How about announcing an iTunes client for Linux? Or at the very least, allowing third parties to release iTunes Linux clients and not constantly thwarting their attempts to bring new customers to the platform?
What new customers would those be again? The few dozen people that are: 1) desktop Linux users, 2) willing to consider anything from Apple, 3) willing to buy an iPod, 4) willing to accept iTunes DRM, and so on.
Any way you slice it, you're part of an incredibly small market.
I don't run anything but Linux, at work and at home. I haven't bought an iPod yet because I cannot get reliable iTMS services.
There are workable alternatives for these things -- jukeboxes, mp3 players, music stores -- that run on/operate with Linux. If they aren't adequate or desirable, well, that's not Apple's fault. I know this is heresy, but if it's so important to you to have an iPod, or to use iTunes, perhaps you ought to consider running something other than Linux (i.e., get a Mac).
WMV (VC-1) will be dead along with H.264, which is already the primary codec for Blu-ray movies
I think you might be a little confused here. For one, both VC-1 and H.264 are usable for Blu-Ray movies, along with MPEG-2. Also, these three are also the codecs for HD-DVD. Any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player will be able to play back all three, so neither codec can really "kill" the other.
Would that be the one that didn't say anything about CinePaint or special effects?
My point was that a relatively small number of people in a niche market using a GIMP-related tool does not imply anything about Photoshop, or even GIMP for that matter. You failed to make a point, and stupidly got modded up for it.
Why don't you ask Cinepaint using special effects professionals how great Photoshop is?
What a pointless statement! Why not ask Photoshop-using photo, web, and print professionals how great CinePaint is? Why not get them to whip out their dicks, too, so you can decide whose opinion is more important?
Of course when it comes to "Top Ten" lists such as these opinions are like armpits, but web-based email?
I think Gmail is so hot because it's the first web-based email that is as flexible as a regular email client. Everybody has one little thing that Gmail does that they love. For some it's the space, for some it's the interface, some it's the forwarding and aliasing. I personally like being able to use it just like a regular POP account, but with encryption, unlike every ISP-provided account I've ever had.
I wouldn't be so sure that that's a good indicator. As much as the media want to make this into a "war", the truth is that many of the companies involved are playing both sides. Disney and Universal, for instance, are members of both groups, as are a number of other notable companies.
"Most blogs are created by someone you don't know, often about something you don't care about, but that hasn't stopped 'blogging' from becoming a remarkably ubiquitous phenomenon.
Most web pages, emails, usenet posts, instant messages, SMSes, books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, and indeed, spoken words are created by people I don't know, often about things I don't care about, and that hasn't stopped any of them from becoming remarkably ubiquitous.
I don't understand why people think blogging is different from any of the above.
It looks like everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame online.
That's a crass assumption. Most do it because they enjoy doing it. Some do it because they want to make money. Some do it because all of their friends are doing it. People have a lot of different reasons. I seriously doubt that "fame", even fifteen minutes of it on the web, is a real motivator for all but a tiny but vocal minority.
So BitTorrent clients will have to add/invent a trust systems for trackers now - not just for files.
Most clients already have one: It's called "The User". It's unlikely you'll get bit for infringement if you're not downloading copyrighted works. I think that's a pretty easy thing to avoid.
That's an interesting strategy: responding to something you disagree with by saying something meaningless. It says quite clearly: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I disagree anyway."
The parent is right on that point. Good designs usually come from removing what is unnecessary. Exceptions are few, and any skilled designer knows how to spot them. I would say it's one of the most basic and universal ideas in all design, be it industrial, information, graphic.
No, the key to good design, is good design. Apple have a long way to go yet with regards to the Ipods. Dodgy batteries and click wheels and Apple trying their best to weasel out of fixing them doesn't fill me with confidence.
Design is not the same thing as quality control. Apple has total control over the design. Quality control is largely up to whatever Chinese company is actually making the things. Sure, it's Apple's problem, but it doesn't have much to do with the design of the product. They can change the design to have fewer problematic components (note the steady decrease in moving parts), but the small percentage of units with manufacturing defects does not generally reflect badly on the design itself.
An absolute trimumph of style over substance.
This is the perpetual cry of people who know neither style nor substance. If you did, you wouldn't see them as such opposed concepts. I suggest learning something about design before attempting to talk about it again. Bitch about how much you hate Apple all you like, but don't pretend that you're somehow smarter or more educated than people who don't.
