Quite a few of them got marked down as "Troll".......
Because a lot of them are? The only change is that a troll comment that would have been moderated +5 insightful five years ago is now modded -1, Troll, the way it should be.
Last I herd iTunes didn't have a warning every time you buy a song that you can only play it on an iPod
If you're buying something from the iTMS, you are buying it in iTunes, and thus can already listen to it. DDDDDddddddddduuuuuuh. And as for using it on portable players, it doens't say anything about portables at all on the stores main page. If you look at the terms posted at the bottom of the page, it will say, "You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod and iPod mini, at a time." So your "warning" idea is just stupid.
Like I said in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue if they'd license the DRM to other music players and let them build iTMS support into their devices.
People who use the iTunes Music Store basically have to have an iPod if they want to use it on a portable device. The music won't work on anything but an iPod (without cracking the DRM yourself).
Then don't buy it from the iTMS!!! Name me a single band where you can only get their songs on the iTMS and not in any other format. If you don't want to be "locked in" to the iPod, then buy the physical cd and rip it to whatever format you want. Duh. This is not rocket science, this is pointless bitching.
They use monopolistic and unfair market practices by tying the use of the iTunes Music Store in to owning an iPod.
If the iTunes Music Store was your only way to get music from any sinifigant number of bands, you might have a point. As it's not, you don't. Want to buy an iPod and an iRiver and use the same song on both players? Then buy the frikkin physical cd, rip it to whatever format you choose, and then upload it to both players. Fairplay is in no way unfair or monopolistic, and this is a bunch of pointless bitching.
It can therefore be argued that Apple are abusing the iTMS to drive iPod sales illegally
Well sure, if you are stupid. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on either the hardware market or online store market, so all this complaining is just wasted breath. Why don't you go complain to Wal-Mart that it's anti-compeditive to strongarm labels with their brick & mortar marketshare to get prices Apple and Real can't match with their online stores, and that its anti-compeditive for Sony to have an online store when they can use songs from the Sony label for nothing.
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
Total lunacy. Apple makes no signifigant money on the iTMS; in fact they have called it a loss leader. They make money on iPod sales, which the iTMS helps promote.
Apple learned from their experience with Mac clones that you have to charge your licencees enough money to make up for lost sales of your own product. It would be simply impossible for Apple to charge iRiver and Creative enough money to make up for lost iPod sales, because 1) the profit margines are slim the way it is 2) there's no way to tell if the purchaser of an iRiver H10 intends to use aac, mp3 or wav and 3) because people are total skinflints when it comes to licensing Apple's technology. Remember all the whining and carrying on when Apple wanted a whole 25 cents per Firewire device? Geeks would be standing outside the Cupertino headquarters with torches and pitchforks if Apple wanted a $20 cut from every portable player that used their technolgoy.
Licensing makes even less sense if the the devices in question would continue to support wmv. Apple would not only be losing a chunk of the hardware market, but also the online store market. A lose-lose scenario!
These barriers are in place specifically to drive people to get an iPod. They are anti-competitive by design.
Pfft. It's not anti-compeditive when Microsoft just throws money away at a market segment in order to gain marketshare, and they don't have to worry about making a profit? It's not anti-compeditive when Wal-Mart uses their brick & mortar markeshare to strongarm record labels into accepting terms for the Wal-Mart online music store that Apple and Real could never hope to match? It's not anti-compedtive when Sony launches their own store and can slash prices on albums from Sony's own label to get prices that their compeditors can't match?
For Apple to license Fairplay would be to cutting off their own legs at the knees. To eliminate these "anti-compeditive" practices would necesitate price controls, and who wants those?
Except Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the technology in use for the portable player market, nor the functionality of players. There are alternatives to aac, like wmv, Sony's format and of course mp3, and non-Apple players like the Zen series or iRiver's offerings. And neither the files nor the hardware differ that much in function. Same story with the online music stores. You can also still buy your music in cd format, and encode it into the format of your choice. Apple doesn't have a lock on this market by any stretch of the imagination.
Apple is missing a huge revenue stream by not licensing the technology.
From who? Where is this huge revenue stream going to materialize from? Apple has most of the player market and the software to play them on computers is free for both Macs and Windows machines. I would think the vast majority of people who would use Apple's aac and music store, already are. And as you say, the iTMS has been regaurded as a loss leader for Apple, while they make money on the hardware. Opening up the DRM to other comanies would change that loss leader into simply being a loss.
And as for licensing, when it comes to Apple, people tend to be skinflints and want everything for free. Remember all the whining and carrying on that went on when Apple wanted a whole 25 cents per Firewire device?
