Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Music and the Terrible Return of DRM

Posted by Soulskill on from the must-have-been-a-short-vacation dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Apple's rumored music streaming service looks set to materialize soon, and a lot of people are talking about how good it might be. But Nilay Patel is looking at the other side — if the service fits with Apple's typical mode of operation, it'll only work with other Apple products. "That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music." He points out Steve Jobs's 2007 essay on the state of digital music and notes that Jobs seemed to feel DRM was a waste of time — something forced on Apple by the labels. "But it's no longer the labels pushing DRM on the music services; it's the services themselves, because locking you into a single ecosystem guarantees you'll keep paying their monthly subscription fees and hopefully buy into the rest of their ecosystem. ... Apple Music might be available on Android, but it probably won't be as good, because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone.... There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"

170 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. ZOMG by zieroh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody is actually forcing you to participate in any new service, are they?

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    1. Re:ZOMG by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but its existence denies me the right to not want it.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:ZOMG by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Certainly not, but writing an actual article about anything of importance would require actual work, where as even mentioning Apple is sure to garner all manner of clicks as both fans and haters crawl out of the woodwork. Next there will be complaints about a lack of competition on the inflated costs of streaming services.

    3. Re:ZOMG by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      Nobody is actually forcing you to participate in any new service, are they?

      Nobody claimed that they were, though if Apple have exclusives through their service, people still may miss out if they're not using it.

      That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy that crops up here over and over again.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:ZOMG by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy

      To be fair, the entire complaint of the author was that now he would have a fourth music service. In this case, the actual solution is, in fact, to not buy it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:ZOMG by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's legitimate to complain about services like this that are supposed to be attractive to the consumer. We want more good, legal services as an alternative to torrent sites and ripping CDs. Some people like streaming services because they allow you to explore music without having to buy a lot of CDs or listen to the crappy short previews on Amazon.

      If you offer the public a service then you can expect criticism of that service if it happens to suck. The wider point that walled gardens are a bad thing is worth pointing out too. Unlike TV where you get a load of random channels over the air or bundled in your cable/satellite packages you have to pay for each of these services individually, so if you have one or two you probably won't shell out for a third or forth. It's an interesting new market but one where people are kind of moving towards say just Spotify for streaming music, or just Netflix for video. On the other hand it is usually very easy to switch. Interesting times.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:ZOMG by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The point about DRM and exclusive deals is valid. If a band decides to exclusively sell their CDs through a particular chain, no problem: if I want the CD, I'll order it from that store. If I want a book that is exclusively sold through Amazon, I'll get it there. This is the model that many people had in mind when we moved from physical media to downloadable content: buy anywhere, pay once, play anywhere. But streaming services are paid for access rather than content, and if fragmentation and exclusive deals become more prevalent, then we will have to subscribe to multiple services to get the music we want. It's worse for e-books: if Amazon is the only one selling a particular book, I can't just simply get it from them but I'll have to buy their damn reader as well. As one WSJ columnist wrote: the book industry is even more clueless about the digital age than the music industry ever was.

      Or we go back to CDs and ripping. Or the Pirate Bay. So indeed, we have a choice, and no one is forcing us. In case of exclusive e-books I'll just rip it from the pirate bay, then buy it from the store without ever downloading it. It's still illegal and I'd vastly prefer a more convenient way to shop, but this is what DRM and exclusive deals get you.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:ZOMG by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Did you even bother RTFS?

      Yes, I did. That sounds like what the author was getting at.

      Bullshit and utter nonsense. In a capitalist system, anyone can sell anything they want (within the confines of legality) and the market will determine whether that was a reasonable idea or not.

      Yes, and part of the mechanism that determines this involves the free exchange of information and opinion on a given product. Whether or not people own it or not.

      That was the point. What did you *still* not understand after having it explained three times?

      As I *already* explained, it's an illogical and defensive extrapolation; why would someone having the right to freely sell something imply that someone else didn't have the right to share their opinion on it, regardless of whether they own or intend owning it?!

      Yet people- yourself included- seem to act as if this is somehow an attack on the "free" market. It isn't; quite the opposite, as I said, the free market requires freedom of information to operate efficiently.

      Go and reread what I said; you had it explained to you and you still made the same stupid mistake of assuming that "free market -> no freedom of speech to criticise" (which is what it boils down to). I'm not rehashing what I said a fourth time.

      PERIOD.

      Adding "PERIOD" in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't make your argument any stronger.

      Whining about whether such a product or service should be allowed to exist misses the point that it's not up to you whether they should be allowed to exist or not.

      Don't get the impression that anyone was denying this; rather they were criticising it. *You* were the one who jumped to this conclusion, presumably because you assume that (valid) criticism of a product is an attack on the free market- even though it's quite the opposite- and defensively start making assumptions about what people were actually saying.

      If you don't like it, buy something else.

      That doesn't negate anyone's right to criticise the product. But we're going round in circles here.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:ZOMG by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the entire complaint of the author was that now he would have a fourth music service. In this case, the actual solution is, in fact, to not buy it.

      I read the implied criticism as being that he'd have to subscribe to yet another service to get whatever content was exclusive to that one (as already happens with many video streaming services).

      I didn't get the impression from his tone that he was actually moaning about being forced (as in, absolutely no choice in the matter) to buy Apple's service.

      Even if Apple's streaming was just a poxy generic service with no exclusives, though, he'd still have the right to slag it off on that basis! :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    9. Re:ZOMG by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Unless Apple decide that they want exclusive content and the copyright owners grant them this. If you then what this content, your are limited to using their service. Or simply decide that this content isn't worth it. Services with exclusive content is crap and deserve to disappear from the market.

      So goodbye Google Play, Amazon, Spotify, et bloody cetera.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Here's the plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You people could break all those services if you just staged a massive account cancellation. Then they would...oh, I forgot. You're weak.

    1. Re:Here's the plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget breaking the services and massive account cancellation.

      You could've just started and ended with "You're weak".

      if people don't like the service, don't pay for it. As much as large corporations try to control the market and as much political sway they do indeed have, all people have to do is just not pay for a service they don't want.

      It's as simple as capitalism can get: If people don't pay for it and will pay for something else, sooner or later, that something else will be offered. It may be sooner. It may be later.

      Streaming and DRM of mainstream audio/video is more common than (legally-available) DRM-free audio/video downloads because people have proven that they're willing to pay for streaming and DRM. If people didn't pay for it, somebody would've eventually offered more downloadable DRM-free content.

      So simple, but instead people will pay and complain.

    2. Re:Here's the plan by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or I could just buy the music I want DRM free and make my own damn playlists.

      Streaming services are just that, services. If you want more control of your music, Buy it!

    3. Re:Here's the plan by zerocommazero · · Score: 1

      This.

    4. Re:Here's the plan by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is not people being "weak". The problem is that market self-regulation (and nothing else is mass-voting with your valet) requires informed, rational and somewhat altruistic actors. Now, most people are have no clue what is going on, so the first condition is not met. Most people also have trouble making rational decisions, and will go for emotional ones instead. These are easy to manipulate and that is routinely done by advertisers and politics, so "rational" is not met either. Fortunately, the "homo oeconomicus" model is fundamentally broken, as except for the 5% psychopaths, people are altruistic, and place the good of others and the society they are living in often before their own good or what on a reasonable balance. Unfortunately, with 2 out of 3 necessary conditions not met, market self-regulation does not have a chance.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Here's the plan by jjhues7676 · · Score: 1

      I actually quit Pandora when they stopped giving a discount to yearly subscribers.

    6. Re: Here's the plan by cjjjer · · Score: 1

      Lost Interest.

    7. Re:Here's the plan by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Of course, you're assuming that external regulation of a market will be done by informed, altruistic entities in government, right?

      The kind of people attracted to government are not inclined toward altruism, they're inclined toward "More power, more power!".

