I had a lab with data acquisition equipment, etc, etc, etc running from an Apple II + specifically because its wealth of plug-in cards made it possible. Then PCs came out - with plug-in cards. Then the Mac came out, without plug-in cards. I was one of those back then saying that Apple lost it because their computer was no longer open - in the sense of open the box and add more. The lab was eventually converted to a Compaq.
Your statement - referencing "decades ago" - is clearly confusing "an ability to open the box" with Open. And, for me, that seems like it must have been hard to do.
Why you feel a need to think this way, beyond the obvious iPhone bashing, is beyond me - and I must say the whole "trouncing iPhone" meme - while always lame - is now officially tedious.
You're not engaged in market analysis when you use specious remarks - that dog don't hunt; please don't pretend it does.
It's common/. knowledge that Apple + AT&T lock-in is pure evil - I agree with this knowledge, fwiw.
And it was evil of Apple to break hacking iPhones restricting user freedom.
On the other hand, maybe....
1. Apple saddles up AT&T to break into the phone market. 2. AT&T goes for it. Apple Board of Directors is appeased; if iPhone fails somehow, how were stockholders not protected by the new venture, given Apple's attempt to partner with the phone giant? 3. Many people are offended and alienated by this, however, the fact remains: 4. iPhone sales are a tech phenomenon. 5. Apple keeps AT&T happy by breaking hacked iPhones. See point 4 for how this affects Apple's bottom line. Note that AT&T never publicly complained. 6. Apple waits for it to be the court's fault that they have to open things up for other carriers. 7. Apple expands its iPhone market without violating the AT&T agreements for hegemony.
If you've spent much time at all in Silicon Valley, this kind of thinking and planning isn't so outlandish.
And truth is most often stranger than fiction in the tech industries.
Just so I'm clear to whomever modded me down instead of parent up -
I'm Christian and I didn't realize people hated me I thought they just hated the loud crazy people. So since I gather that everyone does hate me. I must now hate everything that is different and force my ideas on you just so you'll like me.
You got that this was the parent I was referring to? And you didn't find this really funny? Wow. OK, but - wow.
As stated already so well, Amazon's deal with the labels was all about breaking Apple's hold on the market - and their ability to pressure said labels.
I believe that the following are facts, but am prepared with asbestos underroos if I'm mistaken:
1. Apple releases **some** DRM-free premium tunes following a failed attempt by the record industry to raise prices. Either way, it's a welcome Fuck You from Apple to the labels. 2. The labels retaliate by seeding DRM-free MP3s to Amazon, where Amazon was not previously in the market. 3. At that point, the labels refused to give Apple the same deal - their Fuck You in return.
Apologies if I have the chronology wrong, but that's how I remember it (I was out of the country getting news as best as possible at the time).
If iTMS fails, expect Amazon's price to go up drastically - cause and effect, under that scenario, the labels' Fuck You trumped Apple's.
You make an excellent point on authorized machines, and I'd missed it myself. PeterMGreen opened my eyes - I was catching it prolly during your response:
I find that, despite the bait I may be setting for myself, the iTMS content is sufficiently downgraded in the first place by its low sampling. On a good audio system, you can hear the difference.
I've spent a few decades of my life writing DSP software and teaching DSP techniques and Fourier and LaPlace math. I already lament sampling and have no choice but to agree that you're right. Fuzzily, however, few people seem to own decent audio equipment, many seem to flame being able to hear a difference, so to those people, the argument is lost - they wouldn't hear it. The others will more likely accept the new artifacts as different - technically inferior - but inferior_a is roughly equal to inferior_b. One would oversample the CD output (creating more digital artifacts) and then downsample the copy in an attempt to lose the new artifacts. There's no basis to belief that this creates lossless transfers, but does up the odds a bit in the user's favor.
Another guy insisted that Apple would free us from DRM if they went under, but I find no citation for that as of yet.
Please don't get me wrong - DRM is evil. IMO, Apple's DRM is the least evil - much like being preferred to be shot by a.22 instead of a.357 - it's still a freaking gunshot wound!
My retort was focused on the fact that the sky is not falling and a single-shot.22 is not an A-10 attack.
You can play it once said computer is authorized. Once that's done, OK.
