Um, Apple backed -R And -R as you saw was half the price, though they were slower
The reason +R survived was because everyone created +/- drives, as you say.
So if BluRay is like -R, it will be cheaper and more widely available and the only reason HD-DVD will survive is because dual format players will exist.
Because, you know, Apple's already done all the hard work in designing the workstation, vetting the video vendor, creating the OpenGL libraries, and releasing free developer tools.
You know, it's pretty hard to keep 'your' files organized on shared systems; say a lab or business share. Even harder when they aren't 'your' files; system files, program files, etc.
This makes a common network drive so much more accessible; imagine 20 users with 30 shared folders and 30 personal folders all on a network storage unit.
The OTHER point of view to yours: I want the computer to do the stuff it's good at (organization and storage) and I want to do the stuff I'm good at (creation, manipulation, modification).
So if the computer can do a better job of keeping my files organized than I can, I say, let it.
If you're information was leaked, I don't see why you couldn't sue Lexis/Choice/BofA.
The problem is whether you are suing for: 1) Damages 2) Liability 3) Criminal behavior
Damages? That depends on how much got stolen from you Liability? I have no clue Criminal behavior? I suppose that falls under 'negligence' but I don't know how they award damages for this.
Isn't everyone protected by the First Amendment? If so, should everyone ALSO be protected as journalists?
Why not?
Why is my speech and my actions less protected than someone who works for CBS?
I write on Slashdot; I write on LiveJournal; I write on my own set of forums and a private website. Why do journalists, but not citizens, get protected through journalistic shield laws?
Fair enough. So a blogger could get constitutional protections. At what point is a person spouting offline different than a blogger spouting off online?
If a blogger says it out loud, are they no longer protected?
If a non-blogger prints something online, are they suddenly protected, even if their efforts would not normally be protected offline?
Then there's the OTHER issue; is TS immune from being sued for publishing trade secrets?
You only think it's legal. That's beside the point though. They aren't being sued for protecting their sources. They are being sued for publishing trade secrets. If you are going to vilify Apple, get the story right.
If TS sources are anonymous, TS is incredibly stupid for resisting the subpoena.
If they aren't anonymous, then they are incredibly stupid if they broke any kind of NDA.
It's simply a matter of trust; if you give out your credit card number to a clerk at a department store, and they proceed to abuse it, what do YOU do?
Someone took data from Apple that was private and important, and now they want to deal with the leak; I don't see how this will 'get them nowhere'. If someone steals your credit card and you punish them, that too will get you nowhere because that will hardly stop the next thief, after all. The gain is too rich.
Yes you can. Microsoft makes hardware, software, and peripherals: Computer: XBox Software: Office Games: Age of Empires OS: Windows Peripherals: Gamepads, mice, keyboards
Since 2000 Apple has introduced three models of mp3 players; 4 revisions of the first, two of the second, and one of the third. They've released four models of PowerBook, two models if iMac, three models of iBook, a new computer, a new chip architecture, three models of rack mount equipment, an OS with new and innovative features, five prosumer software packages, two productivity software packages, an outstanding webcam, a music store, and serious entry level professional software.
You might be very right that Microsoft believes their current product was solid. I believe different; that Microsoft saw no economic risk in delaying their OS release due to lack of competitive pressure and focused instead on: Home theater PCs Video games Tablets Handheld computers Portable media centers Office productivity software
In the same time Apple focused on: Rackmount PCs Music Portable music players Movies Supercomputers Workstations Con sumer PCs Prosumer creativity software OSes
Apple HAS been outstripping Microsoft I think. They enter more diverse fields and have a better chance of weathering any kind of slump or collapse than Microsoft does. Microsoft, it seems, enters markets with the intent of dominating them. In comparison Apple seems to enter markets with the intent of creating new markets.
If CO is equivalent to MO, but costs 70% of Microsoft, then that's my tax money saved; that's less taxes I pay. So in so far as my 'rights', that 's one thing.
