Apart from Apple fanboys, I don't think anybody is stupid enough to buy a new device just to get a software upgrade.
Apple "fanboys" don't have to buy a new device to get software upgrades...
Any Apple "fanboy" that has bought a phone introduced since September 2011 can get the latest OS, Any Apple "fanboy" that bought an iPad since 3/2011 can upgrade to the latest OS.
1) factually wrong -- it's "if there is an app version available that [the developer has explicitly told Apple they are willing to still support]". Apple let's developers make the choice and the choice defaults to taking away old versions.
"Apple has now clarified the process from an app developer perspective. The company emailed developers this week, officially informing them of the change to App Store policy, and offering options that let developers opt-out of the feature."
You are forced to buy new hardware because if you stick with the older version OS, you can't download apps from the app store (since most apps get updated to use the latest version of the OS)
If there was an older version of the app available that supports your OS. You are automatically given the option of downloading the old version.
If only Apple provided another way to upgrade the OS that didn't involve the extra space. Maybe they could let you connect it to a computer and use iTunes.
Why do people like to brag about their ignorance and pretend that it's insightful? Yahoo is the 5th most visited site in the U.S. according to Alexa. It's ahead of Wikipedia. Would you ask was Wikipedia still a thing?
Wow if Wikipedia disagrees, I guess that solves the issue....
But who are you trying to refute?
How are you saying anything different from what I said? The industry wanted Apple to license its DRM. Apple refused and said if the industry wants interoperability and competition license the music free of DRM and they will go along with it.
I don't care what Jobs said. It's irrelevant. Amazon's store was DRM free. They had the major labels within a year. Apple did not.
It was a whole extra 6 months.
I don't care what Jobs said at the time. Amazon got it done while Jobs was still blathering on about it. Actions beat words. Apple didn't rid DRM from their catalog until Amazon forced them to. You can go on talking about Jobs all you want. I saw what actually took place.
Obviously you didn't see what took place. You didn't know that the average user had 12 songs bought from iTunes on their iPod. The truth is that once every other company failed to sell DRM music because it wouldn't work on the iPod and Apple refused to license FairPlay, the industry didn't have a choice.
Do you really think that Apple - the company that first was able to get a consistent licensing agreement with its while catalog - was trying to keep DRM even though they got rid of it as soon as they were allowed to?
Hardware margins are a fool's game. Apple is going to lose its shirt if it keeps betting on them.
People have been predicting that Apples margins would collapse since 1977.
Digital goods is the future.Mark this comment and come back in a few years.
If only Apple had a thriving. growing digital goods business that sold music, video, and apps....
You know, maybe they should also get into payments! Nahh, that would never work...
You'll see. I also wouldn't bet against Amazon. They're making strategic moves now and sacrificing the short term to win big in the long term
Someone also hasn't looked into Apple's CAPEX.....
Amazon has been in business for over 17 years. 17 years ago in 1997 Apple was almost bankrupt and now is the most valuable company in the world. Who's strategy has worked better?
I don't care who sold DRM free first. This thread is from my comment pointing out that Apple is not the reason music sales now are free of DRM.
You've already shown that you don't the history behind what happened. But even after posting the dates that Jobs posted a letter stating that they would go DRM free if the labels allowed them and proving that they would once they were allowed to by one of the labels you still insist that Amazon forced them too?
If you knew the history, you would know that the labels didn't want to go DRM free. They wanted Apple to license FairPlay so other retailers like Real would have a chance. Apple said no and their only alternative was to go DRM free because no one would buy music that they couldn't use on iPods.
Amazon's catalog was entirely free of DRM, and they had the major labels within a year. Amazon did that, not Apple. Amazon got there well before Apple. Get it? That's my first comment here.
If by well before Apple you mean less than a year....
Apple can't rely on device sales. There's not much more you can make a gadget do. What's going to be next for innovation? Twice the resolution of a retina display? Digital goods are going to be the bread-winner. It's inevitable.
Yes and inevitable the world will come to an end. But Apple has been selling hardware since 1977.
Your last bit there doesn't contradict anything I said. Amazon could have been number one if Apple dug in on the whole DRM thing.
Amazon still in 2014 only sales music in two countries. in 2008, Apple had 70% plus of the MP3 market. Most people in the U.S. were either using iPods or CDs - both of which were supported by iTunes. They weren't affected by Apple's DRM.
I think that's part of what pushed Amazon to create their line of devices. The device drives the catalog. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I wouldn't bet on Apple, but who knows
You obviously don't know how little money is made off of selling digital goods compared to the margins Apple makes on hardware or how little profit Amazon has made over its entire 15+ year existence.
What next? Do you think Intel can't keep successfully selling processors?
