8 games with 20+ hours of gameplay vs a computer and 160+ hours of porn...
Hmm, the decision is difficult.
Re:At least Real Supports linux, Mac's iTunes won'
on
Real Feels iTunes Backlash
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Fair enough.
Apple's claim to support open source means Apple contributes back to open source.
IE, they give strictly as much as they take. When they use KHTML, the also contribute code to it. Same with CUPS, *BSD, and every other open source program they use.
In this case your logic is similar to mine: Real doesn't support Mac, I don't support Real. For you, Apple doesn't support Linux, so you don't support Apple.
Why is it hypocrisy both ways? Is Apple selling OS X as a viable alternative to Windows? No, Apple is selling a Macintosh as a viable alternative to PCs running Microsoft Windows.
In this case Real is championing the Real store as a viable alternative to the iTMS; except for some non-trivial population it isn't. I mean, if you're a PC using iPod owner, it's great. If you'r a Mac using iPod owner, it's nonexistent. Real is championing choice, but failing to provide it. Apple never championed consumer rights when selling their software. All they ever said about it was, "It is better," and "It is easier."
Look, I never slammed you as a troll. I understand why you want OS X and Apple software for the PC, as I would too, but since I couldn't I bought a Mac. It would be great if Apple did sell these things on Windows, but they don't, and it would be great if Real sold their music on Mac, but they don't.
Before the iPod, how many things exactly weren't Mac compatible?
The point is NOW, not past or future. Real talks about choice, competition, and alternatives, and fails to provide choice by only targeting one platform; Windows. If they do believe in choice... if they do believe in alternatives and competition, make their product Mac compatible so I can listen to it in my iTunes.
The world goes down in flames if we live a tit for tat philosophy. Look up the Prisoner's Dilemna, and then consider we don't live in a zero sum world. My gain is not your loss. Real wants a chance, well, give my a chance to. Until they can, all I can do is slam them for not producing a viable competitive product.
I've two Macs and an iPod. Real cunningly enough has made their music store incompatible. Where is our $0.49 downloads?
Don't mistake me and think I disapprove of Real's RE tactics. I don't. I disapprove of their hypocrisy in championing choice and alternatives when they fail to do so themselves.
You're mistaken if you think I somehow disapprove of Real's actions. I call them a hypocrite because they happen to 'champion' choice and competition, except they don't.
The Real music store is Mac incompatible. Good going. So much for consumer choice. Where's my $0.49 downloads?
Except that Real is making a compatible DRM wrapper to Fairplay, not removing it. If Real were removing it, we'd have raw AAC, which is no big deal. Real isn't doing this.
Actually, Real's mistake in underestimating the Mac Fanatic's loyalty was in not making their music store Mac compatible.
We are the iPod and iTMS early adopters. We (I) wouldn't mind cheaper music. I'm not decrying Real's RE tactic, I'm decrying their hypocrisy in declaring consumer choice and market competition as their logo when it is not.
The original quoter is correct: Real shouldn't be exercising their rights to reverse engineer Apple's protected format if they will use the DMCA to prevent someone else to reverse engineer their protected format. It's called hypocrisy. Yes, I agree Real has the legal right to reverse engineer, but I don't think they have the ethical right to pursue it themselves. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in this case.
But Real is a hypocrite. Also, Real denies me the ability to purchase their music. I'm a Mac user. Where's the love? Where's the competition? Where's the choice?
Real has taken it's stand: They will only support Windows. Apple has taken it's stand: We support both Windows and Mac. I don't think Real is bad for wanting to offer choice, but I think it's hypocritical of them to champion reverse engineering while at the same time relying on the DMCA to protect their own format, and hypocritcal of them to champion choice when they offer no such thing, to me.
Fair to concede the Mac market, but not the Windows market?
I'm a zealot because I love Apple products, but I wouldn't discard the option of Real music. Real wants to compete, then fine, compete. Maybe I'm being greedy, but why shouldn't I want $0.49 192kbps AAC files? You really have to ask, "Why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS"?
I would be using iTunes+RMS because it's cheaper and higher quality. Duh.
Yes, but Mac users have a disproportionately higer share of the MP3 market and the online music market.