      Nor are they more likely to be informed of any particular issue, since there are thousands of issues they need to be experts in to pass sane laws regulating same.

      So, we get experts advising them, right? And where are the experts coming from? From the people being regulated, of course. Who knows more about book publishing than book publishers, eh?

      Can you say "regulatory capture"? Sure you can....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Here's the plan by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Because nothing of what you claim I assume or say is actually there in what I wrote.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Here's the plan by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      While I agree, I do like what Google Play Music All Access has to offer (aside from its ridiculously long and silly sounding name). I can create playlists and download them on my phone. It's 2015, so I mean, that phone is with me practically every where I go... and if I don't have cell reception, it's no biggy because I have my playlists downloaded. This also means that I'm not constantly using data while I'm listening to music. I can also access the music really anywhere I can log into the internet, or anywhere that I can use my phone. It may be DRM'd, but it's non-invasive and it's really non-inhibiting... Maybe I'm naive, but I'm okay with this kind of DRM.

  3. "Is this what we wanted?" by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    I never wanted monthly music rental to begin with, so ... no.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's basically the same as paying to see a show live or a movie in the theatres.

      Most of us, with some exceptions, only see a given show or movie once. That's not how most of us consume music.

      There's no real need for you to own copies of music.

      There's no real need to assign, restrict, or control property rights on a copy of song either. The entire idea that I would even need to consider whether I am permitted or not to have a copy or listen to it however I want is ENTIRELY artificial.

    2. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by lucm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of us, with some exceptions, only see a given show or movie once. That's not how most of us consume music.

      Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now? No way, there will be more new stuff. Always more. Some will last a season, some a year, but then it will be replaced by something else.

      With a streaming service you can listen to music that becomes a great temporary soundtrack for your life. I remember a few years ago, it was all about Katy Perry and Pink and Lykke Li on Pandora. Then there was that hilarious Selfie song. Then the Ting Tings and whatnot. When I hear one of those songs it brings back general memories of a time in my life, but there's no way I'd go out and buy those albums now.

      Sure, sometimes I discover an artist on a streaming service, then I go buy their albums on iTunes, and I still have my vinyls and CDs. But for the most part, music is now like a landscape that goes by during a train ride. It's there for a while, then it's something else, and overall I find the experience more enjoyable than a 12-CD changer or a Winamp playlist.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by Known+Nutter · · Score: 2

      Who?

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    4. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have no idea what you are talking about. are those JINGLES or actual music with lasting value?

      I assume its junk throw-away music.

      what makes you think that your lack of interest in REAL music is typical of all audiences?

      I have albums I bought 40 years ago that I still listen to.

      moral of the story; stop wasting your time on stupid jingles. there is good lasting music out there.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by lucm · · Score: 2

      Mozart was writing "real" music 200 years before those 40 years old albums you bought. Why did you buy those jingles with no lasting value?

      The music that was popular when you were younger was not better than older or more recent music. But it was the music you grew up with, and it was playing in the background when you had your first kiss or your first car. That's why it matters to you. The fact that you don't relate to today's music doesn't mean it's garbage.

      I was shocked a while ago when I heard a young person call REM and Barenaked Ladies "oldies". To me, "oldies" was Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby. That's the thing with time, it keeps moving forward.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by lucm · · Score: 2

      You're a marketing consumer. For example I still hear and like Richard Clayderman

      I agree, Richard Clayderman is Da Shit. I own all his albums; they are just there on the top shelf of my cd collection, between the Liberace discography and Kenny G's greatest hits. There's nothing I like better than put "Ballade pour Adeline" on repeat on my Juliette stereo while I enjoy my weekly scrapbooking session. I sure got a nice return on that $3 bargain bin purchase at K-Mart.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      You can't fully describe the longevity of a piece of music until it stops being played by any significant number of people. The Beatles records from 1965 have lasted fifty years and counting. Someone talking about 40 year old records might have bought Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" in 1975. At some future point, when people have stopped listening to that music in large numbers, only then can we really compare them to something like Mozart.

      But if you listening to music whose relevancy has already passed by in a year or three, that's by definition disposable jingle music. And to many people that also makes it garbage. It's rather ridiculous to compare that to any music that's already lasted decades. A century from now, maybe the Beatles will be a forgotten little band, while people still listen to Mozart. But you'd have to be completely deaf to pop culture and popular musical history to claim bands like the Beatles or Floyd are listened to today only because people have happy memories from when they first heard them.

    8. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now?

      I'd really disagree with this. Spotify to me is revolutionary. People use spotify because music lasts so long, and to filter out the junk, because the cost of a really diverse music collection (buying CDs) is much much greater than my $10 / month spotify fee.

      As an amatuer guitarist, it is not uncommon to want to listen to several CDs to hear specific styles or understand the history of music. Before spotify, I might spend $100 on CDs trying to research the roots of blues (e.g. just buy one CD of each of the greats: Son House, Muddy Waters, Wolf, etc.). Or decide to listen to several CDs by a single artist to see their growth. That was very costly buying CDs, but on spotify? Still $10 a month.

      It allows me to surround myself with music. Literally, I listen to music all day at work, and never the same CD in a row (and usually not the same CD in a week). Just to keep up such a diverse set of music was incredibly costly before. And whereas buying CDs I used to waste money on the occasional dud I'd never listen to more than once, that never happens anymore.

      And it's not just me. Take guys like my coworker for example. He downloaded the Rolling Stone Top 500 Album of all time list, and started listening from bottom to top. Great idea that you couldn't afford to do buying CDs ($5k to listen)

      Another great example was at a family gathering a few weeks ago. I could just put on music that was appropriate to the crowd without having to buy a lot of CDs (and then not buy the one someone requests)

      Really streaming music is revolutionary. It's night and day from 20 years ago where I used to go to The Wall, drop $20+ on a CD, and be stuck only getting what they might have in stock. Suddenly, no more special ordering necessary. Any style, anywhere, anytime.

    9. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by lucm · · Score: 1

      But you'd have to be completely deaf to pop culture and popular musical history to claim bands like the Beatles or Floyd are listened to today only because people have happy memories from when they first heard them.

      The context is different. It's like baseball. There was a time where a fat guy that was hitting the ball further than the average could make it in the major leagues. Now there's people who could throw that fat guy further than that who can't make it in the major leagues because the competition is insane and the sports science has made huge progress. The average ball player is a formidable athlete compared to the top guys of 20 years ago.

      It's the same with music. A decent band in the 70s had a good chance to become successful. Now there's people who sing as well as Celine Dion who line up by the thousands for a place in American Idol or other shows, just to get some exposure.

      It's like that with everything. In the mid to late 90s, if you knew HTML and maybe had a general idea of how a browser works you were immediately hired as a web developer and paid the big bucks. Now knowing HTML is not even a skill, it's a no-brainer requirement in a lot of jobs.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    10. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by lucm · · Score: 1

      Yeah music is like that. Go to Wal-mart and you'll see CDs like "All the classical music you'll ever need" and you'll see Bach or Vivaldi tracks. After a while distinctions go away and people just put everything in bigger, simpler buckets.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    11. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by lucm · · Score: 1

      (I'm thankful I have never heard of half the people you mentioned and even more grateful I didn't even know there was a selfie song)

      Awesome. This reminds me of the "I don't know that shit" bit from Chris Rock.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Keepin' it real, dude. Keepin' it real!

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    12. Re: "Is this what we wanted?" by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you didn't address the fundamental difference between ways of enjoying movies/shows and music. It is drastically different. How?

      When one hears a piece of music for the second time, they like it MORE than they liked it for the first time. The degree of enjoyment grows for a while - longer for some music, less for some other. It is easy to find music for me which keeps increasingly pleasant for five times of concentrated listen sessions. Many other people are like this, at least for the genres I am interested in.

