There is actually a very good motivation and it is not as stupid an idea as you think.
Making your customers afraid to use your product for fear of being sued is *not* a stupid idea?
[a bunch of examples of you buying CDs which only you seem to have any idea as to how it's relevant to Apple selling out their customers]
The point I am coming to is that the music industry is clearly desperate to find ways to "add value" for people who do currently legally pay for music, hence something like iCloud which couldn't ever appeal to a CD buyer like me but may be of some appeal to those who buy downloaded music.
iCloud is *Apple's* product, not the music industry's product. Apple pays the industry for their product, which is licensing of the music. Why would Apple destroy their product by making their customers afraid to use it?
And how iCloud "couldn't ever appeal to a CD buyer" is unclear. In fact, the $25/year add-on is specifically *designed* for CD buyers (among other groups)!
The $150 million "bailout" (by buying stock and promising to continue selling a very profitable product, in exchange for cross-licensing and an end to a long-running lawsuit) of a company that had billions of dollars *in cash*? That "bailout"?
But nowhere do you see people focusing on this. The wording of this story, like almost any story on Slashdot about MS or Apple, is pure trolling.
But damned annoying for the developers who believed the Silverlight evangelists preaching about how it was going to kill Flash.
Anyone who believed that deserves what they get.
It's also a bit irritating for those who invested time building Silverlight chart engines and other rich controls for reporting tools.
And the same here.
But none of that detracts from the general idea that the less requirements for the use of Silverlight (and Flash) on the web in favor of HTML5, the better.
How is this an example of "damned if they do, damned if they don't"? Microsoft made Silverlight, pushed a lot of sites to use it at the displeasure of many (Netflix), now they are dropping support?
MS uses Silverlight, the nerds rage. MS stops using Silverlight, the nerds rage.
Apple believes that it loses billions in iTunes sales each year to file sharing.
Where have they ever said anything like this? And let's pretend for a moment that they do believe this: they will lose tens of billions each quarter if they scare away their customers.
Once the RIAA is on your case Apple offers a one click solution....just buy all that music legally (from them)! KA-CHING!
From Amazon, you mean. No one would ever deal with Apple again if they did something like this.
As for those talking about "Aww, they'd never go after individuals!" Um, what universe did you come from?
The "they" here is Apple, not the RIAA. And yes, Apple would never do that.
Before, they had to settle for little girls downloading Happy_Birthday.mp3. You think they'll ignore someone with a 50,000 mp3 collection given the chance?
Uploading, not downloading. No one has ever been sued for downloading a song.
But hey, don't let me rain on any Apple fan-boy's parade (above comments), this same technique would work on Apple, Amazon, or Google cloud music solutions. There's no "safe" cloud storage for streaming pirated music. It's not Apple, it's the industry.
So, where are all the lawsuits from cloud stored music then?
This is a red herring anyway. For copyright violation stemming from sharing a file, whether you originally pirated the file or ripped it from your own CD is wholly irrelevant. What matters is whether you have the right to distribute the song. The source of the file only really matters if it can actually make the damages *worse* (and, potentially criminal), such as a situation where you leak an unreleased album.
There simply must be business value for them to bother with this endeavor at all.
Yes, it's called "selling hardware", which is something Apple intends to do for many years to come, and something which they will find exceptionally difficult to keep doing of they *EVER* do anything like this idiotic notion.
Um, I'm not sure which Slashdot you've been reading, but Apple hatred is rampant on this one. I have no problem with people not liking Apple, or criticizing their policies, etc., like you claim you are doing, but much what passes for "Insightful" and "Informative" on slashdot is borderline insane.
Taking this specific story as an example, Apple isn't even doing anything, yet this is cited as a problem with the "walled garden". WTF? It makes no sense. Especially since Apple's "walled garden" has alternate browsers which allow one to spoof their way through the NY Post's paywall.
But then *that* has to be spun yet again, and people stating that Apple will just pull these browsers from the App Store get modded up, even though that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm not defending the NY Post (or its readers). I'm just addressing the tendency on slashdot to act like Apple users are stupid, of which ColdWetDog's post is an example of.
It is possible to interpret his post without any malice towards iPad owners, I just don't find that very likely, especially given the context and the deliberate choice of wording.
Not to the same extent. I'm not making a claim about whether he's saying NY Post readers are stupid, I'm simply not addressing that part, whereas RyuuzakiTetsuya is saying that he's *not* making a claim about iPad owners and only about NY Post readers.
