" in the System (though your info is encoded onto the produced CDs). The theory is that average people were pirating in the past because there was no honest solution available. The iTMS solution had to support all of the features their previous (NapsterI/Kazaa/Bittorrent) solution had. Now that iTMS is available with those features, those people will all go legit for future purchases and not lose any functionality. A certain percentage of people will no doubt burn their iTMS music onto CDs, then rip it back into MP3 and distribute it bootleg on the Internet, but the government authorities can track them down and fine the crap out of them.

  43. When the iPod and iTMS might fail by zpok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If for instance we see the emergence of speciality shops, like everything Jazz, everything Classical, stuff like that, if the collection is not matched by iTMS and if the format sold is WMA.

    Then I could imagine being pissed off by using an iPod. Now we have like ten shops selling the same stuff, and the Apple store is both the biggest and the nicest one around.

    At the moment I'd be pissed off by using anything but iPod.

    Disclaimer: I don't use any mp3 player, I do use iTunes, it's really nice in everything it does, imo. Which incidentally makes it an almost 100% certainty that if I buy an mp3 player, it'll be an iPod.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  44. the real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you give U2 and Queen L both a iPod and windows media player, which one would they use? My best is on the iPod. For the simple fact that iPod has the "hip" factor and is "bling" like without having diamonds all over it.

  45. Re:ARGH! by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    some people can back up their arogance... for example with 50 billion $...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  46. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a good point; I can only assume it's because he is a tosser who likes making people's lives miserable.

  47. Monopily activity? by nordicfrost · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Microsoft made it worth our while to get them into our box," said Hugh Cooney, the president of Rio, a unit of D&M Holdings of Japan. Rio had been using software from RealNetworks. "They bring a whole suite of service to us, marketing, help with testing and engineering support," he said.



    You know, it's not an illegal monopoly until one use said monopoly to gain in other product areas. The quote is typical "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics, and while Rio are happy now, I know that they have a bad feeling about this. Microsoft does not help anyone unless they think they have huge profits to gain from it. AIDS victims included.

    1. Re:Monopily activity? by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does not help anyone unless they think they have huge profits to gain from it.

      Well, this is want ANY company do, you know.

      As for the AIDS claim, Microsoft might be investing in it (I mean the cure for it :p), but do you know that Bill Gates personally DONATES to the cause? Makes you think how much Bill Gates has a hand in everything his company does.

    2. Re:Monopily activity? by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      do you know that Bill Gates personally DONATES to the cause?

      Yup. I also know that the donations coincide with official MS-visits to developing countries. They will remember such a uge contribution when they are rich enough to not pirate software.

    3. Re:Monopily activity? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      You're not properly translating the business speak.

      Microsoft held a gun to our head and raped us, but they were gentle and considerate," said Hugh Cooney, the president of Rio, a unit of D&M Holdings of Japan. Rio had been using software from RealNetworks. "They had us take a valium with a glass of wine, and then used lots of astroglide. They were very patient waiting for our sphincter to loosen up first, so the tearing was minimal when they finally fucked the shit out of us," he said.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:Monopily activity? by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      LOL! Thanks, man! That comment made my morning complete..,

  48. Usual boring article about Apple... by andy55 · · Score: 0


    This is just the usual blah article trying to create drama, written by a journalist that'd like ot think that they're full of "insight". The truth and simplicity of the matter is that Apple has high design standards, that costs money, and their stuff will therefore cost a little more. Every other competing exec and "insightful" reporter will never stop trying to tell us that we can get the same quality and/or value for less--it's just not true. They also will never stop telling us that Apple is about to fold, fail, or die.

    For your amusement, check out the apple death knell counter if you haven't already.

  49. Re:Borrrrring by ThePlissken · · Score: 1

    "The iPod cannot play songs from most other stores, and Apple's iTunes store won't sell songs for other players"

    The iTunes Music Store has over 70% of the market for legal digital downloads. Please tell me where the cost justification is in letting the iPod play other formats that just don't sell nearly as well as the DRM used at the iTMS. Now obviously this is not the only reason why Apple doesn't open things up but it sure seems like a good one to me.

  50. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by jxyama · · Score: 1
    i agree with your sentiment. the problem with microsoft is that they are playing catch up. so what happens is, they look at competitor's products and basically figure that by taking what others have and putting in pretty colors/more functions/more options, their product becomes superior.

    such isn't so. there's something called overall design philosophy. some times, simpler is better. adding functions for the sake of adding them distracts them from the original design and makes the product worse, even though it may do more things. it's hard to beat a product that was designed by a company with a proven track record of innovative ideas/implementations by coping it. the way to beat it is to come up with another innovative ideas/implementations on their own... i think this is why iPod's competitors are also failing. they figure add more features and price a little less and it will beat iPod. such isn't the case. (though i now fear apple has stretched themselves a bit with iPod Photo... but who am i to question them? everyone thought iPod would absolutely tank..)

  51. Not the Same Battle. by Spencerian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gates predicts his company will dominate music as his company dominates in the operating system arena.

    But this is an entirely new battlefield, and he is making predictions based on what he has done in a separate area, one that he, as the computer wars begun, could not have foreseen at all, and can only preach of in retrospect.

    Microsoft is not in full control of what he sells--the music. Nor does Jobs. However, Apple sells music in a manner that both music companies feel exhibits some level of control to minimize easy copying and tracking of sold music as well as getting them a cut. (Having a large marketshare in selling music players that access said music store is good for business, too.) People feel more in control of what they buy in the iTunes music store.

    Microsoft and other companies have a more draconian DRM than Apple's that greatly restricts how to receive music and where it can be placed. There's also the matter of several, different, and confusing music stores that all use different music players and, as a result, lead to a confusing buying purchase. Place Windows at the center of this morass of players and stores and you have Too Many Cooks Looking for Profit, Inc.

    Gates, like Jobs, knows what has happened in the past. But Jobs learns from his lessons and has shown a certain business shrewness of late that Gates and others have yet to truly match today. It's this fact, and not old computer history, that will determine which is the stronger businessman of tomorrow. Want some prediction? Look at Apple's stock price over the last 3 years and compare it to the same earning trend to Microsoft. Or Dell. Or HP. Or Adobe. Or Oracle. Or IBM.

    I feel that Gates in the past was in the right place, pulling the right strings at the right time. Jobs, historically, has been in the right place at the right time while creating ideas or greatly tweaking old ones to generate a new product at a time when no one else was thinking of such things.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
  52. I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Store by MarkWatson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    On my blog the other day, I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs asking for an online movie rental store that:
    • Would works with Macs!
    • Would have DRM that allows watching a downloaded movie for a whole week
    • Would support two pricing structures: 99 cents for a low resolution movie (perhaps 450x250 pixels) and $2.50 for a higher resolution movie (perhaps 800x500 pixels). Support full screen mode with interpolation.
    I really enjoy Apple's music store. The current online movie rental (via download with DRM) stores look fairly lame - I bet that Apple could create someting that I would enjoy using.