Get some perspective, people. Non-Christians celebrate Christmas for the time off, putting up a tree, having the family over, presents and Santa. You can do all of this without saying boo about Jesus Christ, which is what the Christians are bitching about.
Those "two things [that are] still... true" were quite clearly enumerated: there are still questions remaining, and legal avenues to pursue
Was this Circular Reasoning Day? It was stated that there were questions and avenues still left. I said, like what. Replying that there are still questions and avenues left is not an answer to that question.
How is it NOT hypocrisy to have one argument, then to argue against that argument when your position changes and that argument would only hurt you?
Or maybe this was Super Obtuseness Day? The Democrats wanted their recounts and got it. They haven't changed positions in the slightest. Rossi is the only one who has changed his position, from the-election-was-okay-lets--hurry-and-certify-it to the-election-was-too-flawed-I-want-a-new-one.
She followed existing law. He wants to pass a new law to allow for a new election so he might win a second time.
... which existing law allows for. Pull your head out.
And existing law allows us to retroatively make Dukakis president. All we'd have to do is pass a constitutional amendment, which the Constitution explicitly allows for. If Gregoire was saying she would demand a new election, then you are right and she is guilty of extreme hypocracy, as is Rossi. If not, your argument is ludicrous, and you need to pull your head out.
That election was a joke. Military voters were left out.
What, you mean ones illegally sent in after the election that were counted, just like in Florida? Awwww.
Democrats kept recounting until they won. Period.
They asked for and got their recounts as allowed by law. And they one. Period.
They tried this in Florida in 2000, and they failed to steal the election then.
Well aparantly you haven't heard: if there had been a complete statewide recount in Florida, Gore would have won, so Bush stole the election. Deal with it.
Discrimination is a hateful business. Doesn't matter if you're talking about banning homosexual marriages or mixed race marriages, or if you do it with a smile or a snarl.
How so? He's pointing out that farming the area for resources like oil and gas will damage the environment even if we are careful. The guy who replied extended the specific comment about the Artic to include *all* of human development and expansion.
Because the fact that your "protection of marriage" laws do nothing to lower the existing divorce rate or prevent Britney-Spears-36-hour-Hollywood-marriages, means you aren't really protecting marriage, you're just hating homosexuals. That and the fact that if your gay neighbors get married, its as much your business as, and as relevant to your life, as if they get tatoos on their butts.
Or of course you could have a sense of proportion, so you wouldn't lump "not doing any more damage than necessary" and "nuke the wales!" into the same boat, with the only option being a hard cap on population.
I'll appeal to your obvious hot-button by noting that the loss of Texas makes the country even more reliant on foreign oil.
Nah, along with the convicts, well take all the people who own SUV's but never drive them out of the city and put them in Texas. We'll slash our dependence on foriegn oil AND get rid of thousands of yuppie urban cowboys!
Then of course there's the matter of Mission Control. but I guess you'd be OK with scapping the space program and all.
We'd still have Florida.
Or all the farmland that grows food, but then I suppose you thrive on good feelings from others.
Huh? CA has the most agriculture. We could probably feed the entire country by the food grown in California, Alaska and the Dakotas.
Or the massive amount of international travel and goods that go through Texas, but I guess you'd rather just spend a few billion to move all that traffic to someplace like New Orleans where it can get washed away by the next major hurricane.
Nah, we'll just build the superhighway in some state that isn't to chickenshit to actually use income taxes to pay for stuff.
Or the vast electronics industry there.
We'd still have CA.
I'm from Colorado, and if anyone has the right to dislike Texans it's me.
Why's that? My reason for hating Texas is because it seems to produce more than the average number of assholes, and because one of my best friends is from Texas, so I knock it every chance I get when he's in earshot. Like, the time he was wondering why lost his Internet access in his apartment:
Bob (non-Texan) "We have a crappy network cable in the switch, so you'll have to reach around the table in the living room to check the connection"
Me to Dan (the Texan): "Ahh, the reach-around, a Texan specialty"
WTF are you talking about? Apple has been a leader, not a follower, for all of their existence. Making such a retarded statement puts the rest of your post in serious doubt.
I disagree. Nobody is going to crack the Windows and Office monopolies unless Microsoft is forced to publish their API's as open standards, for several reasons. First, there's the self-perpetuating monopoly of Windows. Everybody develops for Windows because that's what everone uses, and everone uses Windows because the apps they need only run on Windows.