We were, after all, the first adopters of the iPods, that drove the market, and we did have the music store before it was released on Windows.
So if we are strictly being logical, I would say companies should give me priority on 30% of the target music playing market.
Lest you forget, Adobe and Microsoft both make a pretty penny from us Mac users too. It's not as if we're an unprofitable market. We are very profitable.
Because Real's music store is incompatible with the Mac. Me, as an iPod user, is scorned by Real. So I continue to scorn them. Open up their music store, and then I can guage the quality of their offerings. Until then they are hypocrites.
The full quote is "Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights."
The quoter claimed Real had no right to reverse engineer when the company itself will not allow others to reverse engineer. It's not about law, in the quote, but about reciprocity. If they think it's okay for Real Co to RE the iPod and iTunesMS, then it should be okay for others to reverse RA stuff as well, which you didn't pick up.
Another problem is that Real's music store isn't Mac compatible.
Yes, we only have 3-4% of the market, but hello, aren't we also the same market that catapaulted the iPod, and then the Music Store, to success? It's not like we aren't a valid economically sound market.
It's silly to champion choice like Real is if they won't support the platform they are arguably trying to break into: Apple's market. That includes Mac users.
paying $18.99 to play an album that contains probably less than 20% good music is something that I will never do. to me, paying for filler music is a fools game.
lowering the price to $.99 or less per song seems reasonable to me. people dont understand that by purchasing filler albums in stores that they are ok with crap music and if they are ok with that, what is going to keep record companies from spending less money on songwriting when they know the music isn't going to be listened to anyway?
NOTE: You seem to have missed a significant market of people who like singles over albums. If we only bought albums then yes, $9.99 per album might be pretty foolish. Instead we are spending $2.97 or so per album, instead.
Slashdot Mirror
8 games with 20+ hours of gameplay vs a computer and 160+ hours of porn...
Hmm, the decision is difficult.
Fair enough.
Apple's claim to support open source means Apple contributes back to open source.
IE, they give strictly as much as they take. When they use KHTML, the also contribute code to it. Same with CUPS, *BSD, and every other open source program they use.
In this case your logic is similar to mine: Real doesn't support Mac, I don't support Real. For you, Apple doesn't support Linux, so you don't support Apple.
Why is it hypocrisy both ways? Is Apple selling OS X as a viable alternative to Windows? No, Apple is selling a Macintosh as a viable alternative to PCs running Microsoft Windows.
In this case Real is championing the Real store as a viable alternative to the iTMS; except for some non-trivial population it isn't. I mean, if you're a PC using iPod owner, it's great. If you'r a Mac using iPod owner, it's nonexistent. Real is championing choice, but failing to provide it. Apple never championed consumer rights when selling their software. All they ever said about it was, "It is better," and "It is easier."
Look, I never slammed you as a troll. I understand why you want OS X and Apple software for the PC, as I would too, but since I couldn't I bought a Mac. It would be great if Apple did sell these things on Windows, but they don't, and it would be great if Real sold their music on Mac, but they don't.
Fair enough :)
I'm not proud or happy when Apple does this stuff either ^^
I'm only happy with Apple products because they serve me better than other's products.
Before the iPod, how many things exactly weren't Mac compatible?
The point is NOW, not past or future. Real talks about choice, competition, and alternatives, and fails to provide choice by only targeting one platform; Windows. If they do believe in choice... if they do believe in alternatives and competition, make their product Mac compatible so I can listen to it in my iTunes.
The world goes down in flames if we live a tit for tat philosophy. Look up the Prisoner's Dilemna, and then consider we don't live in a zero sum world. My gain is not your loss. Real wants a chance, well, give my a chance to. Until they can, all I can do is slam them for not producing a viable competitive product.
I've two Macs and an iPod. Real cunningly enough has made their music store incompatible. Where is our $0.49 downloads?
Don't mistake me and think I disapprove of Real's RE tactics. I don't. I disapprove of their hypocrisy in championing choice and alternatives when they fail to do so themselves.
You're mistaken if you think I somehow disapprove of Real's actions. I call them a hypocrite because they happen to 'champion' choice and competition, except they don't.
The Real music store is Mac incompatible. Good going. So much for consumer choice. Where's my $0.49 downloads?