I don't want to mix apples and jet engines - backups are a good idea, DRM is a bad idea, Apple agrees with both points. If you don't like Apple, fine, that's your right. If you don't DRM, we're of one mind. If you don't like Apple's DRM, we may be of one mind. But Apple being evil and DRM being totally evil and Apple uses what some argue is the least evil DRM (if there is such a thing), doesn't equate to Apple is totally evil and will somehow screw you in the future.
Remember, California consumer protection applies - and that's pretty friggin' strong protection, IMO.
Also remember that non-DRM music, such as is found on Amazon, is a competitive response to the iTMS. iTMS wasn't the first, but they did get the ball really rolling - their system worked technically and for the consumer. Fairplay was something that they had to go with to seal deals, not to seal lock-in - arguments to the contrary on this point are spins of well-known history.
And that all ties to the original Napster - that really, really got the ball rolling. It was like a really great beach - that fails to be great once it gets crowded with assholes. Which is what happened, in a way, and that got the music industry's attention, and nexto-presto, Apple introduces the evil that is FairPlay DRM in order to get a share of the frustrated market in way that wouldn't have them lose in court.
This illustrates that Apple's DRM evil - and their ongoing statements acknowledging it as evil - does not merit them being called evil and desiring DRM for lock-in.
Neither does it PROVE that they will be benevolent in the future. I'm betting that they will be because it makes market sense, and Apple's lead in this market segment does prove that they're all about market sense.
But if they do turn to the level of evil postulated, I could count in microseconds how long this would take to show up in a California court, with a jury full of iTMS users and an iPod-carrying judge.
Apple projecting a big screw-you to the world under the "because they can" guise just doesn't hold water. They could try - that's about it.
~~~~
On another tack, as your scenario was sufficiently clever:
Given that the other computer is not connected to the internet, perhaps the easiest way to transfer that song is via a CD copy of your iTMS music.
Assuming for a moment that you're the lone AC in this thread - can you at least keep straight whom it is that you're trying to insult? A little cadence in your retorts, please - or perhaps - what's that other word? - oh yeah, rhythm.
If you're lacking rhythm, here are some really great aids for you to consider:
English is my first language. The "i.e., being able to listen to your music" is your take on that - but it clear to me that you're misinterpreting that. If I may - the iTMS Service is in no way required to listen to music once purchased - IOW, playing purchased music in no way entails the ongoing involvement of Apple.
Sorry for previous post, in my mind I totally hit preview instead of submit.
As someone who has actually RTFA, Apple didn't hint that this change would shut down the iTMS - they said flat out that IF they ABSORBED the higher cost, THEN THAT would be so detrimental they'd have to shut down - and that there was NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.
Expert fear mongering, indeed. Allow me to accurately paraphrase for you.
1. Apple said that they wouldn't absorb additional costs - it was ridiculous to the point of causing an iTMS shutdown. 2. Apple said that shutting down iTMS is ridiculous. 3. The iTMS Terms of Sale is on the web. I'll post the link for those can read: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/sales.html 4. Ditto for their Terms of Service: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html 5. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT YOUR MUSIC PURCHASES ARE GOOD FOR "some undetermined amount of time." 6. iTMS TOS is governed by the laws of the State of California, USA 7. It strains reasonable imagination to the breaking point that any California court would uphold the insane scenario you present. 8. Your DRM fear mongering seems to completely overlook Apple's historical stance on DRM. From the fossil record:
Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
9. iTMS content continues to play when one has no connection to the internet. 10. Point 9, above is an excellent simulation of the iTMS going out of business - there would be no internet connection to iTMS, your music would continue to play.
I don't recall the article, but Asimov's book of MANY years ago summed up that our universe could be itself a black hole based on the consistent size/mass ratio required.
Congratulations. This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen attached to a 2-liner. Strange phenomenon, especially given the nature of many of the comments. I'm remiss to label it for very obvious reasons. (snappy salute) Well done!
Got the joke - but then got depressed. After leaving the gov't, I managed to take a buddy with me to the new job. His #1 quote when we had to bitch about do-overs and overtime: At least we have our souls back.
Thanks, I've read and re-read the entire FT. You alone postulated stopping camera phones but allowing other devices through. And you find that what you postulate is pointless. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I thought that you were postulating that defense security is a special case (it's not) and were responding to someone else saying camera phones were barred, other devices were OK (no one did).