    -Mark

  53. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    "Please tell me where the cost justification is in letting the iPod play other formats that just don't sell nearly as well as the DRM used at the iTMS."

    One of the reasons that Apple charges more for some of their products is R&D and design (lord knows MS doesn't do any of that lifting--unless it's to find out how to squeeze more money out of cr*ppy code).

    I would guess another reason they haven't lowered their prices would be that they don't have to. I don't blame apple for charging what they charge. They're going to need all the money they can get to fight off MS once they find a way to use the Window's monopoly.

    --


  54. proprietary standards? by DMJC-L · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I guess if open standards win then iriver has already won. Rockbox firmware http://www.rockbox.org coming soon will bust open the iriver's true potential! they already got the lcd screen to display their custom code... 140mhz motorolla coldfire cpu and 32mb sdram should be enough to handle any codecs you throw at it... :D looks like next year will be a good year for me.. and a bad year for ipod owners.

    1. Re:proprietary standards? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you are wrong. Rockbox will not take significant share of the market from the ipod. It has an impressive list of features, but do you really expect a significant number of people to apply firmware to their own mp3 player? What percentage of our population do you think can and will do that? Further, it just not a well thought out user interface. Without a great deal of user testing, there is no way to come close to the ease of use of the ipod. Finally, market share relies upon advertising and "cool" factor. I have no doubt that eventually ipods will not be "hip" or "groovy" :) but I don't think it is going to be a bad year for ipod users. I think ipod users, and itms users are coming out ahead of the game.

  55. Re:Alien vs. Predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Seriously, though: In computing, you have more than those two alternatives (Linux etc. hint, hint).

    In computing, Linux is NOT an alternative (who the fucks gives a shit about the libraries and APIs and OS-level stuff there is in their OS, hint, hint).

    KDE vs Gnome is just another exemple.

    If even the programmers can't even work TOGETHER instead of AGAINST EACH OTHER, it's impossible the general public will ever go with Linux.

    When I drive my car, I don't need to know how the damn engine works, I just DRIVE MY CAR.

    Apple understands that very well, Microsoft understands that to some degree, but the Linux crowed still have their heads burried deep, deep into the ground.

  56. Re:I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Sto by MarkWatson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One more thing:

    I think that there could be a lot of variability in pricing for download with DRM movies: obviously new releases would cost more and may not be available for a while in a higher resolution. Perhaps deals could be made for much lower costs for older movies (like Turner Classics).

    Sometimes old movies come up in conversation and it would be great to have an online library of 10s of thousands of movies.

    My older brother owns about 1200 movie DVDs (to keep this anonymous I won't mention Ron's name :-) and that is fine for people who want to own movies forever. For myself, I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee to get movies on demand loaded on to my laptop for viewing on my deck, etc. Being able to pause movies, watch them several times within the DRM timeout period, etc. would be great.

    Netflix is a good idea, but there is not the immediacy of deciding to watch a move and then have it available in a short while. (I am assuming that after buffering up data for 20 minutes or so that a Quicktime movie would then play OK with most broadband services.)

  57. The irony is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Microsoft were doing the same thing, we'd be screaming blue murder. Kudos to Apple for bringing the iPod to the PC though, but to be honest, they really really need more of the independent record labels on board here in the UK.

    On a side note, while I have bought tracks from iTunes - and consider it to be the best music-buying experience online - my loyalties lie with whoever is supplying the tracks I want, and I don't think that should be determined by any hardware manufacturer.

  58. proprietary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone else annoyed that the NYTimes lets the Dell guy get away with calling it a battle against proprietary software. Let's face it, both Apple and Microsofts DRM is proprietary.

  59. iPod/iTunes will stay in the lead for a while. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a number of reasons:

    1. Apple got there first and successfully staked out the market for such a device on both the hardware and software level.

    2. The iPod is a technically superior device with excellent user controls and the ability to have no loss of sound quality when manipulating the controls on the iPod.

    3. Apple smartly knew that if they really wanted market share for the iPod they have to be Windows compatible, hence the fact newer iPods have USB 2.0 connections in addition to IEEE-1394 connections.

    Mind you, I think Apple should seriously consider developing future-generation iPods with user-changeable batteries and possibly an AM/FM tuner.

  60. That article misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok, I live in canada, and so far we have been without the iTunes music store. And who needs it! I already had over 1000 cds to rip when i first downloaded iTunes. So i ripped the cds, stuck them in an envelope, tossed out the jewel case and have never touched them again. If i want a new cd i buy it... that way i can rip it at a higher quality than the itunes store would ever do. New cds are still pretty cheap.

    The iPod is always going to win this one. People just need to embrace a CD free life totally digital lifestyle. Rip your discs and store them, dont touch 'em again! Use your ipod in your car, on your home stereo, on a boombox. Who cares about burning cds... they're so '90s.

    1. Re:That article misses the point by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

      And when your hard drive crashes or your iPod battery dies, you'll be up shit creek.

      CD storage is much more stable than hard-drive storage. That's quite a big problem. I'm not sure, as I've never used iTMS to purchase music, but what happens if your hard drive fails? Do you lose all of the music you paid for?

    2. Re:That article misses the point by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Heh yeah dude. I have 21gb of mp3s on my computer. There's no way in hell I'm ever going to start downloading WMA bullshit. Why would I even consider it?

      I totally plan to buy an iPod one day. The only reason I haven't is because I haven't had the money. But why would I even consider a player that only plays shitty WMA files? What a joke...

    3. Re:That article misses the point by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What happens to any of your data when your hard drive fails? Do you lose it all?

      A better question might be, "Do you back up your important data?"

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  61. Re:Borrrrring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you know, I think apple will again lose out because it is being a damn fool trying to lock everyone into its file type and hardware.

    Yes, evil, evil Apple trying to achieve lock-in. We all know Microsoft would NEVER do something like that!

    Tell me, what desktop operating systems besides Windows can I use if I purchase DRM'd WMA files from a purveyor of online music who sells in that format? Oh, that's right-- NONE! Windows Media Player for the Mac doesn't support DRM'd files.

    Everything Apple does is at least partially to encourage Mac sales, and this is no different. They are the only provider of DRM'd music files that play on two different desktop operating systems. They are hoping that Windows users will like the iPod and iTunes enough to take a look at a Mac-- and if they end up purchasing a Mac to replace their Windows box, all their purchased music can come with them.

    If they open up the iPod to play WMA without getting Microsoft to support protected WMA files on the Mac (which won't happen because Microsoft is platform-lock-in hungry), then iPod owners who want to switch will be dissuaded by the fact that they'll lose the use of their protected-WMA-based music files.

    Apple is all about making it painless to switch to the Mac from Windows, to encourage people to make the jump. Microsoft is all about making it as painful as possible to switch from Windows to anything else-- it's the only way they can keep customers from ditching their shitty products.

