I have no idea what posessed Apple to offer the eMac at all. It's an ugly, heavy, out-of-date monster - and still too expensive.
They made it because their customers demanded it!
Maybe you don't remember when the first flat-panel iMac was introduced and the CRT iMac was discontinued, but the education channel was screaming for their lower cost, more physically robust computer to be returned to the lineup. That's why the eMac was created -but it was only offered to through educational channels.
The home users saw the eMac that schools could get and demanded that they be allowed to purchase this machine too. So Apple relented and make it available to everyone.
This is a case of Apple providing what their customers asked for. To say you have no idea what possessed Apple to offer it shows the difference between what you want and what Apple's other customers want.
And as an example where the "new format" hasn't exactly taken off, one needs only look at HD TV. Even the US government couldn't mandate it to happen when it was "supposed to".
FORCING you to buy another peice of hardware to listen to someting you have licensed
No, as even you implied above, you can listen to it on your Mac (or PC). All iTunes Music Store music plays in iTunes. From there, several options exist including streaming to a home stereo or burning to a CD.
In no way is anyone forced to buy any hardware to listen to the music beyond what was required to make the purchase in the first place.
Though I have to agree the analogy probably wasn't the greatest.
No, they tie use of the iTunes Music Store to using iTunes on either a Mac or Windows PC.
For the rest, take a look at the markeplace. You advocate Apple do something to intentionally cannibalize their iPod sales. For it to make any kind of business sense they would have to charge 3rd parties enough for the license to at least make up for this loss -which would probably add significantly to the cost of those other players.
Keep in mind, the iTunes Music Store doesn't make a lot of money -it exists as a value-addition to the iPod to increase iPod sales. Increasing iTMS sales at the expense of iPod sales is not a viable business option for Apple. The tie between the iTMS and the iPod is all that keeps the iTMS alive. Remove that tie and the iTMS store dies and the iPod loses value. Then we can all pay homage to Microsoft and WMA.
He bought the tracks. He owns the music. Is it OK to make your consumers jump through any arbitrary series of hoops you like, as long as you can eventually circumvent the Apple format issues?
I bought the DVD. I own the movie. Does that mean I can sue the MPAA (or more likely the appropriate studio) because I can't view the DVD on a Linux box without jumping through a few hoops?
The second you download your first album and you realize that you can't play it on a portable device other than a CD player you wonder if you shouldn't just go out and get that iPod so that you can continue to get your music legally...
I sorta understand what you're saying, but if I just downloaded a $10 album and found I had to buy a $200 player if I wanted to take it with me, I'd write off the $10 and find another solution.
Now if that $200 player was something I might want to be getting anyway...
Didn't the one of the European courts recently rule that Apple wasn't a monopoly with regard to the iTunes Music Store and iPod?
I have a hard time thinking of Apple having a "monopoly" when there's a continous barage of stories saying various different companies (Real, MS, Sony..) are about to launch an iPod/iTMS killer. Right now there is all kinds of competition in that space. Paraphrasing Jobs, its not that alternatives aren't readily available, its that the market prefers Apple's product.
If Apple delivers anything remotely close to what was described, it's going to sell like gangbusters because it'll be trumped up beyond belief on every Mac forum from here until WWDC.
Or the opposite happens.
The rumors, which always sound too good to be true, are too good to be true. People look and see that Apple didn't deliver what they were "supposed" to deliver for the lowball price rumored.
Every article published following the actual announcements starts off by dissing Apple for missing the rumored price point and pricing it too high.
Thinksecret hasn't signed an NDA, they're not oblidged not to publish anything. On what basis then can Apple stop TS from saying what it wants?
It all depends on how they got the information. The cnet article implies that ThinkSecret people are actively recruiting people to provide them with insider information. If they are the ones who are intigating the theft of trade secrets, it seems they should be held liable.
But doesn't that defense go out the window once your actively soliciting insiders to divulge trade secrets? Is thinksquiggle actively instigating the theft of trade secrets? If so, seems they could be liable (IANA...)
Which, in my fevered mind, means if I don't agree to the EULA, I don't agree to return it. Its the software publisher who's insisting that I return the software if I don't agree.