In the US, I haven't heard of allowing camera phones into a sensitive facility while disallowing other recording methods. Why disallow all of those other recording methods? With so many people carrying their camera phones in to work, that sort of thing is pointless.
Odd than the two are expressed as mutually exclusive. Supposing for a moment that they are, as you suggest, would seem to imply that if I am mad, it would be impossible for the conversation to be light-years ahead, but more likely light-years oblique - contrarily, if the conversation is light-years ahead of you (and you're sane enough to recognize it as such) then madness on my part is most likely ruled flat out. The exclusion is therefore highly suggested by its internal symmetry. But as the great barrister, Sir Wilfrid Robarts, points out, such symmetry is to be suspected, leading to the my observation about your observation's exclusivity.
It is more fitting, and most definitely more tempting, to suggest that perhaps the two share complimentarity, as this shrouds me in a mantle of god-protected madness, which while in itself is pretty egotistical, I'm OK with, but would also require that I'm willing to classify my part in a conversation as light-years ahead of someone with enough common sense to see that I am, in fact, mad, and clearly that is too egotistical by half, even for me (which would not be the case if I were truly mad, therefore said state cannot be true, but then leaving the admission that the obverse is true, i.e., the conversation is light-years ahead of you, which clearly contradicts the going-in position to target a purer ego).
Yep. You've got a problem there. Well, I've done what I can to help.
Slashdot Mirror
You're comparing oranges to jet engines.
I had a lab with data acquisition equipment, etc, etc, etc running from an Apple II + specifically because its wealth of plug-in cards made it possible. Then PCs came out - with plug-in cards. Then the Mac came out, without plug-in cards. I was one of those back then saying that Apple lost it because their computer was no longer open - in the sense of open the box and add more. The lab was eventually converted to a Compaq.
Your statement - referencing "decades ago" - is clearly confusing "an ability to open the box" with Open. And, for me, that seems like it must have been hard to do.
Why you feel a need to think this way, beyond the obvious iPhone bashing, is beyond me - and I must say the whole "trouncing iPhone" meme - while always lame - is now officially tedious.
You're not engaged in market analysis when you use specious remarks - that dog don't hunt; please don't pretend it does.
It's common /. knowledge that Apple + AT&T lock-in is pure evil - I agree with this knowledge, fwiw.
And it was evil of Apple to break hacking iPhones restricting user freedom.
On the other hand, maybe....
1. Apple saddles up AT&T to break into the phone market.
2. AT&T goes for it. Apple Board of Directors is appeased; if iPhone fails somehow, how were stockholders not protected by the new venture, given Apple's attempt to partner with the phone giant?
3. Many people are offended and alienated by this, however, the fact remains:
4. iPhone sales are a tech phenomenon.
5. Apple keeps AT&T happy by breaking hacked iPhones. See point 4 for how this affects Apple's bottom line. Note that AT&T never publicly complained.
6. Apple waits for it to be the court's fault that they have to open things up for other carriers.
7. Apple expands its iPhone market without violating the AT&T agreements for hegemony.
If you've spent much time at all in Silicon Valley, this kind of thinking and planning isn't so outlandish.
And truth is most often stranger than fiction in the tech industries.
Sorry, but that's not strictly true. Consider the following:
"I'm only being honest when I say that I completely despise the RIAA."
Just so I'm clear to whomever modded me down instead of parent up -
I'm Christian and I didn't realize people hated me I thought they just hated the loud crazy people. So since I gather that everyone does hate me. I must now hate everything that is different and force my ideas on you just so you'll like me.
You got that this was the parent I was referring to? And you didn't find this really funny? Wow. OK, but - wow.
As stated already so well, Amazon's deal with the labels was all about breaking Apple's hold on the market - and their ability to pressure said labels.
I believe that the following are facts, but am prepared with asbestos underroos if I'm mistaken:
1. Apple releases **some** DRM-free premium tunes following a failed attempt by the record industry to raise prices. Either way, it's a welcome Fuck You from Apple to the labels.
2. The labels retaliate by seeding DRM-free MP3s to Amazon, where Amazon was not previously in the market.
3. At that point, the labels refused to give Apple the same deal - their Fuck You in return.
Apologies if I have the chronology wrong, but that's how I remember it (I was out of the country getting news as best as possible at the time).