    ~Philly

  62. Re:I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Sto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with your idea except for the two movie sizes:
    - broadband is becoming so common that low-resolution would become a useless choice.
    - people who only see the low-resolution "Apple iMovies rentals" would think Apple makes low-grade crap.

    If Apple could come out with the iPod equivalent for movies (not portable, but a stereo deck unit), we could ditch the DVDs too (it would still include a DVD Rip-to-unit feature, just like iTunes does with music CDs). Start with at least 200GB (by the time Apple comes out with such a unit, 200GB will be a lot cheaper).

    Imagine an Apple-made video jukebox... No need to swap DVDs anymore. And iMovies store would complete the deal. Even with a 30-60 minutes download, it would be nearly the same time as getting out, getting the DVD (if they're not all out!), getting back home, starting the movie.

    Since Apple will be using H.264, it would allow for higher quality with smaller downloads/storage too. Imagine a high-res movie in only 1GB.

    At 1GB they'd still be big downloads (and some providers do charge per-GB charges when you go over a pre-set monthly limit), so perhaps a rent-with-purchase-option would be a possibility (rent for 1.99$ for a week (or a limited number of viewings?), buy it for an additionnal 7.99$). That would make songs for 0.99$ each and movies 9.99$ each.

    And PLEASE oh PLEASE, ONLY WIDESCREEN! (unless the original is 4:3, of course). Put the "full-screen" option on the player, just embed the "full-screen cutting coordinates" into the movie so the player will cut the sides itself.

  63. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With your post in mind, think again about The Incredibles.

    Mr. Incredible = Steve Jobs

    Sydrome = Bill Gates

    The story of a superhero who is cast out by his adoring public only to rise back up more powerful than ever, to confront an arch-nemesis who doesn't have the inherent ability but has a lot of gadgetry to make up for his lack of powers.

    vs.

    The story of a visionary cast out by his own company only to rise back up more visionary than ever, to confront an arch-nemesis who doesn't have the inherent ability but has a lot of money to make up for his lack of vision.

  64. Re:Are There Acutal Bill Gates 'Fans'? by turgid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Are there actual Bill Gates fans

    My mother-in-law is technically illiterate, but she's just got herself (at the age of 65) a degree in English with Religious Studies. She thinks Bill Gates is wonderful.

    One day she said ,"But he's made computers easy to use..."

    "But you see, he hasn't..." I replied.

    Bill Gates provided, in WIndows 95, a much-needed backwards-compatible upgrade to MS-DOS. He may have made MS-DOS PeeCees easier to use than before, but I need not point out the history of computing here on slashdot.

    Bill Gates has done a remarkable job of pulling the wool over they eyes of the average member of the public without more than a passing interest in computers.

    These people are his fans.

  65. Re:Are There Acutal Bill Gates 'Fans'? by PygmySurfer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are there actual Bill Gates fans who are desperately scanning these articles to see if anything good is said about him

    Yes. Paul Thurrott.

  66. Bach songs? by Sunnan · · Score: 1

    "I hear playing, but I don't hear singing."

  67. Microsoft owns more than a portion by g_bit · · Score: 0

    In terms of market share, Microsoft owns Apple.

    1. Re:Microsoft owns more than a portion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of market share, Microsoft owns Apple.

      No that's 0wn3z, not owns.

  68. Cantatas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I hear playing, but I don't hear singing."


    You don't know a lot about Bach, do you?

    1. Re:Cantatas? by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      You don't know a lot about Bach, do you?

      I do, actually (I've read GEB a couple of times, but other than that, no). But most of the time I listen to the Brandenburg concerts, which don't have much singing AFAICH.
  69. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by Genady · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes. I am actually a Fan, though not becuase of his work in computers. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, if not one of the largest, then one of the deepest pocketed philanthropic foundations around. They do good things with the money that Bill has made over the years. You can't say the same of teh Steve, and while I'm a Mac user, and an iTunes Music Store purchaser, and generally despise Microsoft, my opinion of Bill is tempered by his good works outside of the computer industry.

    While you might think evil Windows when you hear the name Bill Gates, I think of helping people in Africa.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
    1. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The richest men in the world, who got their money semi-legally, almost always turn into philanthropists as they get older. It's a psychological need of theirs, so that they don't feel 100% evil for what they've done in their lives.

      BG is not the first to throw huge amounts of money around. A hundred years ago, it was the steel magnates. There have been other industries since, but it's IT's turn to give back what it illegitimately gained.

      There's a name for this: the guilt culture.

    2. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, if not one of the largest, then one of the deepest pocketed philanthropic foundations around.

      Please note: it's the Bill and MELINDA Gates Foundation (emphasis mine). Consider his
      past behavior. Consider this foundation is
      after his marriage. Infer from his past
      and present behavior the probability he's
      doing it out of the kindness of his heart
      vs. She's doing it, because she's a caring
      human being. Which is more likely?

      And will the MicroSerfs please do everyone
      a favor and identify yourselves when you're
      astroturfing? Show a little dignity.

    3. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by turgid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes. I am actually a Fan, though not becuase of his work in computers. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, if not one of the largest, then one of the deepest pocketed philanthropic foundations around. They do good things with the money that Bill has made over the years.

      Oh please. How the Astroturfers and sycophants wax lyrical about Chairman's Bill's never ending kind-heartedness.

      Have you all already forgotten about Bill's trip to India, where he gave $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux?

      Now, I ask you as to where this man's priotities lie.

    4. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he identify himself? Anything remotely positive about MS is immediately shot down by you zealots and the poster is considered ignorant because they dont agree with you.

    5. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yes. I am actually a Fan, though not becuase of his work in computers. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, if not one of the largest, then one of the deepest pocketed philanthropic foundations around. They do good things with the money that Bill has made over the years.

      You're not from the Pacific Northwest, are you?

      I've lived up here most of my life, and I am pretty certain that Melinda is the driving force behind the current and excellent work of the Gates Foundation (and I say kudos for her! "MS Bob" jokes nothwithstanding).

      For years it was widely grumbled about how Bill wasn't returning any of his money to charity - local charities in particular. I remember several "Almost Live!" (a local comedy show) monologues where the punch line was one variation or another on "God forbid that Bill should have to spend any of his money to help the disadvantaged".

      The foundation may have predated his marriage, but the big gifts (and headlines) almost certainly don't.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      hm.... a relatively young businessman gives money to fight off his competitor, who'd have thought?? He still gave the 100 million for AIDS, better than you can say for anyone in the tech industry, and men with the billion's are out there, even that grand soul Mr. Jobs. I might not like windows, and mac for that matter(one is software lock in, one is hardware lock in, despise them both), it doesn't change what he has done. anyways, revise your sentence, he gave 100 million to fight Aids, Windows gave 421 million to promote its own software(really, to fight linux and anyone else that may try to take the market, not any better in my view).