The other thing? They put their money where their mouth is. If MS is bad, and Office is bad... don't use it.
As for rights? Well, it only means this demonstrates (either by success or failure) what the alternatives to Office are.
I don't disagree that these websites should be considered members of the press, but I do disagree that Apple shouldn't have the ability to subpoena them to reveal their sources.
For one I actually don't think purchasing Apple stock based on 'insider information' is actually legal. Purchasing stock based on rumors is one thing, purchasing and selling stock based on 'inside' information seems to be skirting legality. IE, if Steve Jobs knew he was going to cancel the iBook, and sold off stock prior to the announcement, I think he'd be in big trouble. Likewise, you/the public knowing marketing information to make a more informed purchasing decision does hurt Apple, and in that sense YOUR/PUBLIC good must be balanced against PRIVATE good.
That is exactly why I bring up the credit card. Your private good must be balanced against the public good. In your case, the public would do harm by having your information. In Apple's case a certain subset of the public would do harm (stock traders, competitors, and consumers who would eschew purchasing at Apple's expense) while a certain subset of the public would be benefitted (consumers who eschew purchasing at Apple's expense but to their benefit)
The analogy still holds, despite your refusal to acknowledge it: If you or I can subpoena or sue to protect OUR information, I believe Apple should be able to subpoena and sue to protect THEIR private information.
It is totally up to the judge, lawyers, and defendents whether they speak up or shut up, of course.
I don't disagree that everyone has the power and right be press.
However you are being disingenuous here. Very much misleading actually. That, or stupid. Quoted from the very article you link to, "Apple's attorney George Rliey, argued earlier in the trial that journalists, whether or not belonging to traditional media like press and broadcast were never entitled to the leaked information."
So Apple is saying it doesn't matter if they are, or aren't, journalists.
The judge however says, "By his preliminary ruling, judge Kleinberg had refused to extend to the Web sites the same protection that shields journalists from revealing their unidentified sources or surrenduring unpublished matieral."
Yes, of course Apple would agree with the judge; it means they get their answers. Don't confuse correlation and causation. The judge made his ruling and Apple agrees, but I doesn't wash that Apple made the ruling, which is what YOU believe.
And because you cite nothing, I haven't even seen them second hand. All I have are the notes of Jef Raskin, original proponent for the one button mouse and HIS studies on why they used it. They go something very much like the examples I used.
Download iTunes; if you like it, you'll like the iPod(s). If you don't, you probably won't like the iPods. That's more or less how it works. iTunes works the same way the iPods work, and vice versa.
Sorry to hear about your experiences, but you know what?
I wish Creative, iRiver, Sony, Dell, etc, would release their jukebox software too so I could see how nice/poor/great/horrible they are before I decide to invest in one of their music players.
Balderdash. Using ONLY the example of the parent poster, his wife needs Chinese input. Linux only RECENTLY got this capability. Macs have had it for years. OS X has had it since inception.
If we talk software, we can't talk about generics. Is it Office she needs? Macs have Office. Is it something else? Then it's something else entirely, but generically saying Macs don't have software is utter bullshit.
Half of the stuff that runs on Windows run on Macs. Most of the stuff available for Linux is ALSO available for Macs, if only because of BSD.
So you make a value judgement on how valuable leaked information is and disqualify one leak while qualifying another.
I'm sorry, but there is at least some members of the public who would find your personal very valuable; people who would use it to sign up for credit cards in your name. So for the sake of argument the question still holds. IF someone published your private information, what kind of legal recourse do you have? I claim exactly the same as Apple: subpoena to determine who/how it was acquired, and lawsuit for damages from the person who published it.
Your NSHO only matters in that if someone had misappropriated valuable information from you it is your choice whether to pursue legal action; in Apple's eyes, they have the means and the recourse to protect their private information. Just because you don't think trade secrets aren't worth protecting doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you.