      When you "discover" a new genre, the "learning curve" is even steeper. I have hated music of some genres which in a few months became the only genre I listened to for a while. With this steeper learning curve, comes much more happiness too. When I develop the taste for a new genre of music (happened only thrice in my life), for a while, people can tell I am happy just by talking to me on phone, or meeting me briefly. Of course it fades then.

      Movies/shows are decidedly NOT like that for many many people. At most, most people can enjoy a movie twice within a few days - and that is a different enjoyment when it is watched the second time.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  4. Steve Jobs was a salesman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If all his inventory was purple and all the competitor's were white, he'd be out saying how purple demonstrates the individuality of the user while white is bland.

    If his were white and the competition's were purple, then of course white is what someone with a serious design background would come out with.

    Bill Gates was similar. Back in the '90s, during the browser wars, MS released an "Open letter to Netscape" with Microsoft's pledge to abide by "open standards" for HTML. Of course, they promptly forgot that once Netscape was acquired by AOL and had lost all its market share.

    It's B-school 101 shit.
       

    1. Re:Steve Jobs was a salesman by lucm · · Score: 1

      he was a shyster that built an empire off of slave labour, his karma came to get him for it too.

      Is this how karma works? I thought you had to die first then you got rewarded or punished in your next life... Dang it, this could derail my plans of having a lifetime of selfish behavior paid for by a future me that I will never know.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Steve Jobs was a salesman by koan · · Score: 2

      You thought wrong.
      Karma (Sanskrit: ; IPA: [krm] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).[2] Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deed contribute to bad karma and future suffering.[3][4]

      Jobs was an asshole.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Steve Jobs was a salesman by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. These people have no conscience and no honor. They will do whatever gets them the most profit, and that makes them a problem for society.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Steve Jobs was a salesman by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, if the model is right, then you will _be_ that future person.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Steve Jobs was a salesman by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Jobs was an asshole.

      So are you - so die already.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    6. Re:Steve Jobs was a salesman by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Fucking fanbois...

      Yeah, you'd love to. But they don't.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  5. Re:Vinyl by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not ever going to go back to the difficulty of vinyl, it's just too damn much work to keep both the physical media and the player maintained such that they produce good quality output, but I can honestly say that having CDs has helped. I rip my CDs to a non-DRM digital format. I can play them on my phone, on my computers, on most DVD players from either disc or from flash, and even on some car stereos that support mp3 from CD or from flash. If I have a device failure I can copy back off of other devices, or worst case I can re-rip again from source media.

    No one's digital store method has ever satisfied my want for being able to always access the content that I have paid for. Sometimes things are removed from the catalog, so they could later no longer be downloaded again, or the content is streamed instead of stored locally, or other things.

    I want control over my stuff. If I own media then I have control.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  6. Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbait by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this is Slashdot and all, and Apple bashing is kind of a national sport, but TFA is nothing but conjecture. How about we wait until there's an actual fact to talk about before fueling the servers with anti-fanboi rage?

    --

    Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  7. Oh, boo-hoo by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music.

    Talk about first-world problems...

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re: Oh, boo-hoo by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If my biggest problem is choosing which pair of beats headphones to use, what difference is it how we label the problem?

      If that's your problem, and you're complaining about it, then we label it "the problem of a whiner."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re: Oh, boo-hoo by lucm · · Score: 1

      If my biggest problem is choosing which pair of beats headphones to use, what difference is it how we label the problem?

      Talk about one-percenter problems...

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  8. "What we wanted" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... is irrelevant.

    "We" are not the CEO and shareholder of Apple.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:"What we wanted" ... by koan · · Score: 1

      This is the attitude they want you to have "defeatist", "they" (the corps) cease to exist if we don't buy their products.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:"What we wanted" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And I don't get to have any toys. I'm not defeatist. I'm a realist. The "corps" will shoot themselves in the foot and I don't have to do a damn thing.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:"What we wanted" ... by koan · · Score: 1

      Your "toys" own you.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    4. Re:"What we wanted" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So do the "corps."

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:"What we wanted" ... by radish · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. It's not hard to become a shareholder.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  9. Re:Vinyl by ls671 · · Score: 2

    I used to immerse my turntable in water, well almost, recording the record on real to real tape, then keep the record as a master. Full analog sound with no static nor scratch sounds;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  10. This is why you pirate music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Very easy, own it forever, works on every device, costs nothing, etc etc.

    1. Re:This is why you pirate music by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Sorry, how does that tie in to the post you were "replying" to?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re: This is why you pirate music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If he's losing his job to outsourcing, it's a good thing he saved up some money pirating media instead of buying it.

    3. Re:This is why you pirate music by lucm · · Score: 1

      That's why IT jobs are moving to India.

      Very easy, 1/5 the cost, no shitty attitudes, etc. etc.

      Are you living in the past? IT jobs are no longer moving to India, now instead IT workers are imported.

      This business model has many pros:

      1) It's easier to schedule conference calls when you don't have to worry about Bangalore timezone
      2) You can squeeze 5 of them into a "corporate condo" and make them pay the mortgage out of the shit salary you pay them to manage your Exchange server
      3) You can get them to get your mocha at Starbucks, wait in line to get the new iPhone, or to receive your Amazon packages while you're fooling around with high-end prostitutes that you couldn't afford when you had to pay those expensive white sysadmins

      Keep up the good fight, Zuckerberg!

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:This is why you pirate music by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Very easy, own it forever, works on every device, costs nothing, etc etc.

      meh.

      I've been stating here or a while that with moveis, piracy is the better product in every measurable way: it's more convenient, better range, everything in one place (TPB), variety of qualitites, excellent downoad clients and so on, not abusive (no DRM, no ads).

      I disagree with music to a large extent. Last time I used Amazon (to make a mix ta... uh... SD card?) it was super easy. No DRM, everything in one place, consistent quality etc. Absoloutely not worth pirating. I mean sure, it would have saved, $30 but that's not the point.

      I'm happy to pay--I'd rather in fact, all things being equal. But, I value my time and I hate being ripped off. Music is on the right side: it's convenient and I just get an MP3 I can play on every device I own. With movies, the fuck-with-it factor is too high.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:This is why you pirate music by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Their download service didn't work on Linux. Why? It's only an MP3 file!

      Actually it does work.

      I had to download an application from Amazon that would only work on Windows that would "help" me download my recently purchased mp3 file. Huh?

      Here's what your problem is/was:

      In the early days you could download singles on Linux easily but NOT albums Then Amazon released a package of the Downloader which worked on linux, so we could download albums too, but eventually they stopped updating it, except for the Amazon UK version which only works on the Amazon UK store. Then they changed how their service and storage works.

      To make the Amazon MP3 store work on Linux now, you just need the ".AMZ" files you get when you buy a song or album To do that you have to set a cookie by telling it that you're NOT using their software and using the old downloader (can't remember the exact wording on the page). Also Amazon "sometimes" does a user agent check and if they detect Linux, they won't give you the AMZ but send you to the cloud page which is annoying if you just bought an album. (I've contacted Amazon customer support a few times to tell them to not do the User agent check because Linux users have pymazon and clamz available) So when you buy music, you might need to change the user agent to Windows.

      Once you do have that AMZ, feed it into pymazon, or clamz and there's your music

      https://code.google.com/p/pyma...

      (which also works on Windows too!)

    6. Re:This is why you pirate music by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, you make it convenient and price it sensibly then most people will use it...
      Ofcourse some will still pirate, but those people are generally those who would never pay and if they couldn't pirate, would simply do without.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  11. These are all streaming services, not DRM related by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This seems like a false dillema - how much agonizing do you do over whether you'll subscribe to DirecTV or DIsh or both or neither? If you want one you pick one, and if it turns out you don't like it you switch.

    Really the music situation is much better than that, there are more choices and none of the awful contracts. You can switch easily if you wish and some of them offer free trials, or even entirely free versions. This is no worse than any other subscription service and better than many. Of course it's different from actually owning the music, but no one has claimed equivalency there. You can always just buy the songs if you want, from many sources.