If iTMS fails, expect Amazon's price to go up drastically - cause and effect, under that scenario, the labels' Fuck You trumped Apple's.
Hilarious.
Many thanks!!!!
You make an excellent point on authorized machines, and I'd missed it myself. PeterMGreen opened my eyes - I was catching it prolly during your response:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=983663&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=25239149
Point taken.
I find that, despite the bait I may be setting for myself, the iTMS content is sufficiently downgraded in the first place by its low sampling. On a good audio system, you can hear the difference.
I've spent a few decades of my life writing DSP software and teaching DSP techniques and Fourier and LaPlace math. I already lament sampling and have no choice but to agree that you're right. Fuzzily, however, few people seem to own decent audio equipment, many seem to flame being able to hear a difference, so to those people, the argument is lost - they wouldn't hear it. The others will more likely accept the new artifacts as different - technically inferior - but inferior_a is roughly equal to inferior_b. One would oversample the CD output (creating more digital artifacts) and then downsample the copy in an attempt to lose the new artifacts. There's no basis to belief that this creates lossless transfers, but does up the odds a bit in the user's favor.
Another guy insisted that Apple would free us from DRM if they went under, but I find no citation for that as of yet.
Please don't get me wrong - DRM is evil. IMO, Apple's DRM is the least evil - much like being preferred to be shot by a .22 instead of a .357 - it's still a freaking gunshot wound!
My retort was focused on the fact that the sky is not falling and a single-shot .22 is not an A-10 attack.
No.
You can play it once said computer is authorized. Once that's done, OK.
I don't want to mix apples and jet engines - backups are a good idea, DRM is a bad idea, Apple agrees with both points. If you don't like Apple, fine, that's your right. If you don't DRM, we're of one mind. If you don't like Apple's DRM, we may be of one mind. But Apple being evil and DRM being totally evil and Apple uses what some argue is the least evil DRM (if there is such a thing), doesn't equate to Apple is totally evil and will somehow screw you in the future.
Remember, California consumer protection applies - and that's pretty friggin' strong protection, IMO.
Also remember that non-DRM music, such as is found on Amazon, is a competitive response to the iTMS. iTMS wasn't the first, but they did get the ball really rolling - their system worked technically and for the consumer. Fairplay was something that they had to go with to seal deals, not to seal lock-in - arguments to the contrary on this point are spins of well-known history.
And that all ties to the original Napster - that really, really got the ball rolling. It was like a really great beach - that fails to be great once it gets crowded with assholes. Which is what happened, in a way, and that got the music industry's attention, and nexto-presto, Apple introduces the evil that is FairPlay DRM in order to get a share of the frustrated market in way that wouldn't have them lose in court.
This illustrates that Apple's DRM evil - and their ongoing statements acknowledging it as evil - does not merit them being called evil and desiring DRM for lock-in.
Neither does it PROVE that they will be benevolent in the future. I'm betting that they will be because it makes market sense, and Apple's lead in this market segment does prove that they're all about market sense.
But if they do turn to the level of evil postulated, I could count in microseconds how long this would take to show up in a California court, with a jury full of iTMS users and an iPod-carrying judge.
Apple projecting a big screw-you to the world under the "because they can" guise just doesn't hold water. They could try - that's about it.
~~~~
On another tack, as your scenario was sufficiently clever:
Given that the other computer is not connected to the internet, perhaps the easiest way to transfer that song is via a CD copy of your iTMS music.
Yes. Absolutely. You can still play it.
Assuming for a moment that you're the lone AC in this thread - can you at least keep straight whom it is that you're trying to insult? A little cadence in your retorts, please - or perhaps - what's that other word? - oh yeah, rhythm.
If you're lacking rhythm, here are some really great aids for you to consider:
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/itunes.html
and of course, just about everything in the http://www.magnatune.com/ catalogue.
You are completely welcome in advance!
English is my first language. The "i.e., being able to listen to your music" is your take on that - but it clear to me that you're misinterpreting that. If I may - the iTMS Service is in no way required to listen to music once purchased - IOW, playing purchased music in no way entails the ongoing involvement of Apple.