No joke. It is pure hype that makes people think the Ipod is well designed.
You don't know anything about design. Maybe you've been walking around acting like you do, but you don't. Your friends like you too much to stop you when you start talking out of your ass. They cringe inwardly, but they just smile and nod outwardly. I'm here to relieve you of your delusion. You're welcome.
The click wheel is a terrible interface. What, is there a little piece of string in there that connects the click wheel to the menus? The screen menus go up/down/in. Wheels go around. The metaphors just don't link up at all.
And yet, dispite this, the vast majority of human beings are able to figure it out within a few seconds of picking it up. Just like they can figure out that a steering wheel goes left and right, or that a volume knob controls quiet and loud, they can discover that clockwise is down, counter-clockwise is up, and pushing in means 'in'. How do you explain this? Is it perhaps that people are able to understand new things that don't precisely align with what they knew before? Inflexible adherence to metaphors (precisely what you're suggesting is preferable) is one of the quickest ways to design a shitty interface.
those that actually make informed decisions do not get suckered in to the "trendy" item of the week.
I thought the "trendy" thing to do was to accuse anyone that buys an iPod of being stupid. (Because God forbid any intellegent, informed person whould buy something that Lumpy doesn't like!)
It seems to me that the main reason people buy iRiver players it to get a smug sense of superiority.
Didn't Apple move to aluminum because the titanium interfered with WiFi reception?
That might have been one of the minor reasons. Some others include: Titanium is more expensive, the titanium shell didn't really make it more durable, they had to paint it to make it look like people expected titanium to look, the paint often started bubbling and chipping off after a few months, the aluminum designs could be produced with fewer parts, and the new anodization process looked pretty fucking hot.
WHAT?!? IBM is not going to make low-power chips?!? What about the 970 low-power line (13-16W) that EVERYBODY KNOWS?
Apple will be using PowerPC chips in at least some of it's machines through 2008. There is little reason to think that they won't use the 970FX (low power) or 970MP (dual-core) in a machine between now and then. I think the point you're missing then is that Apple saw what was comming from IBM and still decided to move to Intel. In other words, 13-16 watts is still too much.
According to Intel's presentations on the Conroe/Merom architecture, due 2H06, they're anticipating typical draw down to about 5 watts for the mobile version, and (IIRC) 25 watts for the desktop.
[Intel's] performance per watt numbers are the worst of the whole desktop industry.
And yet, their performace per watt numbers for mobile chips are the best. You seem to be implying that Intel for some reason can't design a low-power chip, when it's quite clear that they can.
And then intel promises apple CPUs which give 5x more "performance per watt". Yeah - that's nice when you consider that they get that "5x" number when they compare it with the current intel chips - which, as everybody knows, they're the worst at performance/watt.
What is your point here? Just because their current chips are the worst doesn't mean their chips next year can't be the best. Five times better than Intel's current might only translate to two or three times better than AMD's current, but that doesn't change the fact that the chip only draws 25 watts. Again, you seem to be implying that Intel can't possibly make a lower power chip just because their current chips draw a lot.
But heck, I absolutely hate how most of apple zealots just don't think - they repeat everything which Jobs tell them
What you should hate is people who assume that they can't possibly be wrong, and that anyone who disagrees with them must be incapable of drawing their own conclusions. In short, yourself.
The sad truth is this is beginning of the end of apple as a computer hardware company. They are going to use use Intel motherboards in pretty Apple cases. Pretty much the same thing that Dell does now.
And yet, Dell is doing pretty well. As are HP, Gateway, and a good number of other companies. You make it sound like the market for computer hardware is shrinking, or that the hardware is really what makes the machines different. If these companies, dependent on Microsoft for their operating systems and software, using mostly the same hardware, and without the reputation that Apple has, are still doing well, why would you think that Apple would do any worse?
The official line is Intel knows where it's going with certain types of chip and wa[tt]age. While there's some truth to this, it's not really a reason to abandon an entire CPU line for an entirely incompatable one, as it's essentially a short term aim, not a long term one.
1) Apple has no reason to lie about this. The official line is that moving to Intel lets them continue to make new and better products. If that isn't a reason, I don't know what is. 2) There is no "entirely incompatable" CPU line. Apple has already demonstrated both an emulation layer and fat binaries. For "incompatable", it seems to work pretty much the same. 3) How on earth can you consider it a "short term aim", when you go on to describe them selling off a ~30 year old business?