Within a year of Amazon opening their digital music store, they had the major labels. Apple was still heavily into DRM then. I don't really care what Apple wanted to do, I'm looking at the facts for what they are.
You mean like your previous "fact" that Amazon started selling DRM free music before Apple did?
A year in, Amazon had what it needed to be a significant threat to Apple's iTunes store. Jobs may have been truthful saying that little music came from their store at the time, most music would have been ripped from people's CD collections, and I'm sure a significant chunk from file sharing. What was their percent out of the total that had been purchased from online?
If only Jobs had stated how many songs on a typical consumers iPod came from iTunes in his "Thouhts on Music" post. We would know....
Oh wait he did....
I'm sure they saw the iTunes store as a big part of Apple's future. Device sales alone only get you so far.
If only we could look into the distant future in 2014, 7 years after all this happened and see what percentage of Apple's revenue came from device sales of that iPhone thing they introduced in 2007. compared to music sales and iPod sales. I'm sure you're right, it's not like over 90% of their revenue come from devices....
One thing is certain, Jobs wouldn't have been giving Amazon credit for busting DRM. That doesn't mean they didn't play a big part. They pulled off what Apple couldn't or wouldn't.
You mean after 7 years still being the number one music retailer in the world?
1. Around the end of 2006, the EU was clamoring for Apple to license FairPlay. That's why Jobs said that most of the four record labels were based in the EU.
2. Jobs posted "Thoughts on Music" (the previously quoted article) telling the music industry if they wanted interoperability they could license their music DRM free.
3. Most of the music industry wanted Apple to have variable price music and to allow full albums to be sold without breaking them up. Apple refused. But made a deal with EMI. 4. The industry wouldn't let Apple sell music over the cellular network on the then new iPhone. 5. Amazon starts selling DRM free music acquiescing to the studios demands. 6. 2008 - around the time that Amazon had all four labels, Apple gave in to the labels on variable price music in exchange for DRM free music and the right to sell over the cellular network.
If you read the entire "thoughts on music" article, Jobs said that very little music in the typical iPod came from iTunes.
Amazon was only selling music in the US from two of the labels when it first came out. Not real competition to Apple.
Amazon didn't launch with all four of the major record labels. So while all of their music was DRM free. They didn't have all of the music that Apple had.
I've spent probably a few hundred pounds with Amazon, just because when I started buying music online they were the place to offer DRM free. Apple lost me as a customer because of DRM.
Apple started selling DRM free music (5/2007) before Amazon started selling music (9/2007).
Apple sold music with DRM in 2006. That music was hard or impossible to copy, as music with DRM should be. But that's not what Apple was sued for. And making it impossible for music with DRM to be copied is actually what DRM is there for.
If by "hard to copy" you mean use iTunes to burn a regular audio CD containing the DRM'd songs and then use iTunes to rip the songs as an MP3.
The only reason they did that is because Amazon beat them to it and was taking their customers away. If not for competition, Apple never would have removed DRM.
"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."
"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."
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like the Verizon Google Nexus that lagged behind getting updates?
But why is this acceptable? I don't have to wait for Dell to update Windows.
So name one feature of this app that couldn't be done on a web browser?
Apple "fanboys" don't have to buy a new device to get software upgrades...
Any Apple "fanboy" that has bought a phone introduced since September 2011 can get the latest OS, Any Apple "fanboy" that bought an iPad since 3/2011 can upgrade to the latest OS.
Wrong:
The choice defaults to allowing old versions...
http://www.tekrevue.com/ios-la...
"Apple has now clarified the process from an app developer perspective. The company emailed developers this week, officially informing them of the change to App Store policy, and offering options that let developers opt-out of the feature."
So should every manufacturer that doesn't have an SD card be sued -- including Google?
And Google.....
If there was an older version of the app available that supports your OS. You are automatically given the option of downloading the old version.
You mean like the SD card slot on Nexus devices? You know the only device that is almost guaranteed to get timely OS updates?
Where can I find this SD card slot on Nexus phones?
If only Apple provided another way to upgrade the OS that didn't involve the extra space. Maybe they could let you connect it to a computer and use iTunes.
Oh wait....
You're right. It's totally asinine to require network access to play a game with other people that are not sitting next to you....
Why do people like to brag about their ignorance and pretend that it's insightful? Yahoo is the 5th most visited site in the U.S. according to Alexa. It's ahead of Wikipedia. Would you ask was Wikipedia still a thing?
Wow if Wikipedia disagrees, I guess that solves the issue....
But who are you trying to refute?
How are you saying anything different from what I said? The industry wanted Apple to license its DRM. Apple refused and said if the industry wants interoperability and competition license the music free of DRM and they will go along with it.
It was a whole extra 6 months.