Why is it then that you never migrated your wife to OS X then? It has all the same mystic/mythic qualities as Linux, and has the same roots and even a stronger history (BSD->NeXT->OS X) and it doesn't have the crippling UI or software.
Apple are bastards, but they aren't anything like Microsoft as bastards.
If there's one thing Microsoft did wrong, it was almost the opposite: They threatened Compaq and other OEM contracts with higher prices if they bundled Netscape or Real.
So in a way, Apple is clumsy where Microsoft is not. Had Apple wanted to act like Microsoft, Apple could have said, "Okay, contract time. If you want to keep your reseller status or your repair status, you have to do THIS"
Then the argument that Apple is acting like Microsoft would be very powerful. Instead we just have the case that Apple is arrogant.
Microsoft bullies OEMs; they use one monopoly, the OS, to coerce companies into creating another monopoly, IE.
The reason it's illegal is because of the coercion. Using one monopoly to create another one.
Apple's monopoly on iPods and monopoly on iTunes is not an act of coercion: you can download iTunes without owning an iPod (some people do). HP bundles iTunes on their PCs, and it wasn't an act of coercion.
Apple hasn't done the same thing (yet). When Apple tells HP, "You can't install WMP as the condition for bundling iTunes or selling iPods," then we are in the same ballpark.
But they haven't done that. HP still bundles WMP, and they still sell Media Center PCs.
Oh, Apple hasn't ensured that it only works with their music store. Real cleverly found a way to create iPod compatible AAC files, haven't you heard? It's only that no one has figured out how to create iPod clones yet. Where's the modern day Compaq when you need them.
You say Bullshit, but you still don't answer my main point: How is it profitable to Apple to:
Hire retailers Pay rent Pay utilities Buy furnishings
Net, all those costs + stealing customers + new customers > stolen customers - reseller's cut; or more directly, new customers > net costs - reseller's cut for this to be a reasonable venture.
If the expected new customers net costs - reseller's cut, they ARE wasting money. Existing resellers cost Apple nothing; the question is do they gain Apple anything.
As per your point regarding contracts, I can't argue since I have no knowledge, but I do believe my original point still holds.
Apple is wasting money if the resellers are doing a better job than Apple's stores. Do you mean then that Apple is plowing money into this venture for future return? In which case the equation becomes whether the future return of the Apple store is greater than the future return of the resellers; it only changes the timeframe of profitability, and not the overall equation.
As per my rhetoric, "Why would Apple waste time having those resellers at all?"
My answer would be, "Apple is in the midst of transition, from an old economic model of manufacturing and design, relying on third parties to market and sell, to a new model of designing for the market, and in order to properly address the market they need to have a direct connection. That means Apple Stores."
The reason they had resellers was their old economic model in which they designed and manufactured computers; they didn't SELL them.
Now, for whatever reason, I think they've decided it makes more sense to sell directly, rather than relying on a third party to make marketing, sales, and retail decisions for them. That they aren't playing nice is a shame and something they should be fined for if they broke contracts, but I totally think that might not be a bad idea.
Put another way, imagine if an OEM manufacturer decided rather than producing whiteboxes for other companies to sell they would create their own brand to sell. Like Ford dealerships selling Ford cars, instead of relying on Costco or something.
In this sense, Apple is the OEM, and now Apple is the brand.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if an employee ACCIDENTALLY leaked info, they are still liable.
If I accidentally kill you by driving over you, can I saw 'Oops' and go home?
So would you rather the magazine be held accountable?
Here's the chain: Apple subpoena's the magazine (why do you call it a magazine?)
Oh, who is this? No one they know! So they subpoena HIM.
Oh, his brother works at a temp agency?
Subpoena HIM!
Oh, his temp agency has someone who works at Apple!
Subpoena HIM!
Oh! This person works in the kitchen!
So finally they have a lead to follow.
Do you rather Apple sue the magazines, then sue the person, then sue the temp agency?