I've seen mentioned that Microsoft could lose these monopolies in the marketplace without government intervention, just as IBM lost their mainframe monopoly and Lotus and Wordperfect lost their dominance in the wordprocessing markets. However, its not a very good comparison, because file servers don't have to interoperate. By that I mean that it doesn't matter if Ford uses Novell and Chevy uses NT, because they don't have to operate together.
And the Wordperfect/Lotus comparison isn't a good one either, because at the time a great many businesses still used electronic typewriters, and it didn't matter if the file formats were incompatible because you'd be sending your document over a fax machine anyway. Today, a lot businesses would risk losing customers if they used Open Office instead of Word, because Microsoft keeps monkeying with the formats.
For the industry to break Microsoft's monoplies and switch to competing products, those other products would basically have to be free, be lightyears ahead of Microsofts offerings, AND be compatible with Windows apps/Office files. This would be impossible, unless Microsoft was forced to open their API's. Then any commercial or open source software group, could release an operating system that would run Windows applications natively, and make word processors that could compete on features since the file format would be the same.
But that's just a billeted list of features, which doesn't prove that Opera is superior. I'm talking about stuff like, Opera's X is better than Firefox's X because of Y, and Opera has a unique feature R which is great because of reason P... You know, like if you were doing a review of both browsers for a magazine, or something. It would probably be easier if you narrowed it down to a few killer features that would make paying for Opera worth it vs using the free Firefox.
If it has nothing to do with impressing anyone, then why do twits like you keep reminding everyone that the U.S. gives more than anyone else in dollar terms?
The GOP is planning on spending $700 million on Bush's second inauguration? That's news to me. It seems to me your propaganda is a little out of data.
You mean out of date? Yes, they've added another zero to the number, but at the time the U.N. was complaining, it was only $35 million. If people are going to bitch about the U.N. for comments they made at the time, then its only fair to talk about those comments in the context of the size of the American donation at the time.
Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.
Mental blocks? What about your mental block? As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience. You are fighting windmills here, Pudge.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a few of them got marked down as "Troll".......
Because a lot of them are? The only change is that a troll comment that would have been moderated +5 insightful five years ago is now modded -1, Troll, the way it should be.
Last I herd iTunes didn't have a warning every time you buy a song that you can only play it on an iPod
If you're buying something from the iTMS, you are buying it in iTunes, and thus can already listen to it. DDDDDddddddddduuuuuuh. And as for using it on portable players, it doens't say anything about portables at all on the stores main page. If you look at the terms posted at the bottom of the page, it will say, "You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod and iPod mini, at a time." So your "warning" idea is just stupid.
Like I said in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue if they'd license the DRM to other music players and let them build iTMS support into their devices.
Which would be perfectly stupid for Apple to do.
People who use the iTunes Music Store basically have to have an iPod if they want to use it on a portable device. The music won't work on anything but an iPod (without cracking the DRM yourself).
Then don't buy it from the iTMS!!! Name me a single band where you can only get their songs on the iTMS and not in any other format. If you don't want to be "locked in" to the iPod, then buy the physical cd and rip it to whatever format you want. Duh. This is not rocket science, this is pointless bitching.
They use monopolistic and unfair market practices by tying the use of the iTunes Music Store in to owning an iPod.
If the iTunes Music Store was your only way to get music from any sinifigant number of bands, you might have a point. As it's not, you don't. Want to buy an iPod and an iRiver and use the same song on both players? Then buy the frikkin physical cd, rip it to whatever format you choose, and then upload it to both players. Fairplay is in no way unfair or monopolistic, and this is a bunch of pointless bitching.
It can therefore be argued that Apple are abusing the iTMS to drive iPod sales illegally
Well sure, if you are stupid. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on either the hardware market or online store market, so all this complaining is just wasted breath. Why don't you go complain to Wal-Mart that it's anti-compeditive to strongarm labels with their brick & mortar marketshare to get prices Apple and Real can't match with their online stores, and that its anti-compeditive for Sony to have an online store when they can use songs from the Sony label for nothing.
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
Total lunacy. Apple makes no signifigant money on the iTMS; in fact they have called it a loss leader. They make money on iPod sales, which the iTMS helps promote.
Apple learned from their experience with Mac clones that you have to charge your licencees enough money to make up for lost sales of your own product. It would be simply impossible for Apple to charge iRiver and Creative enough money to make up for lost iPod sales, because 1) the profit margines are slim the way it is 2) there's no way to tell if the purchaser of an iRiver H10 intends to use aac, mp3 or wav and 3) because people are total skinflints when it comes to licensing Apple's technology. Remember all the whining and carrying on when Apple wanted a whole 25 cents per Firewire device? Geeks would be standing outside the Cupertino headquarters with torches and pitchforks if Apple wanted a $20 cut from every portable player that used their technolgoy.