Not really - TFA specifically said that they wouldn't absorb the cost because it would down iTMS. Otherwise, you're right on.
Here's what the world would be like if the vast majority of people were atheists and gun owners:
There would be a bag limit of 2 per day for shooting narrow-minded jackasses.
There would be no penalty for going over the limit.
Sorry for previous post, in my mind I totally hit preview instead of submit.
As someone who has actually RTFA, Apple didn't hint that this change would shut down the iTMS - they said flat out that IF they ABSORBED the higher cost, THEN THAT would be so detrimental they'd have to shut down - and that there was NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.
Expert fear mongering, indeed. Allow me to accurately paraphrase for you.
1. Apple said that they wouldn't absorb additional costs - it was ridiculous to the point of causing an iTMS shutdown.
2. Apple said that shutting down iTMS is ridiculous.
3. The iTMS Terms of Sale is on the web. I'll post the link for those can read: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/sales.html
4. Ditto for their Terms of Service: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html
5. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT YOUR MUSIC PURCHASES ARE GOOD FOR "some undetermined amount of time."
6. iTMS TOS is governed by the laws of the State of California, USA
7. It strains reasonable imagination to the breaking point that any California court would uphold the insane scenario you present.
8. Your DRM fear mongering seems to completely overlook Apple's historical stance on DRM. From the fossil record:
From http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
9. iTMS content continues to play when one has no connection to the internet.
10. Point 9, above is an excellent simulation of the iTMS going out of business - there would be no internet connection to iTMS, your music would continue to play.
You, sir, are a total fucking idiot.
Apple has intimated such a change might cause a complete shutdown of the iTunes Music Store.
More importantly, what of the client software that interacts with the store? You know, the program that allows you to burn/listen/store "your" music?
Please!
'Nuff said.
What? So we live in Sector zed zed nine plural zed alpha. Yeah, big news.
I don't recall the article, but Asimov's book of MANY years ago summed up that our universe could be itself a black hole based on the consistent size/mass ratio required.
http://www.amazon.com/Collapsing-Universe-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0091317703
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/30/realnetworks_sued/
Congratulations. This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen attached to a 2-liner. Strange phenomenon, especially given the nature of many of the comments. I'm remiss to label it for very obvious reasons. (snappy salute) Well done!
Took the words out of my mouth, compadre.
Got the joke - but then got depressed. After leaving the gov't, I managed to take a buddy with me to the new job. His #1 quote when we had to bitch about do-overs and overtime: At least we have our souls back.
If only it were that easy. Remember - in the land of blind men, a one-eyed man is king; in the land of idiots and fools, a wise man is put to death.
So it is at government agencies - I know.
Thanks, I've read and re-read the entire FT. You alone postulated stopping camera phones but allowing other devices through. And you find that what you postulate is pointless. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I thought that you were postulating that defense security is a special case (it's not) and were responding to someone else saying camera phones were barred, other devices were OK (no one did).
In the US, I haven't heard of allowing camera phones into a sensitive facility while disallowing other recording methods. Why disallow all of those other recording methods? With so many people carrying their camera phones in to work, that sort of thing is pointless.
Odd than the two are expressed as mutually exclusive. Supposing for a moment that they are, as you suggest, would seem to imply that if I am mad, it would be impossible for the conversation to be light-years ahead, but more likely light-years oblique - contrarily, if the conversation is light-years ahead of you (and you're sane enough to recognize it as such) then madness on my part is most likely ruled flat out. The exclusion is therefore highly suggested by its internal symmetry. But as the great barrister, Sir Wilfrid Robarts, points out, such symmetry is to be suspected, leading to the my observation about your observation's exclusivity.
It is more fitting, and most definitely more tempting, to suggest that perhaps the two share complimentarity, as this shrouds me in a mantle of god-protected madness, which while in itself is pretty egotistical, I'm OK with, but would also require that I'm willing to classify my part in a conversation as light-years ahead of someone with enough common sense to see that I am, in fact, mad, and clearly that is too egotistical by half, even for me (which would not be the case if I were truly mad, therefore said state cannot be true, but then leaving the admission that the obverse is true, i.e., the conversation is light-years ahead of you, which clearly contradicts the going-in position to target a purer ego).
Yep. You've got a problem there. Well, I've done what I can to help.