Apple's focus has been, primarily, on the iPod/iTunes line over the last few years, and this is becoming a growing part of the business. Once upon a time it was seen as something to be sold off eventually, a nice cash investment in a short-term industry.
1) Apple has continued to release new products across all of it's hardware and software lines consistently. iPod/iTunes probably gets the lions share of the marketing budget, but that's because it's a cash cow. You make it sound as though Apple's other products have taken a back seat, when there is no evidence of this.
2) There is also no evidence that Apple planned to sell off the iPod. This goes against pretty much everything the company has done since Steve Jobs returned.
The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying.
You misspelled "beleaguered".
It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.
Apple doesn't have to beat diddly squat. They're a profitable company with growing sales. The move to Intel chips means virtually nothing in regards to Microsoft.
Apple therefore needs to make the Mac an attractive aquisition target for someone else.
Because two of the most valuable brands in all of personal computing, the best ID in the industry, and an intensely loyal customer base aren't worth anything if Dell can't "milk it until it's stagnant". Apple has every reason to sell off it's highly succesful and profitable business, with all of it's well-respected, quality products, so that it can be "milked until stagnant" by the Wal-Mart of the PC world.
a company like Dell, HP, or Gateway, can essentially buy the brand, and simply rebrand its existing lines...
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And I've been reading Slashdot for a long time.
That means you're taking a frame about every 15 seconds, were you to fill that up.
Ah, but the real target for flash cards this big is people that are out shooting 24, 30, 60 frames per second. With something like Panasonic's P2 system, the demand for really friggin' big flash cards is going to keep growing. When a relatively cheap camera is capable of recording 1GB/minute of high-def video, you start needing a lot of compact, fast storage.
Should some half-assed radio station start spewing out false information, with thousands of people listening and believing them, they quite literally could cause a lot of harm.
This is a risk with any broadcaster, one that we generally find acceptable. This is why we have the FCC.
Keep in mind that radios inside the Astrodome can still pick up a half dozen radio stations from outside, any one of which could do as you're suggesting. They probably already have. The only differences with this group are it's political connotations, and the size of its transmitter.
I'm sure that whomever at FEMA is holding this back thinks that they are doing a good thing, but from where I stand it looks more like an act of highly selective censorship.
I see the nano as a step backwards because the 4GB mini was $199, so I either get half the storage for the same price, or I pay $50 more for that 4G.
...and for $50 more than that you can get 20GB instead of 4GB.
This is just how smart companies price products. It's like a big fat arrow pointing up the ladder. They don't really care if you think it's a good deal: they want you to spend as much as you can convince yourself to.
...up-date enough of GNUstep to make iTunes work there by just recompiling (something which Apple is probably worried about 'cause then people could run more software on Linux instead of Mac OS X)
1) Apple has no connection to GNUstep. 2) The number of people running GNUstep is miniscule. 3) Very little Mac OS X software could be "just recompiled" to run on Linux/GNUStep. Apple has nothing to fear.
Hell, I'd pay Apple to have a version of iTunes for Linux. If they're concerned about distro compatibility, then release it as a Java application!
That might be a good option...if iTunes were coded in Java. No, wait, Java is never a good option.
Note to Apple: please make it easier for me to give you my money.
They already make it pretty easy to buy a Mac, which is what they want you to do anyway. They don't want your 99 cents a song. They want your hundreds for an iPod and thousands for a Mac.
The "ignore browser differences" paradigm isn't a good one. It promotes the use of websites other than the one you're designing. It's much better to remain in touch with reality.
They say Video because the average person never got the hang of the acronym "VHS" and found it easier to refer to those black tapes as videos.
I think that has a lot more to do with VHS being a shitty acronym coined in the 70s, when people who could come up with good names were in short supply. I think the marketing department decided that the best way to avoid comming up with another awful name like "Betamax" or "DiscoVision" was to use as few letters as possible. They still used a few too many.
Slashdot Mirror
How about announcing an iTunes client for Linux? Or at the very least, allowing third parties to release iTunes Linux clients and not constantly thwarting their attempts to bring new customers to the platform?
What new customers would those be again? The few dozen people that are: 1) desktop Linux users, 2) willing to consider anything from Apple, 3) willing to buy an iPod, 4) willing to accept iTunes DRM, and so on.
Any way you slice it, you're part of an incredibly small market.