Licensing makes even less sense if the the devices in question would continue to support wmv. Apple would not only be losing a chunk of the hardware market, but also the online store market. A lose-lose scenario!
These barriers are in place specifically to drive people to get an iPod. They are anti-competitive by design.
Pfft. It's not anti-compeditive when Microsoft just throws money away at a market segment in order to gain marketshare, and they don't have to worry about making a profit? It's not anti-compeditive when Wal-Mart uses their brick & mortar markeshare to strongarm record labels into accepting terms for the Wal-Mart online music store that Apple and Real could never hope to match? It's not anti-compedtive when Sony launches their own store and can slash prices on albums from Sony's own label to get prices that their compeditors can't match?
For Apple to license Fairplay would be to cutting off their own legs at the knees. To eliminate these "anti-compeditive" practices would necesitate price controls, and who wants those?
Imagine if Sony had never licensed CD technology.
Except Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the technology in use for the portable player market, nor the functionality of players. There are alternatives to aac, like wmv, Sony's format and of course mp3, and non-Apple players like the Zen series or iRiver's offerings. And neither the files nor the hardware differ that much in function. Same story with the online music stores. You can also still buy your music in cd format, and encode it into the format of your choice. Apple doesn't have a lock on this market by any stretch of the imagination.
Apple is missing a huge revenue stream by not licensing the technology.
From who? Where is this huge revenue stream going to materialize from? Apple has most of the player market and the software to play them on computers is free for both Macs and Windows machines. I would think the vast majority of people who would use Apple's aac and music store, already are. And as you say, the iTMS has been regaurded as a loss leader for Apple, while they make money on the hardware. Opening up the DRM to other comanies would change that loss leader into simply being a loss.
And as for licensing, when it comes to Apple, people tend to be skinflints and want everything for free. Remember all the whining and carrying on that went on when Apple wanted a whole 25 cents per Firewire device?
Give it a rest people.
Get some perspective, people. Non-Christians celebrate Christmas for the time off, putting up a tree, having the family over, presents and Santa. You can do all of this without saying boo about Jesus Christ, which is what the Christians are bitching about.
On the other hand, Kroger's doesn't make minimum wage bag boys pay union fees to get hired. Unions do.
Some businesses have policies that you wont like either. Some of them have even screwed up. Should we not have companies either then?
I can negotiate my own employment contract thank you very much.
And you can get screwed out of your employment all on your own, too.
Yes, I can. Can you?
Those "two things [that are] still
Was this Circular Reasoning Day? It was stated that there were questions and avenues still left. I said, like what. Replying that there are still questions and avenues left is not an answer to that question.
How is it NOT hypocrisy to have one argument, then to argue against that argument when your position changes and that argument would only hurt you?
Or maybe this was Super Obtuseness Day? The Democrats wanted their recounts and got it. They haven't changed positions in the slightest. Rossi is the only one who has changed his position, from the-election-was-okay-lets--hurry-and-certify-it to the-election-was-too-flawed-I-want-a-new-one.
And existing law allows us to retroatively make Dukakis president. All we'd have to do is pass a constitutional amendment, which the Constitution explicitly allows for. If Gregoire was saying she would demand a new election, then you are right and she is guilty of extreme hypocracy, as is Rossi. If not, your argument is ludicrous, and you need to pull your head out.
That election was a joke. Military voters were left out.
What, you mean ones illegally sent in after the election that were counted, just like in Florida? Awwww.
Democrats kept recounting until they won. Period.
They asked for and got their recounts as allowed by law. And they one. Period.
They tried this in Florida in 2000, and they failed to steal the election then.
Well aparantly you haven't heard: if there had been a complete statewide recount in Florida, Gore would have won, so Bush stole the election. Deal with it.
I'm not hateful.
Discrimination is a hateful business. Doesn't matter if you're talking about banning homosexual marriages or mixed race marriages, or if you do it with a smile or a snarl.
Nor am I afraid of sameness.
Is that so, Mr. Literal Latin Interpretation?
whose argument had no sense of proportion either.
How so? He's pointing out that farming the area for resources like oil and gas will damage the environment even if we are careful. The guy who replied extended the specific comment about the Artic to include *all* of human development and expansion.
Care to explain that dichotomy to me?