I think Apple would rather you not wait :)
Plus they aren't INDUCING information.
They'ved DEDUCED information from publically available information from Apple.
Um, Apple backed -R
And -R as you saw was half the price, though they were slower
The reason +R survived was because everyone created +/- drives, as you say.
So if BluRay is like -R, it will be cheaper and more widely available and the only reason HD-DVD will survive is because dual format players will exist.
Apple DVD-R variation
Apple finally adds DVD+R support in 2003
Or they ship Mac based DevKits.
Because, you know, Apple's already done all the hard work in designing the workstation, vetting the video vendor, creating the OpenGL libraries, and releasing free developer tools.
You know, it's pretty hard to keep 'your' files organized on shared systems; say a lab or business share. Even harder when they aren't 'your' files; system files, program files, etc.
This makes a common network drive so much more accessible; imagine 20 users with 30 shared folders and 30 personal folders all on a network storage unit.
The OTHER point of view to yours:
I want the computer to do the stuff it's good at (organization and storage) and I want to do the stuff I'm good at (creation, manipulation, modification).
So if the computer can do a better job of keeping my files organized than I can, I say, let it.
I don't think only corporations have the right.
If you're information was leaked, I don't see why you couldn't sue Lexis/Choice/BofA.
The problem is whether you are suing for:
1) Damages
2) Liability
3) Criminal behavior
Damages? That depends on how much got stolen from you
Liability? I have no clue
Criminal behavior? I suppose that falls under 'negligence' but I don't know how they award damages for this.
So the real question:
Isn't everyone protected by the First Amendment? If so, should everyone ALSO be protected as journalists?
Why not?
Why is my speech and my actions less protected than someone who works for CBS?
I write on Slashdot; I write on LiveJournal; I write on my own set of forums and a private website. Why do journalists, but not citizens, get protected through journalistic shield laws?
Fair enough. So a blogger could get constitutional protections. At what point is a person spouting offline different than a blogger spouting off online?
If a blogger says it out loud, are they no longer protected?
If a non-blogger prints something online, are they suddenly protected, even if their efforts would not normally be protected offline?
Then there's the OTHER issue; is TS immune from being sued for publishing trade secrets?
You only think it's legal. That's beside the point though. They aren't being sued for protecting their sources. They are being sued for publishing trade secrets. If you are going to vilify Apple, get the story right.
Trade secrets are protected by the law.
Publishing information you have reason to believe is a trade secret (protected under NDA in this case) is therefore reasonably illegal.
If TS sources are anonymous, TS is incredibly stupid for resisting the subpoena.
If they aren't anonymous, then they are incredibly stupid if they broke any kind of NDA.
It's simply a matter of trust; if you give out your credit card number to a clerk at a department store, and they proceed to abuse it, what do YOU do?
Someone took data from Apple that was private and important, and now they want to deal with the leak; I don't see how this will 'get them nowhere'. If someone steals your credit card and you punish them, that too will get you nowhere because that will hardly stop the next thief, after all. The gain is too rich.
Yes you can. Microsoft makes hardware, software, and peripherals:
n sumer PCs
Computer: XBox
Software: Office
Games: Age of Empires
OS: Windows
Peripherals: Gamepads, mice, keyboards
Since 2000 Apple has introduced three models of mp3 players; 4 revisions of the first, two of the second, and one of the third. They've released four models of PowerBook, two models if iMac, three models of iBook, a new computer, a new chip architecture, three models of rack mount equipment, an OS with new and innovative features, five prosumer software packages, two productivity software packages, an outstanding webcam, a music store, and serious entry level professional software.