Obviously you didn't see what took place. You didn't know that the average user had 12 songs bought from iTunes on their iPod. The truth is that once every other company failed to sell DRM music because it wouldn't work on the iPod and Apple refused to license FairPlay, the industry didn't have a choice.
Do you really think that Apple - the company that first was able to get a consistent licensing agreement with its while catalog - was trying to keep DRM even though they got rid of it as soon as they were allowed to?
People have been predicting that Apples margins would collapse since 1977.
If only Apple had a thriving. growing digital goods business that sold music, video, and apps....
You know, maybe they should also get into payments! Nahh, that would never work...
Someone also hasn't looked into Apple's CAPEX.....
Amazon has been in business for over 17 years. 17 years ago in 1997 Apple was almost bankrupt and now is the most valuable company in the world. Who's strategy has worked better?
You've already shown that you don't the history behind what happened. But even after posting the dates that Jobs posted a letter stating that they would go DRM free if the labels allowed them and proving that they would once they were allowed to by one of the labels you still insist that Amazon forced them too?
If you knew the history, you would know that the labels didn't want to go DRM free. They wanted Apple to license FairPlay so other retailers like Real would have a chance. Apple said no and their only alternative was to go DRM free because no one would buy music that they couldn't use on iPods.
If by well before Apple you mean less than a year....
Yes and inevitable the world will come to an end. But Apple has been selling hardware since 1977.
Amazon still in 2014 only sales music in two countries. in 2008, Apple had 70% plus of the MP3 market. Most people in the U.S. were either using iPods or CDs - both of which were supported by iTunes. They weren't affected by Apple's DRM.
You obviously don't know how little money is made off of selling digital goods compared to the margins Apple makes on hardware or how little profit Amazon has made over its entire 15+ year existence.
What next? Do you think Intel can't keep successfully selling processors?
You mean like your previous "fact" that Amazon started selling DRM free music before Apple did?
If only Jobs had stated how many songs on a typical consumers iPod came from iTunes in his "Thouhts on Music" post. We would know....
Oh wait he did....
If only we could look into the distant future in 2014, 7 years after all this happened and see what percentage of Apple's revenue came from device sales of that iPhone thing they introduced in 2007. compared to music sales and iPod sales. I'm sure you're right, it's not like over 90% of their revenue come from devices....
You mean after 7 years still being the number one music retailer in the world?
That's not what happened.
Here is the long version of the story....
1. Around the end of 2006, the EU was clamoring for Apple to license FairPlay. That's why Jobs said that most of the four record labels were based in the EU.
2. Jobs posted "Thoughts on Music" (the previously quoted article) telling the music industry if they wanted interoperability they could license their music DRM free.
3. Most of the music industry wanted Apple to have variable price music and to allow full albums to be sold without breaking them up. Apple refused. But made a deal with EMI.
4. The industry wouldn't let Apple sell music over the cellular network on the then new iPhone.
5. Amazon starts selling DRM free music acquiescing to the studios demands.
6. 2008 - around the time that Amazon had all four labels, Apple gave in to the labels on variable price music in exchange for DRM free music and the right to sell over the cellular network.
If you read the entire "thoughts on music" article, Jobs said that very little music in the typical iPod came from iTunes.
Amazon was only selling music in the US from two of the labels when it first came out. Not real competition to Apple.
Amazon didn't launch with all four of the major record labels. So while all of their music was DRM free. They didn't have all of the music that Apple had.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Music
Apple started selling DRM free music (5/2007) before Amazon started selling music (9/2007).
If by "hard to copy" you mean use iTunes to burn a regular audio CD containing the DRM'd songs and then use iTunes to rip the songs as an MP3.
You mean like promoting internal products in their search results?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/y...
Or forcing a company to use their location services over a competitor (Android has 80% of the worldwide market)?
http://www.androidpolice.com/2...
Or not allowing a company to manufacturer non Google approved Android devices if they manufacturer Android approved devices?
http://marketingland.com/googl...
Google Maps with navigation only worked with Android for 3 years.
Google NaCL only works with Chrome.
Do you want other examples of Google technologies that only work with Chrome and/or Android?
2/6/2007
http://macdailynews.com/2007/0...
"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."
"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."
5/30/2007
Apple starts selling DRM free music
https://www.apple.com/pr/libra...
9/25/2007
Amazon starts selling DRM free music,
http://readwrite.com/2007/09/2...
As you were saying?
It's no different than Netflix and Amazon. Amazon Prime and Netflix are direct competitors but Netflix streaming is hosted on AWS
Which one of his claims were false?
1. That when the records labels allowed Apple to sell DRM free music, Apple didn't do it?
2. That every iPod ever made could play DRM free MP3's?
You could play all of the Non-DRM non Apple music you wanted on the iPod. ITunes had built in support for CD ripping.