  12. Re:Vinyl by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

    I used to immerse my turntable in water, well almost, recording the record on real to real tape

    I just used to think about doing that, I never actually did it. I guess you could say I did it on imaginary to imaginary tape. ;-P

    Real to imaginary tape was quite easy too (but with little benefit), but I never figured out how to do it the other way around.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  13. Re:Vinyl by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Real to imaginary tape was quite easy too (but with little benefit), but I never figured out how to do it the other way around.

    You end up with all noise and no signal.

  14. Save the Righteous Indignation by eyepeepackets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"

    That has been Apple's m.o. since forever, so nothing new to see here, move along.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    1. Re:Save the Righteous Indignation by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      The author is complaining that he can't play MP3s on his Xbox anymore, because Spotify doesn't work on Xbox. This is not someone you can reason with.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse them by Arakageeta · · Score: 4, Informative

    DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee). Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM. Rather, it is a means of boosting the sale of the platform by offering additional platform-only services. We can discuss the harm and inconvenience that platform lock-in may cause. However, we should not confuse the issue with DRM. That will just inflame old passions, preventing someone from approaching this new distinct issue from a fresh perspective.

    No doubt many people against DRM will also be against platform lock-in. Perhaps others may not. For instance, I am generally against DRM. I purchased a digital file; I would like to be free to make copies of it for my own use. However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?

  16. Re:Vinyl by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Honestly, it's actually impossible to tell the difference between the silly shit people actually do with vinyl and the jokes.

    Because except for the water part, I know people who have definitely done the reel to reel thing.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  17. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    We do that and the article won't be posted on Slashdot until six months after the thing starts up. This gives us some time to get the dupe ready on a timely basis.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  18. Endless Lock-In - Is This What We Wanted? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life...

    Apparently that is what you want, or you wouldn't plunk down money for this service. Apple isn't holding a gun to your head forcing you to comply with their business model.

    If you want it, pay for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. Paying for something you don't want and then bitching about it is useless and stupid.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Endless Lock-In - Is This What We Wanted? by agm · · Score: 1

      Agreed completely. Nobody is forcing anyone to use their service. Ifr you don't like the terms of the service, then don't use it. It's not rocket science.

    2. Re:Endless Lock-In - Is This What We Wanted? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      And Apple gets your money no matter how much you bitch about the service. They care about your money, not you.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    3. Re:Endless Lock-In - Is This What We Wanted? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      8/10 You, Sir or Ma'am are good. You have achieved Master Baiter Troll Status. Unlock the next level and see what is in store. Also, pay $5.95 to continue playing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  19. Re:Vinyl by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    I did that too on a 10" TEAC 4 channel. Probably needs new belts by now :)
    I used to downmix that to cassette for the car. Worked a treat!
    The other benefit you have is hrs of music off one tape.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  20. The real question by koan · · Score: 1

    All one has to do is not use the service, then they starve and die, because do you want a future where the only way media is available is streaming?
    I don't.

    But the real question is this, are there more of the people that don't care about this DRM issue, or more that do?
    How many of you can do without your "entertainment"?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  21. Re:Vinyl by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    You forgot the WOOSH.
    (Reel and not Real)

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  22. Re:platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse t by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

    "DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee)."
    Well if you think about it locking it to Apple devices that is limiting the distribution by Apple so in a Sense it IS DRM.

  23. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I just wish Dell, HP, or IBM didn't keep people buying their even more over priced crap.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  24. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Duh,that's because the real component of a purely imaginary signal is zero!

  25. Re:Vinyl by dwywit · · Score: 2

    I've done the water thing - well, if it's the water thing I'm thinking about.

    A long-lost post from some group on usenet told of how the ABC radio jocks would play vinyl: mix up a litre of 50/50 water and alcohol, add ONE drop of dishwashing liquid, and apply to the surface of the vinyl - not dripping-off-the-edges wet, just enough to make the surface thinly covered. Now play the record. Make sure you dry it before putting it away, of course.

    I tried it, and it works - it's not perfect, but it seems to eliminate or at least reduce lots of the usual unwanted noises. Probably reduces wear from friction, too.

    But who plays vinyl these days? I get nostalgic about once a year and trawl the collection, maybe listen to one or two albums before going back to CDs or streaming.

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  26. it's still the labels by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    If you pay streaming royalties it behooves you to do some protection of the content so that it really is just streaming, not downloading. If you think it doesn't behoove you, then the content providers will ring up up and change your mind for you.

    As to the vendor lock-in, that's separate. And it's Apple's policy it seems. So I just get all my music from Google and Amazon instead. And Spotify I guess. Problem solved. I have to give up AppleTV compatibility but I gain compatibility with my Android devices and (in the case of Google and Amazon) the ability to play music right in a browser.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  27. Poor Baby by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music)"

    Well, this is easy to rectify. Just stop using all the others you don't want to use and you'll be down to one, or none. See, life is so easy.

  28. Strange digital transition stage we're in, no? by TheDarkener · · Score: 2

    We've come a long way since wax cylinders. But right now we're having growing pains. Everyone wants a piece of the digital streaming pie. The thing is that everyone also wants to lock you in.

    Streaming needs to be more open. The music itself needs to be separated from the service. I don't want to feel like I'm making a lifelong commitment by investing in streaming purchases, building playlists, etc.

    Through Pandora, Spotify, iTunes, Google Music, Amazon, and whatever else is out there..I've stuck to my own offline music collection - it's much more portable (like others have stated already). If a company wants to start a streaming service they need to provide something of value other than the music itself. The "industry" is tired and old and proprietary and the rest of the world is sick of it, including artists. I have a strong feeling Creative Commons is going to be the rebel yell of the very close future. Artists don't want to sign contracts because they're keen to the fact that they're never going to be as rich and famous as they think - they're just going to tour for years to pay off the debt they've accrued for the "privilege" of being promoted by a big label.

    All artists want (and have ever wanted since the beginning of music) is to know that they have made a positive impact on other peoples' lives with their craft. Making a living from it has always been secondary to true musicians. This is more possible and accessible with the Internet.

    SO! Streaming services are currently acting as big labels. People have already bypassed labels. So all of this is pretty moot to me. So instead, I am investing my time into a project that will provide value to people aside from rehashing the whole 'buy the White album again' scenario which has already infested streaming services' business models. It's new and exciting and something nobody has done before with music online.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  29. Re:Vinyl by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But who plays vinyl these days?

    Who indeed...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    The nation is getting back into the groove with a resurgence in sales of record players alongside music on vinyl.

    Sales of turntables are up by a staggering 240 per cent at John Lewis in the first few months of this year compared to same period in 2014.

    It was widely believed that digital music, the iPod and the internet had killed vinyl, the record player and record shop, however the sales figures paint a very different picture.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  30. Re:These are all streaming services, not DRM relat by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The author isn't technical, and doesn't understand the words he uses. He thinks that if his device won't pair with his bluetooth speakers, it must be because of DRM. If Google Play Music is better on Android than on iPhone, it's because of DRM.

    He is slowly coming to an awareness that interoperability is hard. The author is a "bro" who describes himself as "married to a babe." That's cool but all he wants to do is listen to music and all this technology is inconvenient to understand. It won't let him listen to music the way he wants (the subtitle of his article is "give me convenience or give me death"). It's hard to feel sympathy for him.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  31. $120 buys a lot of music by Joe+U · · Score: 2

    Let's assume that Apple isn't going $14.99/mo and it's going to be the usual $9.99 /mo. $120 a year is a decent amount of money to spend on music, if you want to take the time to buy it.

    Imagine a family of where 2 adults both spend $10/mo, heck, $240 a year? That can buy you over 200 tracks a year, that you will get to keep. If you want to save more, buy used CD's and rip them.