    7. Re:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by pronobozo · · Score: 1

      "Oh please. How the Astroturfers and sycophants wax lyrical about Chairman's Bill's never ending kind-heartedness. Have you all already forgotten about Bill's trip to India, where he gave $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux? Now, I ask you as to where this man's priotities lie." and how much have you given? how much of your government has given? he's acutally given over abillion in donations to various charities.. again.. how much have YOU done yourself? who are you to judge?

      --
      ------
      insert sig here,here, and here
  70. Re:Borrrrring by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

    and this is the attitude that is creating a third-world economy in the US and shaping much of our foreign policy; "I don't care if something is made well, i just want it cheap and in bulk so i can stuff more crap into my life."

    You sound like a rich apple loving fanboy. I take it then that only rich people should stuff more (expensive and well-made) crap into their lives. Everyone else can just do without.

  71. And how? by g_bit · · Score: 0
    "But he's made computers easy to use..."..."But you see, he hasn't..." I replied...He may have made MS-DOS PeeCees easier to use than before...

    Contradict yourself much? You're right, if it weren't for Bill Gates and Windows most of the world would still be using some DOS variant or an IBM terminal. Most businesses realize the value of CHOICE which is why Apple didn't make it in the business sector, not because of some malicious action on Microsoft's part (they lost that look-n-feel case remember?).

    Bill Gates has done a remarkable job of pulling the wool over they eyes of the average member of the public...

    Do tell. And how did he do that? As an average user, my Dad who' been using Windows since '95 would also like to know what this great evil is.

    1. Re:And how? by Frankie70 · · Score: 1



      Contradict yourself much? You're right, if it weren't for Bill Gates and Windows most of the world would still be using some DOS variant or an IBM terminal.



      No. It's even bigger than this.
      Before Microsoft, Computers were used only by Banks, Insurance Companies etc & Hobbyists.

    2. Re:And how? by turgid · · Score: 4, Informative
      Contradict yourself much? You're right, if it weren't for Bill Gates and Windows most of the world would still be using some DOS variant or an IBM terminal.

      No. You are a victim of revisionist history.

      Most businesses realize the value of CHOICE which is why Apple didn't make it in the business sector

      Wrong! Business only values conformity. Back in the day, there were several superior architectures to the PeeCee in terms of hardware and software, including the Apple Macintosh, which is the only one that has survived. There was the Amiga, the Atari ST and the Acorn Archimedes (which was very popular in UK schools, and was about 10 times faster at the same price point that PeeCee hardware). These machines were capable of emulating the 286 PeeCees of the day at native speed or fater.

      All the business world cared about was being "IBM compatible" and being able to lock itself into running Lotus 123.

      That's what happened.

      Bill came late to the party as usual. The rest is history and has been largely forgotten by noobs and youngsters like yourself.

      Bill is where he is through questionable business tactics, and the herd mentality.

    3. Re:And how? by turgid · · Score: 1
      I'll be short and to the point:

      Bill didn't make computers in general easy to use, and people have claimed and most people think.

      He only made Pee Cees easier to use for those who were already running MS-DOS.

      If you can't understand this, then more fool you.

      There were already many more technically-superior personal computer architectures with easier to use software about years before Bill Gates made Windows (more specifically Windows 95). The only one that survives in any numbers is the Apple Macintosh. It is still the vastly superior platform in every way.

  72. omg so much bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    that this article gets placed under the APPLE section as opposed the MICROSOFT section!!!
    Im gonna cry..

  73. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    No, I'm in debt up to my ears and saved for a year to get an ipod. thanks for making generalizations though.

    --


  74. College paper by microchip · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs VS Bill Gates
    http://www.hepguru.com/jay/SteveVsBill.pdf

    My college paper contrasting their personalities...

  75. Re:slashdotted04 by Flatline_hun · · Score: 0

    I must be new around here... :)

    --
    Yeah, free Ipod! He is innocent!
  76. the key thing is a variety of formats by dh003i · · Score: 0

    The "MP3-players" that play the most formats are the most useful to users, because users can download/obtain/burn music in many formats. I think the iRiver H340 is a great MP3 player because it can play MP3, WMA, ASF, and (most importantly) OGG music files.

  77. I'm sorry, but there's no battle by melted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Steve Jobs can wipe the floor with Gates if he wants to. It's not even funny to compare them. If Apple had half the money Microsoft has, they would kick MS out of the market easily.

    1. Re:I'm sorry, but there's no battle by bhima · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem with that idea is that Apple & Microsoft are in largly different markets. Microsoft is aiming for all of the unwashed masses, while Apple is aiming a fair bit higher.

      Still it's been worth the effort to get all the people that I have to suport for free on to a G5 Mac of some sort. Although given the number of photos my mum is sending of her Grandkids (my sisters) sometimes I wonder....

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:I'm sorry, but there's no battle by tuxedobob · · Score: 2, Funny

      Support for free? G5? Hell, the G5 is supposed to be for you. Everyone else gets a used G4.

      (Wanna trade?)

  78. Re:ARGH! by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    yeah, but i could still take him.

  79. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that first paragraph, replace microsoft with Linux and the rest just falls into place. Nifty, eh?

  80. Music is image, image is Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple has became an image which is very important for people buying music. The MS image is not ready for this market. They should have created a new company which compete in this market :-)

    I think Gates is wrong They will not remove Apple from the market, and they do not have a new IBM contract this time. Again, MS is copying Apples approach, but this time Apple has the ace.

    I suggest that MS buy Apple if they want to do anything in this game, just like they have to buy Google in order to compete with google.. .

    1. Re:Music is image, image is Apple by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      MS cannot buy Apple, even with their large amounts of cash. Not only Apple's company stock, but its patents, revenue, and bank account prevent Microsoft from ever buying them out. MS would have to take out a huge loan in order to buy out Apple, and that probably wouldn't sit well with MS shareholders, who are already disgruntled with slow progress as it is.

  81. Ummm, nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bill Gates has done a remarkable job of pulling the wool over they eyes of the average member of the public...

    You still didn't explain this one. What great lie has Bill Gates told the world?

    No. You are a victim of revisionist history.

    Could you be a little less ambiguous? Why not speak in facts. True or False: Windows 95 made most peoples computer easier to use?

    Wrong! Business only values conformity.

    Okay, but your jedi mind tricks aren't going to work here. You say "Business only values conformity." and then try to back it up by saying that other platforms were faster or "superior". These two things are mutually exclusive. The IBM-PC clones gave businesses what they wanted: No lock-in. Apple was the only manufacturer of Apple hardware, there was no choice.

    There were already many more technically-superior personal computer architectures with easier to use software...blah, blah, blah

    Well, unfortunately you can't make it on technical ability alone. Apple isn't the company that invented the GUI, Xerox is. Apple just brought it to the masses. Bill Gates didn't invent the GUI either, but he sure did *bring it* to a heck of a lot of people (more than Apple's current measly 3%).