You might be very right that Microsoft believes their current product was solid. I believe different; that Microsoft saw no economic risk in delaying their OS release due to lack of competitive pressure and focused instead on:
Home theater PCs
Video games
Tablets
Handheld computers
Portable media centers
Office productivity software
In the same time Apple focused on:
Rackmount PCs
Music
Portable music players
Movies
Supercomputers
Workstations
Co
Prosumer creativity software
OSes
Apple HAS been outstripping Microsoft I think. They enter more diverse fields and have a better chance of weathering any kind of slump or collapse than Microsoft does. Microsoft, it seems, enters markets with the intent of dominating them. In comparison Apple seems to enter markets with the intent of creating new markets.
If CO is equivalent to MO, but costs 70% of Microsoft, then that's my tax money saved; that's less taxes I pay. So in so far as my 'rights', that 's one thing.
The other thing? They put their money where their mouth is. If MS is bad, and Office is bad... don't use it.
As for rights? Well, it only means this demonstrates (either by success or failure) what the alternatives to Office are.
I don't disagree that these websites should be considered members of the press, but I do disagree that Apple shouldn't have the ability to subpoena them to reveal their sources.
For one I actually don't think purchasing Apple stock based on 'insider information' is actually legal. Purchasing stock based on rumors is one thing, purchasing and selling stock based on 'inside' information seems to be skirting legality. IE, if Steve Jobs knew he was going to cancel the iBook, and sold off stock prior to the announcement, I think he'd be in big trouble. Likewise, you/the public knowing marketing information to make a more informed purchasing decision does hurt Apple, and in that sense YOUR/PUBLIC good must be balanced against PRIVATE good.
That is exactly why I bring up the credit card. Your private good must be balanced against the public good. In your case, the public would do harm by having your information. In Apple's case a certain subset of the public would do harm (stock traders, competitors, and consumers who would eschew purchasing at Apple's expense) while a certain subset of the public would be benefitted (consumers who eschew purchasing at Apple's expense but to their benefit)
The analogy still holds, despite your refusal to acknowledge it: If you or I can subpoena or sue to protect OUR information, I believe Apple should be able to subpoena and sue to protect THEIR private information.
It is totally up to the judge, lawyers, and defendents whether they speak up or shut up, of course.
I don't disagree that everyone has the power and right be press.
However you are being disingenuous here. Very much misleading actually. That, or stupid. Quoted from the very article you link to, "Apple's attorney George Rliey, argued earlier in the trial that journalists, whether or not belonging to traditional media like press and broadcast were never entitled to the leaked information."
So Apple is saying it doesn't matter if they are, or aren't, journalists.
The judge however says, "By his preliminary ruling, judge Kleinberg had refused to extend to the Web sites the same protection that shields journalists from revealing their unidentified sources or surrenduring unpublished matieral."
Yes, of course Apple would agree with the judge; it means they get their answers. Don't confuse correlation and causation. The judge made his ruling and Apple agrees, but I doesn't wash that Apple made the ruling, which is what YOU believe.
And because you cite nothing, I haven't even seen them second hand. All I have are the notes of Jef Raskin, original proponent for the one button mouse and HIS studies on why they used it. They go something very much like the examples I used.
I always thought that was obvious.
Download iTunes; if you like it, you'll like the iPod(s). If you don't, you probably won't like the iPods. That's more or less how it works. iTunes works the same way the iPods work, and vice versa.
Sorry to hear about your experiences, but you know what?
I wish Creative, iRiver, Sony, Dell, etc, would release their jukebox software too so I could see how nice/poor/great/horrible they are before I decide to invest in one of their music players.
Fair enough :)
Balderdash. Using ONLY the example of the parent poster, his wife needs Chinese input. Linux only RECENTLY got this capability. Macs have had it for years. OS X has had it since inception.
If we talk software, we can't talk about generics. Is it Office she needs? Macs have Office. Is it something else? Then it's something else entirely, but generically saying Macs don't have software is utter bullshit.
Half of the stuff that runs on Windows run on Macs. Most of the stuff available for Linux is ALSO available for Macs, if only because of BSD.
So you make a value judgement on how valuable leaked information is and disqualify one leak while qualifying another.