I'm only addressing part of ColdWetDog's post. Ryu was saying that part was completely not relevant.
It may surprise you to know this, but there are hundreds of millions of iOS users. The vast majority of them are quite happy with their device. There are tens of millions of iPad owners, again overwhelmingly happy with their iPad.
Apple is one of the most well respected companies in the world. They are the second most valuable public company ever to exist, and their products are highly regarded.
The population of anti-Apple nerds, which are rife on sites like slashdot, are an extremely small minority. Of the hundreds of millions of satisfied Apple customers, only one of them is Steve Jobs (potential name coincidences aside. only one of them is *that* Steve Jobs at any rate).
So, although you may live in a sheltered echo-chamber and anti-Apple sentiment, like I said at first, it may surprise you to know that there are plenty of people other than Steve Jobs who might have something nice to say about Apple.
After all, if they were doing this on Android (which they just as easily can)...
But no one IS doing this on Android, and they WON'T, because a phone company and/or manufacturer who did would find their market share ebbing away.
Do you really not understand the difference between Apple and... the rest of the world, and why some of us dislike them enough to avoid their locked in shiny?
Do you even know what is being discussed here? This has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of Apple or the phone company. It's the NY Post which is doing the thing being discussed, and they can quite easily do the exact same for Android tablets as they are doing for the iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
There is actually a very good motivation and it is not as stupid an idea as you think.
Making your customers afraid to use your product for fear of being sued is *not* a stupid idea?
[a bunch of examples of you buying CDs which only you seem to have any idea as to how it's relevant to Apple selling out their customers]
The point I am coming to is that the music industry is clearly desperate to find ways to "add value" for people who do currently legally pay for music, hence something like iCloud which couldn't ever appeal to a CD buyer like me but may be of some appeal to those who buy downloaded music.
iCloud is *Apple's* product, not the music industry's product. Apple pays the industry for their product, which is licensing of the music. Why would Apple destroy their product by making their customers afraid to use it?
And how iCloud "couldn't ever appeal to a CD buyer" is unclear. In fact, the $25/year add-on is specifically *designed* for CD buyers (among other groups)!
The $150 million "bailout" (by buying stock and promising to continue selling a very profitable product, in exchange for cross-licensing and an end to a long-running lawsuit) of a company that had billions of dollars *in cash*? That "bailout"?
Go troll somewhere else.
It's good for the public and the browser makers.
But nowhere do you see people focusing on this. The wording of this story, like almost any story on Slashdot about MS or Apple, is pure trolling.
But damned annoying for the developers who believed the Silverlight evangelists preaching about how it was going to kill Flash.
Anyone who believed that deserves what they get.
It's also a bit irritating for those who invested time building Silverlight chart engines and other rich controls for reporting tools.
And the same here.
But none of that detracts from the general idea that the less requirements for the use of Silverlight (and Flash) on the web in favor of HTML5, the better.
Actually, there is no hate.
Against MS?
It's more of a Ha-Ha to the developers that dared to try to make $ on a MS technology.
A "Ha-Ha" motivated by hatred towards MS.
Almost every company that has worked with MS has gotten stabbed in the back.
More MS hate.
and your sig
Microsoft: Making "just good enough" products to keep people from using "Good" or "Great" products since 95'
More MS hate.
How is this an example of "damned if they do, damned if they don't"? Microsoft made Silverlight, pushed a lot of sites to use it at the displeasure of many (Netflix), now they are dropping support?
MS uses Silverlight, the nerds rage. MS stops using Silverlight, the nerds rage.
Apple believes that it loses billions in iTunes sales each year to file sharing.
Where have they ever said anything like this? And let's pretend for a moment that they do believe this: they will lose tens of billions each quarter if they scare away their customers.
Once the RIAA is on your case Apple offers a one click solution....just buy all that music legally (from them)! KA-CHING!
From Amazon, you mean. No one would ever deal with Apple again if they did something like this.
The theories you guys come up with are insane.
Except the proper phrase for this story is, "It's a troll!"
There is no trap here. The idea is all but impossible.
As for those talking about "Aww, they'd never go after individuals!" Um, what universe did you come from?
The "they" here is Apple, not the RIAA. And yes, Apple would never do that.
Before, they had to settle for little girls downloading Happy_Birthday.mp3. You think they'll ignore someone with a 50,000 mp3 collection given the chance?