    Besides, Windows is superior to Mac OS in every way. Just look at how much more hardware it runs on. If Apple tried to do that they'd fail miserably.
    1. Re:Ummm, nope. by turgid · · Score: 1

      At this pint I will give up arguing with you. You are a troll and a revisionist historian. You are a fool and an ignoramus.

  82. "Look, these guys are acting very uncompetitively" by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    I also wonder if Apple could say "look, these guys are acting very uncompetitively and intentionally breaking our software".

    Sure, they could.

    Question is: Who would listen?

    Try bringing an antitrust action through the right wing Justice Department controlled by a party that has taken lots of money from Bill Gates, swept aside a decade of litigation for Bill Gates, and awards Homeland Security contracts to Bill Gates.

    Try doing that when your CEO recently offered to be John Kerry's economic advisor.

    And then see where you get. The six-gun of economic Darwinism, not priniciple, rules the day in this cowboy-run land.

  83. The difference between Apple and Microsoft... by wvitXpert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple and Microsoft seem to have two distinct stratagies. Microsoft uses thier brute force to buy competitors out, or force them out of buisness. Apple relies more on making inovative products. Of course there are exeptions on both sides. But personally I think that Apple's approach is better for the consumer, and better morally (if there is such a thing in modern buisness).

  84. Misleading lines in article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In many ways, the story sounds eerily familiar. As was the case in computers, Apple has sprinted ahead in the music market with an innovative product, elegant design and tight links between its hardware and software."

    I know he doesn't say it, but it sounds as if he's implying that the Mac market share in the 1980's was as big as the iPod's is now, which (IIRC) simply isn't true: the Mac has never had more than a 10% market share.

    According to NPD, the iPod's US market share (Apple- and HP-sold models) fell (!) to just over 90% in September, a 1.1% drop. They've got a looong way to fall, and they're not exactly sitting on their butts.

    It's one thing to keep a competitor's product at less than 10% market share; it's quite another to steal an 90% market share. Just ask Apple.

    1. Re:Misleading lines in article by CptNerd · · Score: 1
      "In many ways, the story sounds eerily familiar. As was the case in computers, Apple has sprinted ahead in the music market with an innovative product, elegant design and tight links between its hardware and software."

      I know he doesn't say it, but it sounds as if he's implying that the Mac market share in the 1980's was as big as the iPod's is now, which (IIRC) simply isn't true: the Mac has never had more than a 10% market share.

      You know, Apple did make computers before the Macintosh. And some few of us who were around then remember when the AppleII family was the personal computer of choice for most people...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    2. Re:Misleading lines in article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, Apple did make computers before the Macintosh. And some few of us who were around then remember when the AppleII family was the personal computer of choice for most people...

      Yes, I know. I have an Apple II still running in the other room. That does not change what I said one iota.

      I don't think that the Apple II is what he meant by "an innovative product, elegant design and tight links between its hardware and software". The Apple II line was known for being easy to program (with BASIC built-in), good for education, lots of titles available (including a couple killer apps), and popular with hobbyists -- different than what the Mac is (and was) known for, which are exactly the attributes he lists.

      Even if it was what he meant, when you say "Apple", most people today think "Mac" (and "small market share"), so by comparing the iPod to it, he is being misleading, whether or not a strict technical interpretation of the facts is true or not -- and that was my claim.

    3. Re:Misleading lines in article by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      *Sigh*

      Fine, whatever. I remember what I read at the time, and the praise heaped on Apple for its innovations and design, including the ease of programming etc. that you list. Of course, my memories can't possibly compete against your powers of authorial divination and illogic, so count yourself in the "winner" column here.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  85. but they still suck by poptones · · Score: 1

    MP3s stand out in my music collection like a sore thumb because even at 320kbps they still sound "soft" and have a hard time playing gapless. This isn't a problem with the player, it's a problem with the format, and it will remain so.

    I'm not sayng this to choose sides from the only two players apparently mentioned here - If you want free you need to go with ogg vorbis, flac, or some such equivalent. I don't use MP3 for my own stuff, I don't use aac, and I'm sure not giving my money to either of these corporate raiders, cuz they both suck. People arguing over which one of these comapnies is "best" is as meaningless as arguing over which end of the egg to crack.

  86. Don't underestimate FUD by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    Mainfarme talk:"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".Music player talk:"I won't go wrong if it has a Microsoft label on it."

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Don't underestimate FUD by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Well, the reason why no one got fired for buying IBM was that it was safe, conventional choice. IBM was trying to reinforce the idea that it was a no brainer. For MP3 players, it might be more likely to say, "No one ever got laughed at for listening to an iPod", (given that it's the socially desirable player, i.e., the status symbol). Now, that's pressing the Fear button!

      In recent years, MS's reputation has taken a beating and is somewhat tarnished, even in the eyes of the general public. Apple's reputation among the general public, on the other hand, has increased.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Don't underestimate FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can pretty much tell that your mother dressed you funny, but as soon as you had a real job, you went straight to Banana Republic or The Gap and bought a new wardrobe. Maybe a trip to Hot Topic if you think you're rebellious.

      I can tell because my mother also dressed me funny. But I stayed true to myself, and continue to dress funny to this day.

    3. Re:Don't underestimate FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. You clothes aren't even mildly amusing.

      On the other hand, that your mother is still dressing you is hilarious.

  87. What can be read between the lines in this piece by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's a fairly good article, with the real goods to be found on page 3 where Microsoft's strategy is outlined: "As the underdog in audio technology, Microsoft has marshaled its formidable resources to get others behind its standard."

    Translation: pay off every bastard and his brother until you have made the hardware and distribution ends of the music business your vassals.

    The president of Rio explains how the hardware sector is being colonized: "Microsoft made it worth our while to get them into our box...They bring a whole suite of service to us, marketing, help with testing and engineering support."

    And at the distribution end, there is more bliss: "I never would have believed I would say this, but Microsoft has been easy to work with," said Ted Cohen, a senior vice president at EMI Recorded Music.

    That stuff will scare Apple, which has had to cajole and bug the music biz to get what it wants. Because this is the key: the battle between Microsoft and Apple won't be fought at the consumer level--that's merely where the proles await the outcome. The real battle is being fought by the Microsoft treasury as it gradually puts everyone on the payroll. As with so much else to which it has applied its monopoly power and wealth, Microsoft will buy this market, too. Once it has blocked and barred and obfuscated and outspent Apple, the good free market ideologues will be along to lecture us again on how consumer "choice" has tamed yet another frontier.

  88. Purchase Model vs. Subscription Model by calstraycat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think Apple got it right with iTunes when they decided against the subscription model. I think people do want to own their media rather than pay a monthly fee for access to media.

    It is the content-owning corporations and distributers with no hardware to sell who would love to see the subscription model succeed, not the consumers.