I don't run anything but Linux, at work and at home. I haven't bought an iPod yet because I cannot get reliable iTMS services.
There are workable alternatives for these things -- jukeboxes, mp3 players, music stores -- that run on/operate with Linux. If they aren't adequate or desirable, well, that's not Apple's fault. I know this is heresy, but if it's so important to you to have an iPod, or to use iTunes, perhaps you ought to consider running something other than Linux (i.e., get a Mac).
WMV (VC-1) will be dead along with H.264, which is already the primary codec for Blu-ray movies
I think you might be a little confused here. For one, both VC-1 and H.264 are usable for Blu-Ray movies, along with MPEG-2. Also, these three are also the codecs for HD-DVD. Any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player will be able to play back all three, so neither codec can really "kill" the other.
"Is it just me or has slashdot turned extra hostile the last couple of months? The trolls seems to be wakening from the winter-sleep or something..."
Why not read the post I was responding to?
Would that be the one that didn't say anything about CinePaint or special effects?
My point was that a relatively small number of people in a niche market using a GIMP-related tool does not imply anything about Photoshop, or even GIMP for that matter. You failed to make a point, and stupidly got modded up for it.
Why don't you ask Cinepaint using special effects professionals how great Photoshop is?
What a pointless statement! Why not ask Photoshop-using photo, web, and print professionals how great CinePaint is? Why not get them to whip out their dicks, too, so you can decide whose opinion is more important?
Of course when it comes to "Top Ten" lists such as these opinions are like armpits, but web-based email?
I think Gmail is so hot because it's the first web-based email that is as flexible as a regular email client. Everybody has one little thing that Gmail does that they love. For some it's the space, for some it's the interface, some it's the forwarding and aliasing. I personally like being able to use it just like a regular POP account, but with encryption, unlike every ISP-provided account I've ever had.
look at their board of directors
I wouldn't be so sure that that's a good indicator. As much as the media want to make this into a "war", the truth is that many of the companies involved are playing both sides. Disney and Universal, for instance, are members of both groups, as are a number of other notable companies.
"Most blogs are created by someone you don't know, often about something you don't care about, but that hasn't stopped 'blogging' from becoming a remarkably ubiquitous phenomenon.
Most web pages, emails, usenet posts, instant messages, SMSes, books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, and indeed, spoken words are created by people I don't know, often about things I don't care about, and that hasn't stopped any of them from becoming remarkably ubiquitous.
I don't understand why people think blogging is different from any of the above.
It looks like everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame online.
That's a crass assumption. Most do it because they enjoy doing it. Some do it because they want to make money. Some do it because all of their friends are doing it. People have a lot of different reasons. I seriously doubt that "fame", even fifteen minutes of it on the web, is a real motivator for all but a tiny but vocal minority.
So BitTorrent clients will have to add/invent a trust systems for trackers now - not just for files.
Most clients already have one: It's called "The User". It's unlikely you'll get bit for infringement if you're not downloading copyrighted works. I think that's a pretty easy thing to avoid.
No, the key to good design, is good design.
That's an interesting strategy: responding to something you disagree with by saying something meaningless. It says quite clearly: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I disagree anyway."
The parent is right on that point. Good designs usually come from removing what is unnecessary. Exceptions are few, and any skilled designer knows how to spot them. I would say it's one of the most basic and universal ideas in all design, be it industrial, information, graphic.
No, the key to good design, is good design. Apple have a long way to go yet with regards to the Ipods. Dodgy batteries and click wheels and Apple trying their best to weasel out of fixing them doesn't fill me with confidence.
Design is not the same thing as quality control. Apple has total control over the design. Quality control is largely up to whatever Chinese company is actually making the things. Sure, it's Apple's problem, but it doesn't have much to do with the design of the product. They can change the design to have fewer problematic components (note the steady decrease in moving parts), but the small percentage of units with manufacturing defects does not generally reflect badly on the design itself.
An absolute trimumph of style over substance.
This is the perpetual cry of people who know neither style nor substance. If you did, you wouldn't see them as such opposed concepts. I suggest learning something about design before attempting to talk about it again. Bitch about how much you hate Apple all you like, but don't pretend that you're somehow smarter or more educated than people who don't.
No joke. It is pure hype that makes people think the Ipod is well designed.