You're right, there is a difference.
Except that Real is making a compatible DRM wrapper to Fairplay, not removing it. If Real were removing it, we'd have raw AAC, which is no big deal. Real isn't doing this.
The Real music store isn't Mac compatible.
Actually, Real's mistake in underestimating the Mac Fanatic's loyalty was in not making their music store Mac compatible.
We are the iPod and iTMS early adopters. We (I) wouldn't mind cheaper music. I'm not decrying Real's RE tactic, I'm decrying their hypocrisy in declaring consumer choice and market competition as their logo when it is not.
Did you read my post?
The original quoter is correct: Real shouldn't be exercising their rights to reverse engineer Apple's protected format if they will use the DMCA to prevent someone else to reverse engineer their protected format. It's called hypocrisy. Yes, I agree Real has the legal right to reverse engineer, but I don't think they have the ethical right to pursue it themselves. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in this case.
But Real is a hypocrite. Also, Real denies me the ability to purchase their music. I'm a Mac user. Where's the love? Where's the competition? Where's the choice?
Real has taken it's stand: They will only support Windows. Apple has taken it's stand: We support both Windows and Mac. I don't think Real is bad for wanting to offer choice, but I think it's hypocritical of them to champion reverse engineering while at the same time relying on the DMCA to protect their own format, and hypocritcal of them to champion choice when they offer no such thing, to me.
Right, as should other entities and individuals. Boo Real.
Fair to concede the Mac market, but not the Windows market?
I'm a zealot because I love Apple products, but I wouldn't discard the option of Real music. Real wants to compete, then fine, compete. Maybe I'm being greedy, but why shouldn't I want $0.49 192kbps AAC files? You really have to ask, "Why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS"?
I would be using iTunes+RMS because it's cheaper and higher quality. Duh.
I wish Real would make their music store Mac compatible. Until they do they're being hypocritcal about choice.
Real music store is Mac incompatible.
I hear all the open source zealots are typing away on PowerBooks and iBooks, now, running OS X.
I also know that Real's music store is Mac incompatible. So much for choice, right?
Yes, but Mac users have a disproportionately higer share of the MP3 market and the online music market.
We were, after all, the first adopters of the iPods, that drove the market, and we did have the music store before it was released on Windows.
So if we are strictly being logical, I would say companies should give me priority on 30% of the target music playing market.
Lest you forget, Adobe and Microsoft both make a pretty penny from us Mac users too. It's not as if we're an unprofitable market. We are very profitable.
Because Real's music store is incompatible with the Mac. Me, as an iPod user, is scorned by Real. So I continue to scorn them. Open up their music store, and then I can guage the quality of their offerings. Until then they are hypocrites.
Music store isn't Mac compatible.
The full quote is "Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights."
The quoter claimed Real had no right to reverse engineer when the company itself will not allow others to reverse engineer. It's not about law, in the quote, but about reciprocity. If they think it's okay for Real Co to RE the iPod and iTunesMS, then it should be okay for others to reverse RA stuff as well, which you didn't pick up.
Another problem is that Real's music store isn't Mac compatible.
Yes, we only have 3-4% of the market, but hello, aren't we also the same market that catapaulted the iPod, and then the Music Store, to success? It's not like we aren't a valid economically sound market.
It's silly to champion choice like Real is if they won't support the platform they are arguably trying to break into: Apple's market. That includes Mac users.
How about the fact that Real's music store isn't Mac compatible? Is that enough reason to dislike Real in this situation?
Money. Difficult to make, easy to verify.
Goods. Like a car.
Trust. Extremely difficult to make, easy to verify.
paying $18.99 to play an album that contains probably less than 20% good music is something that I will never do. to me, paying for filler music is a fools game.
lowering the price to $.99 or less per song seems reasonable to me. people dont understand that by purchasing filler albums in stores that they are ok with crap music and if they are ok with that, what is going to keep record companies from spending less money on songwriting when they know the music isn't going to be listened to anyway?
NOTE: You seem to have missed a significant market of people who like singles over albums. If we only bought albums then yes, $9.99 per album might be pretty foolish. Instead we are spending $2.97 or so per album, instead.