    The reason is simple: the subscription model is the holy grail for corporations because it affords them a predictable, guaranteed revenue stream. In business, you can't beat that model.

    It is the way cable television is sold. Given that I watch little television, I would prefer to pay only for the programs I watch. But, I'm not given that choice. I have to sign up for a monthly subscription for a ton of channels I never watch.

    So, I hope that long term Apple is right and Microsoft is wrong regarding subscription services. When they begin to distribute movies on line, I would rather see an iTunes-like model as rather than another another monthly bill. Some months I buy music, some months I don't. Ditto for movies. On-line distribution should allow for this choice.

    1. Re:Purchase Model vs. Subscription Model by hexgrid · · Score: 1

      It is the way cable television is sold. Given that I watch little television, I would prefer to pay only for the programs I watch. But, I'm not given that choice. I have to sign up for a monthly subscription for a ton of channels I never watch.

      Cancel cable, sign up for netflix.
  89. Why bother with either - use a Dell DJ & Linsp by phowardcom · · Score: 1

    Have a look at http://info.linspire.com/lsongs/ It runs on Linspire (a version of Linux) which is aimed at Windows converts and newcomers to Linux. They made sure that it works with many file formats and loads of different players. Why get bogged down in the battle between M$ and Apple - get Linspire and give Lsongs a go!

    --
    www.phoward.com - www.corrigenda.org
  90. Re:Gates vs. Jobs by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 1
    Gates- Billionaire, worlds wealthiest individual, worlds biggest philanthropist

    Jobs- not

    It would be a little bit hard for them to -both- be the world's wealthiest individuals. BTW I believe that Mr Jobs is quite happy - he's certainly as comfortable financially as anyone would need to be.

  91. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by network23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have never ever met someone having any problems at all moving music to their iPod.

    Almost everyone I have met that use Microsoft technology have serious problem moving their music to their WMA players.

    The Apple/iTunes/iPod works.
    The Microsoft/WMA/whatever doesn't.

  92. Re:What can be read between the lines in this piec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And at the distribution end, there is more bliss: "I never would have believed I would say this, but Microsoft has been easy to work with," said Ted Cohen, a senior vice president at EMI Recorded Music.

    Big surprise, the record company guys are ignorant and/or blinded by greed. Microsoft is always nice and easy to work with, until they have what they need from you. Then they yank down your pants and bend you over.

    The list of companies Microsoft has "partnered" with and then screwed is a long one. Expect more names on it in the near future:

    Then: "We've been working and have gotten a lot of traction in this space for a long while," said David Caulton, group manager for the Windows Media division, adding that Microsoft has no plans for a competing service. "We're still very comfortable with the strategy of enabling lots and lots of partners to build these things, rather than build a closed proprietary service on our own."

    Now: "Oh, we changed our mind about not opening our own music store. Sorry!"

  93. Re:Gates vs. Jobs by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

    If only I could fail so badly that I became a multimillionaire with legions of zealots hanging on my every word...

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  94. Re:Gates vs. Jobs by Raffaello · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gates- has a got wife
    Jobs- doesnt


    Jobs' official bio at Apple would seem to differ. Jobs has been married for years, and lives with his wife and 3 of his 4 children in Palo Alto.

  95. Not Deja Vu by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Much is made of this battle between the two companies. Last time, Apple didn't see MS as a threat until too late. They focused too much on IBM. There are differenes:

    1) This time around Apple is the market leader. Apple was always behind IBM and the PC market share. 2) Apple has allies this time. It's not IBM and MS vs Apple. Its Apple and HP and the music companies vs MS and Dell and the music companies.

    On a side note, the one thing that bothered me about the article which shows how unresearched it was is how it portrays Apple as not willing to play with others when that isn't the case.

    1) For the last time, AAC is not proprietary but Fairplay is. Meaning the music you buy from iTunes may be locked, but anything a consumer rips and encodes is not locked.
    2) Windows Media formats are just as proprietary. Real player formata are also proprietary. MS and Real have no justifiable argument here. I don't see them opening their format to allow Mac/Linux owners onto their sites, yet they complain that iPods and iTunes shut them out.
    3) Almost all portable media players play MP3s.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Not Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple was always behind IBM and the PC market share.

      Whaaaa? If you're just talking about the Macintosh era, yeah. In terms of the personal computer market from its inception, however, Apple owned it (courtesy of the Apple II) from 1977 until sometime after August of 1981.

    2. Re:Not Deja Vu by dtungsten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not IBM and MS vs Apple. Its Apple and HP and the music companies vs MS and Dell and the music companies

      Not only that, but in the desktop harware arena, IBM is on Apple's side now.

  96. Re:"Look, these guys are acting very uncompetitive by Raffaello · · Score: 1

    For the third or fourth time in this thread, we don't need the DOJ to bring antitrust actions against MS. Private firms (like Novell, who just won a half billion dollar settlement) are doing this, thanks to the fact that the Clinton DOJ got it established as a matter of legal fact that MS is a monopoly.

  97. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows Media Player: Gates has always played catch-up to Steve Jobs...

    Not really, since iTunes came later. I'd say WMP had an era of trying to be as popular as WinAmp, and came up with rediculous skins. I think MS missed the boat on skinning though.

    Gates wants to desperately wave his hand and say "This IS the media player you are looking for! Why, you ask. One, because I said so! Two, because it does everything you could ever want on a computer. It plays music, movies, it slices, it dices, it makes mounds of juliene potatoes. And three, because I said so bitch! (apologies to Rick James)"

    Hmm, well I downloaded a video of a recent speech he made, and he did seem to constantly be referring to iPod and Apple, directly or indirectly, making jibes at them in some ways more rediculous than others. He constantly used the key word "ecosystem" to set MS solutions apart from Apple's, as opposed to saying just "I told you so." The PC world has an ecosystem of players, music stores, and third party developers, while Apple is just a handful of iPods, one iTunes, and one iTunes music store. That's Gates' spin, interpret it as you wish. I didn't buy his multiple online music stores argument, for one, since - let's face it - DRMs plain suck! Don't matter if you got a billion mor shit than the other, it's still shit. Audio CDs gives us freedom and higher quality that online music stores robs us from, and that's a fact, Jack.

  98. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by jxyama · · Score: 1

    yep, i agree with ya... to beat windows, linux will need to offer more than just windows with bells and whistles.

  99. Re:Borrrrring by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

    i don't think it's a style-statement either, people are just sick of dealing with buggy virus-laden software and bad design. it doesn't help that MS are everything bad about big business in this country as well. Interestingly enough, the iPod is on the negative end of the spectrum when it comes to sound quality. Anyone who actually *cares* about the sound of their music does not buy an iPod. When iPods stop becoming trendy (like iMacs used to be), only people who really *need* to store 40GB of music will purchase it. And anyone who has that much music should be looking for sound quality. I stick with my heavy and cheap Zen Xtra simply because it's sound quality is leaps and bounds better than the iPod's.