    You already have tons of music ripped, everyone does, do you really think you're going to spend $120 a year on new singles?

    1. Re:$120 buys a lot of music by radish · · Score: 1

      Back before I switched to Spotify I'd easily spend $40 a month on music (i.e. 3 or 4 albums), so yes, in my case. YMMV of course.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:$120 buys a lot of music by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      There are always outliers.

      The average iTunes user spends under $15/year on music. That number is misleading, since it includes all iTunes accounts, but there's no way that number is over $120/year for people who just buy music. Streaming music services, for most, are not cost effective.

    3. Re:$120 buys a lot of music by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. At $10 a month, you could buy 1 CD a month. Probably less, but let's just make the numbers round. For teenagers or anybody else who hasn't amassed a huge collection of music, it would take them a while before they had a decent amount of music. They'd be listening to the same albums over and over again for the first couple years. $10 a month is pretty enticing, because you get access to a huge library of music right away. instead of trying to decide which new album, or other 10 tracks you want this month, you just have access to everything. Sure, something might happen and the streaming service might shut down, but then you can just join another. Or, you might come upon hard times, and not have money to pay for the subscription. But then you can just scrounge for free streaming services, listen to the radio, and listen to music videos on Youtube. And if you can't afford the $10 a month, then you might have bigger things to worry about than listening to your favorite music.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:$120 buys a lot of music by radish · · Score: 1

      You're saying that this mythical average iTunes user (remember everyone who has ever owned an Apple device has an account, even if they never use it) who spends $15 a year is somehow equivalent to Spotify Premium subscriber, who clearly cares enough about music to subscribe to a service and not just use the free version? What you need to find out is how much the average Premium Spotify subscriber used to spend per month on music. I'm pretty confident that'd be over $10.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:$120 buys a lot of music by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      At the end of the month, I still have that $10 CD or those 10 MP3's, which means I have some value in my collection.

      Granted, it's not much, if I sold all my CD's I doubt I would get enough to pay for a year of music streaming, but at least I can loan them out, give them away or just play them wherever I want, online or offline.

    6. Re:$120 buys a lot of music by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Or you could not have that CD anymore. It could get lost, broken, stolen, or lent out and never returned. Generally, that doesn't happen if you take care of your stuff, but it's still a possibility. The CDs will wear out eventually. Nothing is forever. And sometimes you'll buy a CD that just doesn't hold up as well as you thought it would, and you won't listen to it more than a few times. You could sell it, but albums like that you generally won't get more than a few dollars for.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  32. DRM on rentals isn't the same... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I dislike DRM like pretty much everyone else who isn't a content industry lawyer, but I really can't find much to complain about when it's used in the context of a rental or subscription service. How else are they supposed to ensure you can't continue using the content when you're not supposed to be able to anymore?

    DRM on stuff I'm supposedly purchasing is another matter entirely, if I own it I want to truly control it, but if I'm renting it or paying for temporary access where it's clear from the beginning that I only have it as long as I'm paying I don't see a problem.

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    1. Re:DRM on rentals isn't the same... by jmv · · Score: 2

      The problem with DRM on "rental" content isn't so much that it goes away (that part is the same for a book I borrow). The problem is that the only way to actually *implement* DRM is to have your machine is now obeying the content owner rather than you. To me this is like renting a DVD and leaving the key to your house at the store so that the clerk can enter your home when it's time to get the DVD back. The problem isn't that the DVD's going away, it's letting someone sneak into your house.

      --
      Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
    2. Re:DRM on rentals isn't the same... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That would end late fees.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:DRM on rentals isn't the same... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      That logic seems rather bizarre to me.

      They send you a download. They DRM the file so that it's CRIMINAL for anyone else to make a player for that file type. And their music player deletes the file after playing it once.

      So your argument is that DRM is ok because it's DRM'ed?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:DRM on rentals isn't the same... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 2

      That logic seems rather bizarre to me.

      They send you a download. They DRM the file so that it's CRIMINAL for anyone else to make a player for that file type. And their music player deletes the file after playing it once.

      So your argument is that DRM is ok because it's DRM'ed?

      -

      The criminalization of breaking DRM has nothing inherently to do with its implementation, nor did I say anything about a hypothetical one-play deletion.

      I'm saying that something functionally equivalent to DRM is required for a rental or subscription on-demand service, otherwise it's purely operating on the honor system and I can't blame anyone for having no interest in that. I find these services to be a good value, so I have no problem with the tradeoff. I'm not paying the price I'd have to pay to buy the content, so it's not unreasonable to get less for it.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  33. Re: These are all streaming services, not DRM rela by timmyf2371 · · Score: 2

    Interoperability isn't difficult. Overcoming the commercial resistance to interoperability is; and that's not a technical issue.

    --

    Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  34. There is an alternative to Apple Music by Medevilae · · Score: 1

    Google Play music lets you upload 50,000 of your own songs and works on most any platform. In fact, in keeping with Google tradition their iOS app is better than their Android app.

  35. Irony of this story... by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1

    I think what Steve Jobs was saying was (he thought) people wanted to own their music (so no DRM, but initially it was a requirement post-Napster internet) and not stream it. Music is (was) a type of identity but more people now seem to want to stream and not buy so much. I have 2 teens (you mileage may vary) - my daughter gets most of her music from spotify, my son listens to entire albums on youtube. They have no interest in my mp3 collection. I would imagine there is so much free steaming (pandora, spotify, youtube) many people now see music as ever present and free. Not sure how that's going to change.

    --
    Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
    1. Re:Irony of this story... by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      My kids were the same way. Then I set up an Ampache server at home, and installed the Ampache client on their phones. Now they're all about buying again. They just wanted the convenience of having access to their whole library at once. Once I duplicated that, they went with it.

      Also helped that my son borrow my headphones and learned that a lot of the music he was listening to on YouTube sounded like crap because of the low bitrate. Anything up there on an artist's official channel is good quality. But the stuff that the common man uploads has the crap compressed out of it.

  36. Considered answer by requerdanos · · Score: 1

    > There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?

    No.

  37. Re:Some people are still PAYING for music?! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I pay for music. It's no big deal to tip $1 to someone if I like his song.

    Subscription music though? Skip on that.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  38. Never pay for music at all by SlithyMagister · · Score: 1

    Learn to sing, learn to play an instrument, join a choral group, join a band -- have fun!
    Paying for the commercialized schlock the record companies are trying to shove down your throats is crazy!

    If everyone stopped paying for it, it would go away, and maybe, just maybe something worth listening to might emerge.

    But in truth, that ship sailed long, long ago.
    <sigh>

    1. Re:Never pay for music at all by bspus · · Score: 1

      >Learn to sing, learn to play an instrument, join a choral group, join a band -- have fun!

      Yes. And always release the transcriptions of the songs you create to make them available to the public.
      Then anyone can learn your songs, improve them and even fix the odd note or two that might be out of place.

      You always want to know exactly what notes are entering your ears, so it goes without saying that you should refuse to listen to any music whose artist has not made the transcriptions available to the public as described.

  39. Re:platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse t by Simulant · · Score: 1

    "I don't own Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play."

    Google Play Music works fine on iPhones. And it works best in (nearly any) desktop browser.

  40. Re:Just don't buy it by lucm · · Score: 1

    Easy to say when you live in a small town. Try to live by that credo in NYC or Hong-Kong, where most people couldn't afford to buy a tiny flat even if they were to sell their organs on the black market.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  41. Re:Some people are still PAYING for music?! by lucm · · Score: 1

    I pay for my music because it's more cost-effective than wasting time fixing ID3 tags created by bittorrent people and their "Jim Van Morrison" or "John Lennon Camp" mp3s.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  42. Re:Vinyl by vlad30 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sales up 240 per cent, Lies Damn Lies and Statistics Last year they could have sold 10 records this year 24 thats 240% of last year What are the raw numbers ?