I'm sorry, but there is at least some members of the public who would find your personal very valuable; people who would use it to sign up for credit cards in your name. So for the sake of argument the question still holds. IF someone published your private information, what kind of legal recourse do you have? I claim exactly the same as Apple: subpoena to determine who/how it was acquired, and lawsuit for damages from the person who published it.
Your NSHO only matters in that if someone had misappropriated valuable information from you it is your choice whether to pursue legal action; in Apple's eyes, they have the means and the recourse to protect their private information. Just because you don't think trade secrets aren't worth protecting doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you.
Why is it then that you never migrated your wife to OS X then? It has all the same mystic/mythic qualities as Linux, and has the same roots and even a stronger history (BSD->NeXT->OS X) and it doesn't have the crippling UI or software.
See, so how is this Microsoft like at all?
Apple are bastards, but they aren't anything like Microsoft as bastards.
If there's one thing Microsoft did wrong, it was almost the opposite: They threatened Compaq and other OEM contracts with higher prices if they bundled Netscape or Real.
So in a way, Apple is clumsy where Microsoft is not. Had Apple wanted to act like Microsoft, Apple could have said, "Okay, contract time. If you want to keep your reseller status or your repair status, you have to do THIS"
Then the argument that Apple is acting like Microsoft would be very powerful. Instead we just have the case that Apple is arrogant.
Okay, that doesn't sound the same.
Microsoft bullies OEMs; they use one monopoly, the OS, to coerce companies into creating another monopoly, IE.
The reason it's illegal is because of the coercion. Using one monopoly to create another one.
Apple's monopoly on iPods and monopoly on iTunes is not an act of coercion: you can download iTunes without owning an iPod (some people do). HP bundles iTunes on their PCs, and it wasn't an act of coercion.
Apple hasn't done the same thing (yet). When Apple tells HP, "You can't install WMP as the condition for bundling iTunes or selling iPods," then we are in the same ballpark.
But they haven't done that. HP still bundles WMP, and they still sell Media Center PCs.
Oh, Apple hasn't ensured that it only works with their music store. Real cleverly found a way to create iPod compatible AAC files, haven't you heard? It's only that no one has figured out how to create iPod clones yet. Where's the modern day Compaq when you need them.
You say Bullshit, but you still don't answer my main point: How is it profitable to Apple to:
Hire retailers
Pay rent
Pay utilities
Buy furnishings
Net, all those costs + stealing customers + new customers > stolen customers - reseller's cut; or more directly, new customers > net costs - reseller's cut for this to be a reasonable venture.
If the expected new customers net costs - reseller's cut, they ARE wasting money. Existing resellers cost Apple nothing; the question is do they gain Apple anything.
As per your point regarding contracts, I can't argue since I have no knowledge, but I do believe my original point still holds.
Apple is wasting money if the resellers are doing a better job than Apple's stores. Do you mean then that Apple is plowing money into this venture for future return? In which case the equation becomes whether the future return of the Apple store is greater than the future return of the resellers; it only changes the timeframe of profitability, and not the overall equation.
As per my rhetoric, "Why would Apple waste time having those resellers at all?"
My answer would be, "Apple is in the midst of transition, from an old economic model of manufacturing and design, relying on third parties to market and sell, to a new model of designing for the market, and in order to properly address the market they need to have a direct connection. That means Apple Stores."
The reason they had resellers was their old economic model in which they designed and manufactured computers; they didn't SELL them.
Now, for whatever reason, I think they've decided it makes more sense to sell directly, rather than relying on a third party to make marketing, sales, and retail decisions for them. That they aren't playing nice is a shame and something they should be fined for if they broke contracts, but I totally think that might not be a bad idea.
Put another way, imagine if an OEM manufacturer decided rather than producing whiteboxes for other companies to sell they would create their own brand to sell. Like Ford dealerships selling Ford cars, instead of relying on Costco or something.
In this sense, Apple is the OEM, and now Apple is the brand.