  100. You are all forgetting about authorization by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

    When you need to play your iTMS purchases, you must play them on an authorized machine. If a machine doesn't run a version of iTunes that can call home to authorize you, you can't play your purchases.

    iTunes 4.2 will get the job done for now, but when Apple pulls support for v4.2, if you were to try to authorize a computer with 4.2 installed, you can't.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  101. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    Its the quality of the audio file you are listening to trend-spotter, not the player. an mp3 file doesn't change from player to player. the only thing that might change the sound quality from player to player are the headphones.

    --


  102. Yes, I can. by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    Yes, actually, the difference was enourmous.

    Now, if you drive some cheap P.O.S. rattletrap with a crappy stereo, you won't notice the difference.

    But if you actually drive a quality car, with a good stereo, good sound deadening, and a reasonable powerplant, you most certainly can hear the difference.

  103. Prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you (not being an ignoramus) are so much smarter than I am, you could prove it instead of resorting to name-calling ;)

    Twice you've said that I'm a revisionist historian, but have not given one supporting fact.

    1. Re:Prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't argue with the brain-dead.

  104. Re:I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Sto by ThousandStars · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Until a sizeable minority or perhaps majority of households have BROAD broadband -- in the neighborhood of 1+MB/sec -- I don't see this idea happening. Until there is an easy way of transferring that movie to the TV, where someone might actually want to watch said movie, I don't see it happening.

    Besides, cable companies are already moving into this market with video on demand. I think it's going to be at least two years before something like the iMovie video store becomes even feasible.

  105. Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Besides, Windows is superior to Mac OS in every way. Just look at how much more hardware it runs on. If Apple tried to do that they'd fail miserably.

    I admit, this statement was a slight troll.

    Now that you're reading this though, I'd like to resume the name-calling: you sir are a salad tossing buffoon who is too mentally deficient to realize when he has been bested. Being a half-wit, you really couldn't have known that it is you who is the original troll here. Have a nice day ;0

  106. "Proprietary standard"??? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    Ummm, proprietary standard? If that's not an oxymoron, someone please tell me what is...

    1. Re:"Proprietary standard"??? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

      An oxymoron is a word or phrase that contradicts itself, such as "sweet sorrow" or "Microsoft Linux." "Proprietary Standard" is not an oxymoron because the two words are not mutually exclusive. If a proprietary x is widely used and generally accepted, than it is a proprietary standard.

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    2. Re:"Proprietary standard"??? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Except that the word proprietary essentially implies non-standard and exclusive to a certain brand or style, or whatever. ..."held as property of a private owner".. "used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right"... Sounds like something that you'd have to struggle excessively to make a "standard".

      Anyway, once something is standard, it kind of loses its proprietary-ness, seeing as it becomes no longer exclusive to just one company or brand. I guess technically it could still be, and just "licensed" to others... but that's not what I would call standard.

      I guess it also depends on how you define "standard". I mean, people try and say WMA is standard. What a joke! Standard on Windows, maybe. Even that is pushing it. You don't have huge huge piracy networks that trade WMA files, for instance. The only people that really use WMA files are companies that want to cripple the freedom that users have with the file, or uninformed users who rip their CDs using Windows Media Player...

      Also, on a somewhat-related topic, allowing proprietary formats to become "standard" is a foolish idea from the start. As it's been discussed 5000+ times on here, MS Word's "doc" format has made users unable to read their own or each others' documents countless times, due to the proprietary nature of the format. I'm sure most people here understand the risks involved with using formats controlled, owned and dictated by corporations, but for some odd, unknown reason, the general populous fails to realize that the very moment Microsoft doesn't want you to read your own documents anymore, they can make it happen. Obviously that's an unlikely situation, but think about it - do you really want some immoral corporation having that kind of control over the documents *you created and legally own*?

      Whatever..

  107. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by CatOne · · Score: 1

    The "token amount" was like $150 million dollars.

    That's not even a "token" amount, even to Bill Gates ;-)

  108. How to prevent incest with an apostrophe... by dtungsten · · Score: 0

    Surely you mean:

    given the number of photos my mum is sending of her Grandkids (my sister's [kids])

    Thus we can see the importance of proper punctuation (or at least good editing in the case of a typo).

    I was seriously trying to figure out how your mother's granddaughter would be your sister.

    1. Re:How to prevent incest with an apostrophe... by bhima · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I did!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  109. Re:It's not the drm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iTunes should automatically ask you if you'd like to burn an MP3CD if you put enough songs into the playlist you wish to burn.

    The DRM does not stop you from burning any of your music, so I don't really know what you're talking about...

  110. Re:Borrrrring by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

    It does. There's something called a sound-to-noise ratio, if you've heard of it. Curiously enough, Apple has not released those specificiations. Shitty electronics introduce noise. Unfortunately, Apple decided to spend more money designing the click wheel than designing the electronics, so the iPod suffers from one of the worse sound-to-noise ratios out there. When I listen to the same song on my friend's iPod and compare it to my Nomad Xtra, I can tell the difference. Most people wouldn't care, but I'm something of a budding audiophile, so I'm steering clear of the iPod for awhile.

  111. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by zpok · · Score: 1

    Well, given Apple's amount of cash in the bank and the amount of shares issued, it was indeed a "token" amount.

    We mere mortals can only dream about this kind of cash but we're talking about one of the - if not the - richest individuals on the planet and one of the biggest companies on the planit.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  112. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Not really, since iTunes came later.

    Well, if you want to make an apples to apples comparison, Qucktime player predates WMP. And as a library manager/online music store that transfers music to portable devices, iTunes had that capability long before WMP did.

  113. Re:Borrrrring by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    a budding audiophile

    Huh huh. People who insist you have to spend a $1000 on a cd player when in reality a $20 one sounds every bit as good. Did you ever consider the fact that your Nomad has better headphones?

  114. Re:I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Sto by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

    It could. Your average DivX stream at 640x480 is about 125K/sec. For anime, anyway. (Granted, that's usually an easy encode.) That would be streamable over even 1.5Mbps. But Apple would probably want to push MPEG-4, which is nicer for the processors, but that would probably be too much at the same resolution.

    On the other hand, some of the movie trailers are pretty high res, and they stream just fine.

  115. So many differences by inkswamp · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I agree that the writer shouldn't have tried to draw a parallel between what happened with the Mac and what's happening with the iPod.

    First of all--and this is the most important--Apple partnered with MS back then. That's how MS did its famous reverse-engineering to steal a lot of the Mac "look and feel" (which Apple hadn't protected in any substantial way--i.e., patents, etc.) There is no partnership this time around. It's quite telling to see who is begging for the partnership (MS) and who is wisely refusing it (Apple.) You don't make a deal with the devil, especially if you already did it once before.