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  43. An inarticulate defense of Apple won't help them. by jbn-o · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "Apple bashing"? How inarticulate and ultimately blindly supportive of a known repeat bad actor to keep their customers from controlling the iThings they buy. It's hardly far-fetched to see how the company receives bad press. They've made an ugly history for themselves rife with mistreating workers, users, and harming the environment. They found they could get away with non-freedom in software also exploits app developers "mercilessly" as Richard Stallman put it on his reasons why one shouldn't do business with Apple. Apple also uses digital restrictions management on eBooks which is set up so that those eBooks won't work on jailbroken iThings, stuck users with a U2 album and made it hard to delete, censors bitcoin apps for iThings, deauthorized a Wikileaks access application, banned an erotic novel from iTunes because of its cover, left a security hole in iTunes unfixed for 3 years, and more.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  44. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But who plays vinyl these days?

    Who indeed...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    TL;DR - hipsters.

  45. It's not about you. by westlake · · Score: 1

    I never wanted monthly music rental to begin with, so ... no.

    I never wanted a saddle horse, but I haven't seen the need to post that inconsequential fact to every equine forum on the net.

    That said, I bought a year's subscription to XBox Music on Pi Day for $31.40.

    30 million tracks available for streaming or downloads to up to four devices.

    Broadly representative of all musical genres, all eras of recorded music, hit and miss when it comes to the spoken word, no audiobooks. Metadata is sparse. No album notes, no lyrics, but still a resource that is miles wide and deep and useful even to the hardcore CD and Vinyl enthusiast.

    P2P and USENET are bottomless time sinks, here you can summon up 50 to 100 albums or tracks for sampling in one click and fill your shopping cart or playlist from there.

  46. Re:Vinyl by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Oops - you seem to have recorded this link on vinyl.

  47. What a whine, over a piece of mucic by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    I have a top notch stereo/Dolby/whatever sound field u need system (All Sony for compatibility), beats anything I could hope to put together again. It's sitting in storage as the introduction of HDMI made it obsolete.

    Got a Denon DHT-1312BA receiver as it came with matching speakers ( hell of a time saver), but it's got nothing on my old system, can't even use any of the peripheral components of the old system - unless of course I'm happy with stereo only.

    --- While people scoff at the mention of the Usenet or Newsgroups, what's not commonly known is everything is hidden in plain sight, and where you'll find your DRM-less music.
    Just need to find it's location, not as popular as it once was old groups are being used for new purposes, alt.biniaries.astronomy.sky is now just one huge movie collection (hard to get across just how many movies it contains - didn't count just scrolled down the list till I got bored) but it's slow going (unless you find a decent server). My Usenet is still free, slow is just fine with me.

    1. Re:What a whine, over a piece of mucic by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      I have a top notch stereo/Dolby/whatever sound field u need system (All Sony for compatibility), beats anything I could hope to put together again. It's sitting in storage as the introduction of HDMI made it obsolete.

      I have a HDMI to optical switch, works quite well.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:What a whine, over a piece of mucic by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      I have a top notch stereo/Dolby/whatever sound field u need system (All Sony for compatibility), beats anything I could hope to put together again. It's sitting in storage as the introduction of HDMI made it obsolete.

      I have a HDMI to optical switch, works quite well.

      I'll be damn! http://www.newegg.com/Product/... I didn't know these existed, I guess I fell for the line that you can't bypass HDMI, so no options for me. By going through the optical port is doesn't.

      Thank you,

  48. Better safe than sorry by lucm · · Score: 1

    How was this stopped in the past? I won't say because it might give people ideas.

    Thank you for your cautious attitude. Who knows what kind of doomsday scenarios could happen if the wisdom of some anonymous coward who knows best was leaked on Slashdot.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  49. Re:Vinyl by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    "How to lie with statistics" was exactly what I thought as well, since the last numbers I saw indicated that vinyl represented a low, single-digit percentage of the entire music market. It's enjoying a brief renaissance among certain crowds, but those crowds are far from the norm, and most of them are starting to wise up to the fact that the audio fidelity of vinyl is provably worse than that of virtually any typical, digital medium (quick note: I am NOT claiming that it sounds worse, since that is strictly a matter of opinion; rather, I am asserting that the audio fidelity is worse, i.e. it is not reproducing the original sounds as accurately, which is a matter of fact).

  50. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    That would involve waiting at least another week, and in a world moving a thousand miles a minute, we simply can't wait that...

    *whispers from off-screen*
     
    ...nevermind, I forgot we were talking about Slashdot. Posting news is a timely fashion? As if!

  51. Re:Vinyl by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    Real pros record on water...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  52. Re:platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse t by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Dude, man, what?

    DRM? DRM is a pretty loose term. CHMOD is DRM if you want to be pedantic, so isn't your password! Digital Rights Management.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  53. Re:Vinyl by bkmoore · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The contact pressure from the stylus is high enough to cause the water to boil. You don't see it. But it will cause more wear than just playing the record dry. I did the reel-to-reel thing too, but not since the Reagen administration. Then I got a CD player.

  54. Re:Vinyl by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    I did that too on a 10" TEAC 4 channel. Probably needs new belts by now :)

    You could pack about three hours of music on a 10 1/2 reel. It was great for partys, etc. Throw on a tape and forget it. I've been thinking about getting a reel-to-reel player to mess with. They're pretty cheap now days. But would probably go with a two- channel player that can play 10 1/2" reels and has auto-reverse. Direct drive would be nice to have for the reason you mention. The pre-recorded music catalog for this format is pretty weak. Time to think about taking my old, dusty mp-3s out of storage and making some new tapes from them. :-)

  55. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    But why? Analog sound is garbage.

    all sound is analog.

  56. Re:Vinyl by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    To nitpick, that would have been +140%

  57. A little green rozetta by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    As you can see, MUSIC can get you pretty fucked up...

    Now you see, some places in the Third World it might be difficult to dance to this because
    the kerosene record player is not a very efficient device.. .And a lot of times they run out of,
    they run out of spunk right in the middle of the chorus...

    We suggest that in places like the Fourth World where things are really tough that you
    keep the record player going by rubbing two sticks together. And if all else fails, throw
    the record away...

    They're pretty good musicians
    But it don't make no difference
    If they're good musicians
    Because anybody who would buy this record
    Doesn't give a fuck if there's good musicians
    On it
    Because this is a stupid song
    AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKE IT

    thanks to F.Z.

    --
    Go well
  58. Platform lock-in is the end. DRM is the Means. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM

    You're confusing the ends & the means. The end goal is platform lock in, the means to do that is DRM.

    If there was no DRM, you would just be able to save the streamed file, this is unlikely to be the case.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Platform lock-in is the end. DRM is the Means. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The server just makes sure to stream music only to genuine apps

      You seem to have made a typo. There's not supposed to be a "g" in "DRM'.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  59. Re:Some people are still PAYING for music?! by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    Have you tried downloading any music recently? The average music torrent out there is *way* better than it was 10 years ago in terms of encode quality and the tags being correct. There's still some messed up torrents out there, but not many. It's about on par with CDDB which you'd use when ripping a CD yourself - either that or tag everything manually. That goes for random music torrents on the Pirate Bay. There are several other large music-oriented trackers that actually require correct tags, and enforce the rule. I think I've found maybe one or two torrents there out of 970 downloaded (just checked) that weren't properly tagged. You can also usually get FLACs which actually makes it preferable to Amazon to me. There's also some rarities that aren't available online in any format, legally.

  60. Re:platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse t by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?

    The problem is with the content side. Exclusive deals really tend to be anti-consumer, like most forms of bundling. You want to watch your favorite show, well to do that you have to purchase some service at an exhorbitant price that gives you that one show plus 500 others you don't care about. Want that channel on your cable? No problem, just pay an extra $30/mo for that channel and 14 more you don't care about. Want a Pepsi to go with your Big Mac? No problem - just forego the combo price, stop at two places, and eat in your car since nobody allows outside food or drink.