So either they have to take it back, or I can do what I want with it. Either way suits me.
Maybe the next time a store refuses a return, I should ask for the manager's signature nullifying the EULA.
Still not good enough IMO. All parts of the agreement should be complete when I hand over my money and get a sales receipt. If I haven't explicitly agreed to any additonal restrictions at that time, that's their problem.
IOW, if there are restrictions, they should be presented before the sale and I should be required to either agree or not agree as part of the sales transaction.
As I mentioned in another post, I'm still wondering why I have to bare the burden of returning the software for a refund. Why can't I just send them a letter saying,
"I have amended the terms of the license agreement (I will use it any way I want within the bounds of the law). If you do not agree to the terms of this amended agreement, you are required to come to my house when I'm home (but not too early in the morning) and refund my money. In exchange, I will delete all copies of your software from my computer and return the original materials.
Seems fair to me.
On second thought, maybe I don't need to mail it to them. Can't I just put it on my web site?
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what posessed Apple to offer the eMac at all. It's an ugly, heavy, out-of-date monster - and still too expensive.
They made it because their customers demanded it!
Maybe you don't remember when the first flat-panel iMac was introduced and the CRT iMac was discontinued, but the education channel was screaming for their lower cost, more physically robust computer to be returned to the lineup. That's why the eMac was created -but it was only offered to through educational channels.
The home users saw the eMac that schools could get and demanded that they be allowed to purchase this machine too. So Apple relented and make it available to everyone.
This is a case of Apple providing what their customers asked for. To say you have no idea what possessed Apple to offer it shows the difference between what you want and what Apple's other customers want.
Note that this isn't just about the network streaming, its about the live satellite broadcast they normally do. I don't know how much that costs them.
He said, "I don't find an ignorant police force beating confessions out of people with a belt that humorous."
From my reading, that comment isn't restricted to any particular country. No Inda bashing that I see.
(a) Who put those files there? Was it the tracker site or their user?
Let's say its a user. Now let's add some possible scenarios.
A) There's no sorting or moderation going on.
B) The site's owners check files for quality/content before making them available.
C) The site organizes torrents. There's a link for TV shows which takes you to a page listing specific TV shows (SG1, Farscape...) sorted by season.
If you're doing A, you might be OK (IMO). With B or C things could easily go the other way -the site owner is actively participating.
And as an example where the "new format" hasn't exactly taken off, one needs only look at HD TV. Even the US government couldn't mandate it to happen when it was "supposed to".
FORCING you to buy another peice of hardware to listen to someting you have licensed
No, as even you implied above, you can listen to it on your Mac (or PC). All iTunes Music Store music plays in iTunes. From there, several options exist including streaming to a home stereo or burning to a CD.
In no way is anyone forced to buy any hardware to listen to the music beyond what was required to make the purchase in the first place.
Though I have to agree the analogy probably wasn't the greatest.
People seem to forget that iTunes predated the iPod, which predated the iTunes Music Store.
Either that or they believe people just walked around with music-free iPods until the iTMS went online.
Or you bought ATRAC(?) encoded music from their online music store and it only played in Sony players.
No, they tie use of the iTunes Music Store to using iTunes on either a Mac or Windows PC.
For the rest, take a look at the markeplace. You advocate Apple do something to intentionally cannibalize their iPod sales. For it to make any kind of business sense they would have to charge 3rd parties enough for the license to at least make up for this loss -which would probably add significantly to the cost of those other players.
Keep in mind, the iTunes Music Store doesn't make a lot of money -it exists as a value-addition to the iPod to increase iPod sales. Increasing iTMS sales at the expense of iPod sales is not a viable business option for Apple. The tie between the iTMS and the iPod is all that keeps the iTMS alive. Remove that tie and the iTMS store dies and the iPod loses value. Then we can all pay homage to Microsoft and WMA.
He bought the tracks. He owns the music. Is it OK to make your consumers jump through any arbitrary series of hoops you like, as long as you can eventually circumvent the Apple format issues?