    Second, Apple isn't just sitting around this time, hoping that the brilliance and beauty of their products will win the day. It's clear they've learned to keep pushing the boundaries. The iPod has only been around for --what?--two years now and look how many revisions and product variations Apple has produced. Look how many promotions Apple has done. Look how they've built iTunes into the best cross-platform music player and store. Look how they've partnered with Pepsi, HP and a wide range of retailers I just spotted the iPod Mini in a Costco ad. They're not treating the iPod like an exclusive island resort like they did with the Mac. It's come one, come all.

    Third, they are reshaping the culture and technology of the Mac to support the iPod (and vice-versa), music and the whole "digital lifestyle" thing. OS X, QuickTime, Core Audio, GarageBand. It's totally embedded into what they're doing. Remember that the Mac was, for a surprisingly long time during and after its conception, treated like an aberration and wasn't fully supported by Apple at first.

    Fourth, it's NOT PROPRIETARY. The iPod doesn't just play iTunes downloads. The Mac was bogged down for the first half of its existence with too many proprietary aspects.

    Fifth, incompatible software. Remember how the Mac's big "weakness" was that it wasn't DOS-compatible and later Windows-compatible? Extend the analogy. The "software" in this situation is music and the iPod is fully compatible with the rest of the world here. There is no software gap to close.

    I appreciate that the writer is trying to get a sense of the current situation, but I think comparing it to the Mac's rough history is shortsighted.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  116. 1000 songs in 30 days? by inkswamp · · Score: 1, Troll
    I love this bit from the article:
    "If you sit down next to me and say you have 1,000 songs and you pay $10 a month, how cool will I feel to say I paid $1,000 for 1,000 songs," asked Jonathan Sasse, the president of iRiver America, a subsidiary of ReignCom, a Korean maker of portable players that has endorsed Microsoft's format for subscription services.

    Mr. Sasse... nobody buys a 1000 songs a month. Your analogy is stupid. How cool is that?

    Subscription services will have a place in the future of music, but most of us, I'm guessing, don't have the time to listen to 1000 new songs a month. I think most people are just like me: you get one or two songs or a band or album stuck in your head and you put that into heavy rotation for a while.

    Jesus, I know nothing about business, have no sense of this stuff, but I find it hard to believe that these guys can actually be this self-deluded.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:1000 songs in 30 days? by swissfondue · · Score: 1

      I don't rent. Hell I can't even buy at iTMS, being in isolated Switzerland. However your argument of listening to a few songs in heavy rotation for a while, and then going on to new stuff actually validates the subscription business model. For the price of one CD, I could listen to the songs until I'm sick of them and then move on. If in one year's time I want to listen to the songs again, they are there. How many people have CDs which they never listen to again? I have a bunch of these. I think Apple should offer both options. Subscription is a great way to test new music. If I then like it so much I want to own it, I should be able to get a rebate on the purchase if I'm on a subscription scheme. This is one of the arguments for p2p: people discover music and then buy it for good karma; if it is easy and cheap enough.

      --
      Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
  117. Re:These programs certainly epitomize these guys.. by swissfondue · · Score: 1

    Yesterday I found a reason for wanting an iPod photo. About 30 minutes before leaving home, I decided to create and burn a few slideshows to DVD so that my parents could see the latest kids photos on their widescreen TV. The creative part was easy: choosing which digital photo albums, which transitions, the length between each slide and which tune to play with each of the 9 slide shows and the general theme of the dvd with background picture and music. All on my Mac of course. But then the encoding of the DVD started and didn't finish in time to take with me. Had I had an iPod photo, I could have just taken it with me and hooked it up to the TV.

    --
    Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
  118. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    do you have a link to a legitimate article to back this up? i find it really hard to believe that someone such as yourself that is so concerned with noise-ratios would even listen to an mp3 player instead of a cd player.

    --


  119. Re:Are There Acutal Bill Gates 'Fans'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mother-in-law is technically illiterate, but she's just got herself (at the age of 65) a degree in English with Religious Studies.

    Based on her degree, I'd say your mother-in-law is more qualified to join in OS discussions than most other people...

    aRTee

  120. Re:Borrrrring by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

    Nope, it's definitely not that. I purchased new headphones, Grado-SR 60's and tested two identical copies (I ripped these) of the same song on a 3g iPod and my Zen Xtra.

    Being an audiophile doesn't mean blowing $1000 on your sound equipment. You can get excellent headphones for $50-$70, and the Zen Xtra is $100 cheaper than the iPod.

  121. Re:Microsoft owns a portion of Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $150M of non-voting shares.

    When Apple had $4B in cash in the bank.

    and it *was* a "token" amount for MS, as it was a lot cheaper than paying the lawyers that the legal alternative would have consumed.

  122. Re:Gates vs. Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fool! Jobs is not a multimillionaire! He is a BILLIONAIRE! Get it right you insensitive clod! Give the man his due.

    By the way, he still only makes $1 a year salary from Apple. So, he is a severely-underpaid billionaire.

  123. Re:Borrrrring by reso · · Score: 1

    "I'm screwing up...one day at a time...whats your excuse?"

    your mom making you is my excuse

    --


  124. Re:I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Sto by ivano · · Score: 1
    The number of people that have broadband will increase (just like when the iPod first came out - a very narrowband of people could make use of it...now...well you know that story.)

    More interestingly is that of the H.264/AVC codec. It would suite downloading mpegs very nicely thankyou.

    Ciao

  125. Re:I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Sto by zbrimhall · · Score: 0

    In Northern California, anyhow, NetFlix still provides higher bandwidth than the local DSL provider.

    I get to watch as many movies as I have the time for per week (usually four), they aren't crappy divx rips, and I get to choose where to play them. Works for me.

    Oh, and I guess an average of $1.20 or so per isn't too shabby.

  126. compelling and telling. by luxuryluke · · Score: 1
    Microsoft also raised hackles recently when it started its MSN Music Store to compete with companies like Napster that it had been courting for years. That isn't so unusual for Microsoft, its executives say. The company often finds itself both competing and cooperating, they say, with companies in the software business.
    Can this article actually be any clearer? While it does point out the ups and downs of both Apple and Microsoft, I believe this paragraph to be the most telling...
    --
    --- Das einzige, das wir zu fürchten haben, ist die Furcht selbst. ...so drink a bier and relax!
  127. Actually you can DRM FairPlay by mkiwi · · Score: 1

    It is little known that any music can be DRM'd (at least on a Mac) in mere seconds. You can have ALL your music Appl-fied with FairPlay. All you have to do is drag a song to the "Purchased Songs" playlist, and poof! DRM.

  128. Re:Gates vs. Jobs by FaasNat · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm, yeah, I think I've heard that it's his kids in the iMovie demos or something.....

    --
    There's never enough when you have too little
  129. Re:Gates vs. Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gates- has a got wife
    Jobs- doesnt


    "Are you a virgin?"

    (In other words, you are full of s__t)