Because the fact that your "protection of marriage" laws do nothing to lower the existing divorce rate or prevent Britney-Spears-36-hour-Hollywood-marriages, means you aren't really protecting marriage, you're just hating homosexuals. That and the fact that if your gay neighbors get married, its as much your business as, and as relevant to your life, as if they get tatoos on their butts.
So yes, you are a hateful homophobe. Duh.
Americans will never tolerate the terrorism that Isreal has.
Americans would never tolerate the occupation of our homeland the way the Palistinians are supposed to, either.
Or of course you could have a sense of proportion, so you wouldn't lump "not doing any more damage than necessary" and "nuke the wales!" into the same boat, with the only option being a hard cap on population.
Nah, along with the convicts, well take all the people who own SUV's but never drive them out of the city and put them in Texas. We'll slash our dependence on foriegn oil AND get rid of thousands of yuppie urban cowboys!
Then of course there's the matter of Mission Control. but I guess you'd be OK with scapping the space program and all.
We'd still have Florida.
Or all the farmland that grows food, but then I suppose you thrive on good feelings from others.
Huh? CA has the most agriculture. We could probably feed the entire country by the food grown in California, Alaska and the Dakotas.
Or the massive amount of international travel and goods that go through Texas, but I guess you'd rather just spend a few billion to move all that traffic to someplace like New Orleans where it can get washed away by the next major hurricane.
Nah, we'll just build the superhighway in some state that isn't to chickenshit to actually use income taxes to pay for stuff.
Or the vast electronics industry there.
We'd still have CA.
I'm from Colorado, and if anyone has the right to dislike Texans it's me.
Why's that? My reason for hating Texas is because it seems to produce more than the average number of assholes, and because one of my best friends is from Texas, so I knock it every chance I get when he's in earshot. Like, the time he was wondering why lost his Internet access in his apartment:
Me to Dan (the Texan): "Ahh, the reach-around, a Texan specialty"
I'm curious, could you find a worse analogy since none of that happened, or apparantly was even close to happening?
and your statement makes it a fact? Citations?
Country music. 'Nuff said.
They've always been a me-too
WTF are you talking about? Apple has been a leader, not a follower, for all of their existence. Making such a retarded statement puts the rest of your post in serious doubt.
I disagree. Nobody is going to crack the Windows and Office monopolies unless Microsoft is forced to publish their API's as open standards, for several reasons. First, there's the self-perpetuating monopoly of Windows. Everybody develops for Windows because that's what everone uses, and everone uses Windows because the apps they need only run on Windows.
I've seen mentioned that Microsoft could lose these monopolies in the marketplace without government intervention, just as IBM lost their mainframe monopoly and Lotus and Wordperfect lost their dominance in the wordprocessing markets. However, its not a very good comparison, because file servers don't have to interoperate. By that I mean that it doesn't matter if Ford uses Novell and Chevy uses NT, because they don't have to operate together.
And the Wordperfect/Lotus comparison isn't a good one either, because at the time a great many businesses still used electronic typewriters, and it didn't matter if the file formats were incompatible because you'd be sending your document over a fax machine anyway. Today, a lot businesses would risk losing customers if they used Open Office instead of Word, because Microsoft keeps monkeying with the formats.
For the industry to break Microsoft's monoplies and switch to competing products, those other products would basically have to be free, be lightyears ahead of Microsofts offerings, AND be compatible with Windows apps/Office files. This would be impossible, unless Microsoft was forced to open their API's. Then any commercial or open source software group, could release an operating system that would run Windows applications natively, and make word processors that could compete on features since the file format would be the same.
But that's just a billeted list of features, which doesn't prove that Opera is superior. I'm talking about stuff like, Opera's X is better than Firefox's X because of Y, and Opera has a unique feature R which is great because of reason P... You know, like if you were doing a review of both browsers for a magazine, or something. It would probably be easier if you narrowed it down to a few killer features that would make paying for Opera worth it vs using the free Firefox.
And it has nothing to do with impressing anyone
If it has nothing to do with impressing anyone, then why do twits like you keep reminding everyone that the U.S. gives more than anyone else in dollar terms?
The GOP is planning on spending $700 million on Bush's second inauguration? That's news to me. It seems to me your propaganda is a little out of data.
You mean out of date? Yes, they've added another zero to the number, but at the time the U.N. was complaining, it was only $35 million. If people are going to bitch about the U.N. for comments they made at the time, then its only fair to talk about those comments in the context of the size of the American donation at the time.
Call a senator a congressman, and you will likely insult him, as a senate seat is the more prestigious of the two.
Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.
Mental blocks? What about your mental block? As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience. You are fighting windmills here, Pudge.