I bought the DVD. I own the movie. Does that mean I can sue the MPAA (or more likely the appropriate studio) because I can't view the DVD on a Linux box without jumping through a few hoops?
I'm sure that one would get tossed out real fast.
The second you download your first album and you realize that you can't play it on a portable device other than a CD player you wonder if you shouldn't just go out and get that iPod so that you can continue to get your music legally...
I sorta understand what you're saying, but if I just downloaded a $10 album and found I had to buy a $200 player if I wanted to take it with me, I'd write off the $10 and find another solution.
Now if that $200 player was something I might want to be getting anyway...
THere is no way Apple has a monopoly on digital music.
As evidenced by the weekly stories of companies like Sony being on the verge of knocking Apple off the top.
Of course the funny part is that nobody noticed this had happened for weeks(?) afterward.
Just wait until they get wind of the fact that Apple has tied Mac OS X to its Macintosh hardware!
Didn't the one of the European courts recently rule that Apple wasn't a monopoly with regard to the iTunes Music Store and iPod?
I have a hard time thinking of Apple having a "monopoly" when there's a continous barage of stories saying various different companies (Real, MS, Sony..) are about to launch an iPod/iTMS killer. Right now there is all kinds of competition in that space. Paraphrasing Jobs, its not that alternatives aren't readily available, its that the market prefers Apple's product.
If Apple delivers anything remotely close to what was described, it's going to sell like gangbusters because it'll be trumped up beyond belief on every Mac forum from here until WWDC.
Or the opposite happens.
The rumors, which always sound too good to be true, are too good to be true. People look and see that Apple didn't deliver what they were "supposed" to deliver for the lowball price rumored.
Every article published following the actual announcements starts off by dissing Apple for missing the rumored price point and pricing it too high.
Thinksecret hasn't signed an NDA, they're not oblidged not to publish anything. On what basis then can Apple stop TS from saying what it wants?
It all depends on how they got the information. The cnet article implies that ThinkSecret people are actively recruiting people to provide them with insider information. If they are the ones who are intigating the theft of trade secrets, it seems they should be held liable.
your--you're
I know, use preview next time.
But doesn't that defense go out the window once your actively soliciting insiders to divulge trade secrets? Is thinksquiggle actively instigating the theft of trade secrets? If so, seems they could be liable (IANA...)
No, but if you broke into my house to take pictures and measurements so you could make an exact duplicate of my house I might call the police.
Don't think theft would be the charge though.
So where are we going with these increasingly useless analogies?
I understand your point. Do you understand mine?
So I didn't "steal" Bob's idea, I "infringed" it? I'll be sure to tell him that if he finds out. "I'm not a thief, I'm just an infringer!"
Just trying to point out that the legal definition of a word isn't the only definition of a word.
If I copy your CD without your permission, YOU STILL HAVE IT.
Not if "IT" was the only known recording.
You've now decreased the value of my property. That's taking something from me.
"Stealing" isn't confined to any single definition.
Some people call margerine butter. I try not to get too upset about it.
Which, in my fevered mind, means if I don't agree to the EULA, I don't agree to return it. Its the software publisher who's insisting that I return the software if I don't agree.
So either they have to take it back, or I can do what I want with it. Either way suits me.
Maybe the next time a store refuses a return, I should ask for the manager's signature nullifying the EULA.
Still not good enough IMO. All parts of the agreement should be complete when I hand over my money and get a sales receipt. If I haven't explicitly agreed to any additonal restrictions at that time, that's their problem.
IOW, if there are restrictions, they should be presented before the sale and I should be required to either agree or not agree as part of the sales transaction.
As I mentioned in another post, I'm still wondering why I have to bare the burden of returning the software for a refund. Why can't I just send them a letter saying,
"I have amended the terms of the license agreement (I will use it any way I want within the bounds of the law). If you do not agree to the terms of this amended agreement, you are required to come to my house when I'm home (but not too early in the morning) and refund my money. In exchange, I will delete all copies of your software from my computer and return the original materials.
Seems fair to me.
On second thought, maybe I don't need to mail it to them. Can't I just put it on my web site?