    The market would only work better if exclusive deals were banned. If people don't want to drink RC cola, then they won't buy it, and most places won't bother to stock it. However, there will no longer be a financial incentive for McDonald's to ONLY carry Coke products, when some consumers might be more likely to purchase a drink if they offered Pepsi as well, and so on.

    I'm not saying that Apple should be forced to sell their music on Android, or on Linux, or on Blackberry, or on Palm Pilots, or on Windows 95 and whatever other oddball platform people want to buy them on. However, there shouldn't be any barriers to Apple putting their product on these platforms, and there shouldn't be any barriers to those who sell to Apple also selling to others who ARE willing to put their product on those platforms.

  61. Re:Hummmm?? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Steve Jobs made anti-DRM statements very early on. At the time, the music industry was insisting on DRM for everything. They eventually learned that it gave more power to the distributors than to them and allowed Amazon to sell DRM-free music (but didn't allow Apple the same deal for a while, to allow Amazon to become a viable competitor). For some reason, the movie studios are intent on making the same mistake and insisting that Amazon and Netfilx take complete control of their supply chain, when the best thing for their business is a healthy competitive ecosystem driving each others margins.

    If they had any sense, the music and movie studios would insist that distributors sell without DRM.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  62. Re:Vinyl by hey! · · Score: 1

    Complaining about how what the kids are into makes no sense? Congratulations, you are now middle-aged. You have become the thing you hated.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  63. Re:These are all streaming services, not DRM relat by allo · · Score: 1

    no DRM? So i can record it?

  64. The Cloud will always be about the services by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    The Cloud will always be about the services themselves, and soon they will be the banks and we will be the people paying a transaction fee for every withdrawal.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  65. Re:Vinyl by ericloewe · · Score: 1

    Why bother with a relatively fragile disc if you can carry much more with equivalent quality (for car stereo purposes) on a single flash drive?

  66. Re:Vinyl by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Sales up 240 per cent, Lies Damn Lies and Statistics Last year they could have sold 10 records this year 24 thats 240% of last year What are the raw numbers ?

    Check your math.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  67. Re:Vinyl by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Sales up 240 per cent, Lies Damn Lies and Statistics Last year they could have sold 10 records this year 24 thats 240% of last year What are the raw numbers ?

    Here are the US numbers for vinyl, from Billboard:

    https://www.billboard.com/arti...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  68. The solution is.... by plazman30 · · Score: 2

    Don't subscribe! I doubt Apple will be able to secure an exclusive so tight that the album won't be available for purchase. Renting music has got to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of, at least to me. I will continue to buy my music until I can't any more. I refuse to be locked into a monthly payment to enjoy music.

  69. Re:platform lockin is not DRM; let's not confuse t by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    "DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee)."
    Well if you think about it locking it to Apple devices that is limiting the distribution by Apple so in a Sense it IS DRM.

    Anything that controls how I can listen to music, or how I can watch a video, or how I can play a game, is DRM. By definition.

    However, for a streaming music service, what you pay for is the ability to play the music you want, according to the clearly advertised terms of the service, as long as you pay for a service. DRM or just lack of interoperability that interferes with this is a defect. DRM that doesn't interfere with this is absolutely fine.

    So if Apple sells a service that lets you listen to music on any Mac, iPhone, iPod or iPad, as long as you pay for the service, then they should clearly advertise exactly what they offer, and should deliver what they advertise, and that's it. If that music doesn't play on your Xbox and they never said it would and listed all the devices that you can use, that's fine. If you can't record it and play back after you stopped paying for the service, that's fine.

    The problem with DRM on music in the past was (1) you purchased the music or at least you were told you purchased it, but DRM stopped you from playing it, and (2) DRM stopped working and then you couldn't play the music at all, not even in the way that you were supposed to play it.

  70. Re:Hummmm?? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...

    The question is whether you are a clueless twat with no knowledge of history, or if you are spouting that nonsense intentionally.

    DRM on music was never in Apple's interest. Apple didn't manage to get the rights to sell DRM free music from the record companies. Then EMI gave them the rights to sell EMI music without DRM; that was the first DRM free music from the big labels that you could buy online anywhere. Then, as a reaction, the other labels allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music, but withheld the right from Apple, blackmailing Apple into raising prices for more popular music. And that's where we are now.

  71. Radio by jtara · · Score: 2

    a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music

    Dude, that's what radio is for!

    If you just want to "listen to music", get a one of the free or premium radio player apps, pick any genre' and you can listen to practically any real radio station in the world (including, for example, every singe one in Jamaica) as well as a huge number of "Internet-only" choices.

    Many of these have great, high-quality curated content. I'm not a "golden ears" so I'm OK with the audio quality of most.

    If you're really into a specific artist, there's always certainly a free channel devoted to them, unless they are obscure. If they are obscure, buy their tracks in and support them ferchristsake! Then you can listen to them any time you want. You are doing them any favors streaming them, because they will get tiny payments if any when it comes out in the wash.

    One of the days I might take the time to convert my vinyl. Naw, probably not... I just put on KCRW Eclectic 24 in the car, and it calms me between the nice lady saying "now, take the exit to the right" after I've passed the exit... And that's the sum total of my streaming experience.

    Oh, yea, I guess I have a subscription service I don't use. I have Amazon Prime. I use it for the free shipping. If there's a movie they have that I really, really want to see, and I can't get it on Netflix or some free channel on Apple TV, I might go to the trouble of AirPlaying it from my Mac. But never used their music streaming.

    I'd bet more people are in the opposite position of you. That is, they already have a streaming service that they don't even use.

  72. Re:Vinyl by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    I did that too on a 10" TEAC 4 channel. Probably needs new belts by now :)

    You could pack about three hours of music on a 10 1/2 reel. It was great for partys, etc. Throw on a tape and forget it. I've been thinking about getting a reel-to-reel player to mess with. They're pretty cheap now days. But would probably go with a two- channel player that can play 10 1/2" reels and has auto-reverse. Direct drive would be nice to have for the reason you mention. The pre-recorded music catalog for this format is pretty weak. Time to think about taking my old, dusty mp-3s out of storage and making some new tapes from them. :-)

    Yup, I remember reel-to-reel. Ah, the '70s! A good Teac or Akai deck through a pair of monobloc McIntosh MC60 tube amps driving a good set of horn-loaded speakers is some serious ear-candy. Even by today's standards.

    With that system it was always a matter of "Gee, that 3 hr tape is over already?" because there was just no listening fatigue at all and you just did not notice how long you'd been listening, even at significant volumes.

    Being a musician (guitarist) the lower-fatigue aspect was greatly appreciated, as I spent a *lot* of time listening; to music I was learning, recorded tracks or idea snippets I was working on, plus normal everyday music listening. It was quite normal for the system to remain powered up and playing *something* for days or even weeks at a stretch.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  73. Dubbing by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    I'm confused with this hatred of DRM. I grew up in an age of streaming music -- we called it FM Radio. (there was no ".com", ".net", ".radio", or ".fm").

    So we, the people, invented the record button. Grab the boombox, push the button with the red circle and presto! The live streaming music was magically transferred to local storage. From there, we called "copying" "high-speed dubbing".

    Today, pick your favourite audio application, and just hit record. Magically, whatever you hear gets transferred to local storage -- sans DRM. And unlike in the past, the recording often happens within the "sound card", with zero loss. It can be a youtube video, it can be DVD, or it can be something streaming. If you can hear it, you can record it.

    What's the problem?

    1. Re:Dubbing by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      What's the problem?

      People don't know they can do that? Even Linux users might not know they can use Pulseaudio to route practically ANY sound source into audacity or something.

