You're drawing a false dilemma. Steve Jobs does not have to be anti-DRM for everything in order to be anti-DRM for music. Obviously, he thinks that DRM and/or copy protection is appropriate for certain bytes while not appropriate for others. This is not unreasonable.
Steve Jobs thinks DRM and/or copy protection is appropriate for bytes he owns the copyright to, while not appropriate for bytes he does not. How is this not unreasonable?
This post is the most blatant case of trolling I have ever seen. It uses facts AND reasoned judgement. But worse than that, IT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE ALMIGHTY SLASHDOT OPINION
No, it's Windows that has the hardware monopoly...
[Goes on to describe the amazing SOFTWARE that comes preloaded on OSX, and then some that is just as availible on OSX that also as on Windows]
Excellent reading comprehension there, chief. The HARDWARE monopoly I refered to was about how the HARDWARE is only available from one source. Compare that to Windows hardware... Go ahead and find a vendor of Windows hardware. I'll wait.
Back so soon? As you've no doubt discovered, THERE IS NO WINDOWS HARDWARE. Microsoft does not sell computers; they sell software for computers. Toshiba, Dell, Gateway, Acer, IBM, and all the other makers sell hardware that interoperates with each other. If Toshiba is ripping me off, I can go to any of a dozen other manufacturers, and all my programs will work on my new computer. Then there's Apple, which until recently sold hardware that legitimately didn't work with other hardware. Now that Apple runs on the same hardware that everyone else does, there's no reason OSX couldn't run on that hardware. If OSX is so much better, why not compete head to head? It's got to be easier to sell people than a whole new computer, especially if it's so much better at everything, right?
Of course, Apple will never do this. Last time they tried letting their OS on generic hardware, it was a miserable failure. The reason? Generic hardware is cheaper than the Mac, even on a comparable machine. Even after the "Windows tax." Apple, knowing it makes most of its money from hardware, will continue pricing their "computing experience" at a price to undercut their competitors that run OSX. Since there aren't any, they will set their price at the price where marginal cost equals marginal revenue. There's a word for that.
PCs can run Windows and Linux. And if Mac wasn't so concerned about keeping OSX under a hardware monopoly, PCs could run OSX as well. There's a problem here, but you're confusing the effect with the cause.
How about:
Apple is ragging on PC about being more "fun" because of being able to make slideshows from digital photos or something. The PC is like, "Well, I'm a fun guy too. In fact, there's only one way to settle this: with a game of $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_GAME_HERE$. What's that? Can't play it? Well, what about $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? Well what about $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? Oh, sorry to hear that. You keep screwing around with those pictures. I've got some aliens/Communists/Nazis to frag. Later."
How many people really read their 10 page mortgage application? Surprisingly few. And yet the agreement is legal.
Most people get a lawyer to read it and advise them on it, though. With EULAs, that doesn't happen.
100 degrees Fahrenheit was supposed to be the human body temperature of a healthy person. (Fahrenheit was a little off, that's why you have a fever if you're temperature is greater than 98.6 degrees.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're drawing a false dilemma. Steve Jobs does not have to be anti-DRM for everything in order to be anti-DRM for music. Obviously, he thinks that DRM and/or copy protection is appropriate for certain bytes while not appropriate for others. This is not unreasonable.
Steve Jobs thinks DRM and/or copy protection is appropriate for bytes he owns the copyright to, while not appropriate for bytes he does not. How is this not unreasonable?
This post is the most blatant case of trolling I have ever seen. It uses facts AND reasoned judgement. But worse than that, IT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE ALMIGHTY SLASHDOT OPINION
No, seriously, someone with mod points fix this.
No HD and won't work with DirecTV's obsoleted HD tivo
Sounds lame.
I thought he meant Celsius.
No, it's Windows that has the hardware monopoly...
[Goes on to describe the amazing SOFTWARE that comes preloaded on OSX, and then some that is just as availible on OSX that also as on Windows]
Excellent reading comprehension there, chief. The HARDWARE monopoly I refered to was about how the HARDWARE is only available from one source. Compare that to Windows hardware... Go ahead and find a vendor of Windows hardware. I'll wait.
Back so soon? As you've no doubt discovered, THERE IS NO WINDOWS HARDWARE. Microsoft does not sell computers; they sell software for computers. Toshiba, Dell, Gateway, Acer, IBM, and all the other makers sell hardware that interoperates with each other. If Toshiba is ripping me off, I can go to any of a dozen other manufacturers, and all my programs will work on my new computer. Then there's Apple, which until recently sold hardware that legitimately didn't work with other hardware. Now that Apple runs on the same hardware that everyone else does, there's no reason OSX couldn't run on that hardware. If OSX is so much better, why not compete head to head? It's got to be easier to sell people than a whole new computer, especially if it's so much better at everything, right?
Of course, Apple will never do this. Last time they tried letting their OS on generic hardware, it was a miserable failure. The reason? Generic hardware is cheaper than the Mac, even on a comparable machine. Even after the "Windows tax." Apple, knowing it makes most of its money from hardware, will continue pricing their "computing experience" at a price to undercut their competitors that run OSX. Since there aren't any, they will set their price at the price where marginal cost equals marginal revenue. There's a word for that.
PCs can run Windows and Linux. And if Mac wasn't so concerned about keeping OSX under a hardware monopoly, PCs could run OSX as well. There's a problem here, but you're confusing the effect with the cause.
How about:
Apple is ragging on PC about being more "fun" because of being able to make slideshows from digital photos or something. The PC is like, "Well, I'm a fun guy too. In fact, there's only one way to settle this: with a game of $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_GAME_HERE$. What's that? Can't play it? Well, what about $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? Well what about $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? Oh, sorry to hear that. You keep screwing around with those pictures. I've got some aliens/Communists/Nazis to frag. Later."
How many people really read their 10 page mortgage application? Surprisingly few. And yet the agreement is legal. Most people get a lawyer to read it and advise them on it, though. With EULAs, that doesn't happen.
Shh... Keep it down. You don't want the MPAA to hear you and sue you for copyright infringement!
100 degrees Fahrenheit was supposed to be the human body temperature of a healthy person. (Fahrenheit was a little off, that's why you have a fever if you're temperature is greater than 98.6 degrees.)
Are they tracking Canadian Tire Money too?