Uploading, not downloading. No one has ever been sued for downloading a song.
But hey, don't let me rain on any Apple fan-boy's parade (above comments), this same technique would work on Apple, Amazon, or Google cloud music solutions. There's no "safe" cloud storage for streaming pirated music. It's not Apple, it's the industry.
So, where are all the lawsuits from cloud stored music then?
Um, a citation that something hasn't happened? How exactly do you provide that?
Well, why not?
Um, he explained why not.
Will Apple make more money selling music at $0.99/track, or $hundreds_or_thousands_or_millions selling infringers to the lawyers?
Selling iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Macs. Something they will find extremely difficult to do if people are afraid of them.
My money is on the lawyers.
Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money.
This is a red herring anyway. For copyright violation stemming from sharing a file, whether you originally pirated the file or ripped it from your own CD is wholly irrelevant. What matters is whether you have the right to distribute the song. The source of the file only really matters if it can actually make the damages *worse* (and, potentially criminal), such as a situation where you leak an unreleased album.
There simply must be business value for them to bother with this endeavor at all.
Yes, it's called "selling hardware", which is something Apple intends to do for many years to come, and something which they will find exceptionally difficult to keep doing of they *EVER* do anything like this idiotic notion.
That doesn't answer the question. What motivation would Apple have to agree to something like that? It's completely absurd.
Yeah, I think we are pretty much in agreement, just looking at the same thing from a different angle.
Um, I'm not sure which Slashdot you've been reading, but Apple hatred is rampant on this one. I have no problem with people not liking Apple, or criticizing their policies, etc., like you claim you are doing, but much what passes for "Insightful" and "Informative" on slashdot is borderline insane.
Taking this specific story as an example, Apple isn't even doing anything, yet this is cited as a problem with the "walled garden". WTF? It makes no sense. Especially since Apple's "walled garden" has alternate browsers which allow one to spoof their way through the NY Post's paywall.
But then *that* has to be spun yet again, and people stating that Apple will just pull these browsers from the App Store get modded up, even though that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm not defending the NY Post (or its readers). I'm just addressing the tendency on slashdot to act like Apple users are stupid, of which ColdWetDog's post is an example of.
It is possible to interpret his post without any malice towards iPad owners, I just don't find that very likely, especially given the context and the deliberate choice of wording.
Well, we can't all make such meaningful contributions like your stellar example above, what with the ad hominem and absurd sexual aspersions.
Yes, clearly *I'm* the one with issues...
That both nouns apply to you does not require they be synonyms.
What "new replacement"? Alternate browsers already exist, and Apple isn't banning them.
Not to the same extent. I'm not making a claim about whether he's saying NY Post readers are stupid, I'm simply not addressing that part, whereas RyuuzakiTetsuya is saying that he's *not* making a claim about iPad owners and only about NY Post readers.
I'm only addressing part of ColdWetDog's post. Ryu was saying that part was completely not relevant.
It may surprise you to know this, but there are hundreds of millions of iOS users. The vast majority of them are quite happy with their device. There are tens of millions of iPad owners, again overwhelmingly happy with their iPad.
Apple is one of the most well respected companies in the world. They are the second most valuable public company ever to exist, and their products are highly regarded.
The population of anti-Apple nerds, which are rife on sites like slashdot, are an extremely small minority. Of the hundreds of millions of satisfied Apple customers, only one of them is Steve Jobs (potential name coincidences aside. only one of them is *that* Steve Jobs at any rate).
So, although you may live in a sheltered echo-chamber and anti-Apple sentiment, like I said at first, it may surprise you to know that there are plenty of people other than Steve Jobs who might have something nice to say about Apple.
Fanatic? If your initial post I was replying to isn't an example of anti-Apple fanaticism, I'd like to know what is.
His "fantasy" is that apple will boot an application because it competes with their moneymaking scheme.
Um... How, exactly?
Which it does, and has done many times in the past.
For example?
After all, if they were doing this on Android (which they just as easily can)...
But no one IS doing this on Android, and they WON'T, because a phone company and/or manufacturer who did would find their market share ebbing away.
Do you really not understand the difference between Apple and... the rest of the world, and why some of us dislike them enough to avoid their locked in shiny?
Do you even know what is being discussed here? This has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of Apple or the phone company. It's the NY Post which is doing the thing being discussed, and they can quite easily do the exact same for Android tablets as they are doing for the iPad.