  74. Re: Vinyl by smaddox · · Score: 2

    That would be incredible if increasing the pressure caused water to boil. I think there's a perpetual motion machine in there somewhere.

    (Lowering the pressure could cause water to boil, but not increasing it. Maybe you meant the heat from friction, but I doubt there's that much heat being generated.)

  75. Re:Just don't buy it by lucm · · Score: 1

    Again, this kind of logic works in smaller towns (or in Detroit), but in bigger cities the price-to-rent makes it very difficult to buy.

    The price-to-rent formula is the price of a house divided by a year of rent. The average in the USA is about 10, which falls in the "should buy" range. Above 15 it's a "should rent" range, and cities like San Francisco are in the 30s.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  76. The horses left, but keep decorating that barndoor by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    Youtube and keepvid.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  77. hm ok by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Another closed ecosystem in which I will not be participating.

    Used CDs. Rip them. Populate whatever device you want. If you're not up on the latest tunes, so what? We need to get out of the habit of paying a premium to be the first to see or hear something.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  78. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    I know, right?

    Why buy a greasy, flattened McDonalds burger when you can get a burger from {insert quality regional burger chain} for only 3x the price?

    Its just ground beef and a bun, after all.

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  79. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I priced out an equivalent Dell a year ago on my latest purchase, and the Dell wound up being $400 more, with less capable hardware, but it did have 0.5" more screen!

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  80. Re:Vinyl by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Seriously shitcan the streaming shit and buy CDs, problem solved.

    Fixed that for you.

    The only 'streaming' music I'll listen to is broadcast radio, and you can say what you want about it, but it's ubiquitos, and it's free. I might even go so far as to get HD radio in my vehicle, getting around the fact that FM stereo is half (or less) the quality of CD audio. Shoutcast was nice for a while before the recording industry ruined that for everyone. Just not thrilled with the idea of yet again another 'service' that I'd have to pay for, on top of having to pay for internet connectivity.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  81. Re: Hummmm?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    iTunes ACC files are not a propritary format. They are industry standard used by pretty much everyone. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

  82. Why use it? by wallsg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music."

    Then why use it? Just because Apple puts out a product does NOT mean that you have to buy or use it.

  83. Re: Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which is 240% of last year.

    100% of last year is a 0% change.

    You know math, but fail at understanding how phrasing changes the numbers to assist in lying with statistics.

  84. Re:Vinyl by ls671 · · Score: 1

    Depends on the speed you are recording at. I used to use Scotch Classic tape and record at 3.75 in/s for even longer play time. You could go up to 15 and even 30 in/s but my toshiba tape recorder was doing 7.5 in/s max if I remember correctly.

    Whatever tape I used degraded over time, hence keep the vinyl as a master copy and re-record it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  85. Re:Vinyl by ls671 · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine bought a Nakamichi cassette recorder for 2000$ in 1985. It used to play and record just about as well as my reel to reel tape recorder that I bough for half that price.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  86. DRM is not the worst part of the problem by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1
    DRM is a terrible idea, of course, but there is a more sinister movement taking place, which is the gradual transfer of music to streaming services.

    So long as we can still buy real hard copies of the music such as CD, download or even vinyl then we retain personal control over our collections. I can imagine that in the future new music will only be available on DRM-corrupted streaming services and we will have no choice but to subscribe to one or another of them.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  87. Re:Just don't buy it by lucm · · Score: 1

    Again, why do you pay for someone else's mortgage and have nothing to show for it but a drawer full of rent receipts? Drive ten miles away from the city and find something you can afford to buy.

    A friend of mine did just that. He works in NYC and bought his house as close as he could afford. He spends 2h in trains, morning and evening.

    That simplistic vision of "buy no matter what" is a symptom of someone who never lived in a big city. Does that mean that people "have" to live in NYC? Of course not. But if someone chooses to do so, odds are that renting will be the only realistic option. Same in Hong-Kong, Honolulu, Seoul and many other expensive urban areas.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  88. This is why I STILL buy CDs by Morpeth · · Score: 1

    Laugh if you will, but it's this kind of shit that makes me still buy music on CD. Then I can rip it wherever, and in whatever format/quality, I want.

    I like that Amazon Prime automatically gives me access to mp3s to any CD that I buy. That's the best of both worlds. And even if they change that, or I stop being a Prime member -- I still own/have CD quality music.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
  89. analogue streaming by chronotis · · Score: 1

    Or you could, y'know, listen to the radio.

  90. Re:Hummmm?? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...

    Errm http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027-998590.html:

    April 28, 2003 12:16 PM PDT
    Apple unveils music store
    ...
    The songs cost 99 cents each to download, with no subscription fee, and include the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date. Jobs has been an outspoken opponent of so-called digital rights management (DRM) in the past, arguing that limitations on digital music will undermine the market for legitimate content.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  91. Re:Vinyl by TWX · · Score: 1

    That's why CD, despite its flaws, is probably the best format for someone that wants physical media. It's a physical media with a defined standard that discs and physical players have to follow, but can also be read electronically in computers both for conventional playback and for manipulation of what's recorded to the disc, and since the standards predate DRM, it's not really possible to truly lock-out CDs from being converted to literally any other digital format that the listener wants to use.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  92. Really, I only have one music "service" by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Hit a used CD store (and now that spring/summer is here, Garage/Yard sales), buy what I want, rip to mp3, put on my player, play anywhere, no , and full control over my playlist with no commericals

  93. Change of tastes by phorm · · Score: 1

    *some* music I could listen to over and over. Other times I go back to some of the older items in my collection and am like "WTF was I thinking when I thought that this was good"

    1. Re:Change of tastes by lucm · · Score: 1

      WTF was I thinking when I thought that this was good

      Something similar happened to me recently when I found the entire Airwolf series in my video collection...

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  94. Re:Vinyl by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    I used to put a drop of water at the point where the needle touched the record. It really did help with the static pops. The needle would drag the drop around as the record played.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  95. Re:Vinyl by ls671 · · Score: 1

    Same setup here except for the horn-loaded speakers. I found that the sound was better with dome tweeters without a horn. 3 way bass-reflex with conic bass and midrange and dome tweeter. Electrostatic speakers were interesting too although expensive.

    Horn-loaded speakers prevailed when you went above, say, 150 W RMS. They seem to be a must in all concerts. I have never seen a dome tweeter in those contexts.

    Then again, I hear that horns are hard to tune so maybe I just listened to crappy horn-loaded speakers back then ;-)

    Cheers,

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  96. Re:Vinyl by ls671 · · Score: 1

    Makes me think, do you know what they put behind those horns back then?

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  97. Re:Hummmm?? by hitmark · · Score: 1

    Sorry for being late, but have a look at this:

    https://gigaom.com/2008/10/08/...

    Note that it has been going on for two years already when that article was published in 2008. Meaning that Apple was in the middle a legal wrangle about their DRM when Jobs essay was published.

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  98. Re:Hummmm?? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Sorry for being late, but have a look at this:

    https://gigaom.com/2008/10/08/...

    Note that it has been going on for two years already when that article was published in 2008. Meaning that Apple was in the middle a legal wrangle about their DRM when Jobs essay was published.

    You (like the moronic politician from Norway) seem to be unaware that the music industry forced Apple to use DRM. Not the other way around.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  99. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Well what this story talks about is something that could be what happens. Apple Loves to do things to get people and keep people in their system to keep buy their over priced crap.

    Hey, will you admit how stupid you look now?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  100. Re:Slashdot and the Terrible Extension of Clickbai by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    I priced out an equivalent Dell a year ago on my latest purchase, and the Dell wound up being $400 more, with less capable hardware, but it did have 0.5" more screen!

    Reminds me of the old days, when Apple always sold smaller monitors than the others. Even when those monitors used the same CRT. Turned out that Apple measured the visible part of the tube, and the others the whole tube. That's way Apple 12" CRT was actually what others sold as a 13" CRT.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.