You don't know anything about design. Maybe you've been walking around acting like you do, but you don't. Your friends like you too much to stop you when you start talking out of your ass. They cringe inwardly, but they just smile and nod outwardly. I'm here to relieve you of your delusion. You're welcome.
The click wheel is a terrible interface. What, is there a little piece of string in there that connects the click wheel to the menus? The screen menus go up/down/in. Wheels go around. The metaphors just don't link up at all.
And yet, dispite this, the vast majority of human beings are able to figure it out within a few seconds of picking it up. Just like they can figure out that a steering wheel goes left and right, or that a volume knob controls quiet and loud, they can discover that clockwise is down, counter-clockwise is up, and pushing in means 'in'. How do you explain this? Is it perhaps that people are able to understand new things that don't precisely align with what they knew before? Inflexible adherence to metaphors (precisely what you're suggesting is preferable) is one of the quickest ways to design a shitty interface.
those that actually make informed decisions do not get suckered in to the "trendy" item of the week.
I thought the "trendy" thing to do was to accuse anyone that buys an iPod of being stupid. (Because God forbid any intellegent, informed person whould buy something that Lumpy doesn't like!)
It seems to me that the main reason people buy iRiver players it to get a smug sense of superiority.
Didn't Apple move to aluminum because the titanium interfered with WiFi reception?
That might have been one of the minor reasons. Some others include: Titanium is more expensive, the titanium shell didn't really make it more durable, they had to paint it to make it look like people expected titanium to look, the paint often started bubbling and chipping off after a few months, the aluminum designs could be produced with fewer parts, and the new anodization process looked pretty fucking hot.
WHAT?!? IBM is not going to make low-power chips?!? What about the 970 low-power line (13-16W) that EVERYBODY KNOWS?
Apple will be using PowerPC chips in at least some of it's machines through 2008. There is little reason to think that they won't use the 970FX (low power) or 970MP (dual-core) in a machine between now and then. I think the point you're missing then is that Apple saw what was comming from IBM and still decided to move to Intel. In other words, 13-16 watts is still too much.
According to Intel's presentations on the Conroe/Merom architecture, due 2H06, they're anticipating typical draw down to about 5 watts for the mobile version, and (IIRC) 25 watts for the desktop.
[Intel's] performance per watt numbers are the worst of the whole desktop industry.
And yet, their performace per watt numbers for mobile chips are the best. You seem to be implying that Intel for some reason can't design a low-power chip, when it's quite clear that they can.
And then intel promises apple CPUs which give 5x more "performance per watt". Yeah - that's nice when you consider that they get that "5x" number when they compare it with the current intel chips - which, as everybody knows, they're the worst at performance/watt.
What is your point here? Just because their current chips are the worst doesn't mean their chips next year can't be the best. Five times better than Intel's current might only translate to two or three times better than AMD's current, but that doesn't change the fact that the chip only draws 25 watts. Again, you seem to be implying that Intel can't possibly make a lower power chip just because their current chips draw a lot.
But heck, I absolutely hate how most of apple zealots just don't think - they repeat everything which Jobs tell them
What you should hate is people who assume that they can't possibly be wrong, and that anyone who disagrees with them must be incapable of drawing their own conclusions. In short, yourself.
The sad truth is this is beginning of the end of apple as a computer hardware company. They are going to use use Intel motherboards in pretty Apple cases. Pretty much the same thing that Dell does now.
And yet, Dell is doing pretty well. As are HP, Gateway, and a good number of other companies. You make it sound like the market for computer hardware is shrinking, or that the hardware is really what makes the machines different. If these companies, dependent on Microsoft for their operating systems and software, using mostly the same hardware, and without the reputation that Apple has, are still doing well, why would you think that Apple would do any worse?
The official line is Intel knows where it's going with certain types of chip and wa[tt]age. While there's some truth to this, it's not really a reason to abandon an entire CPU line for an entirely incompatable one, as it's essentially a short term aim, not a long term one.
1) Apple has no reason to lie about this. The official line is that moving to Intel lets them continue to make new and better products. If that isn't a reason, I don't know what is.
2) There is no "entirely incompatable" CPU line. Apple has already demonstrated both an emulation layer and fat binaries. For "incompatable", it seems to work pretty much the same.
3) How on earth can you consider it a "short term aim", when you go on to describe them selling off a ~30 year old business?
Apple's focus has been, primarily, on the iPod/iTunes line over the last few years, and this is becoming a growing part of the business. Once upon a time it was seen as something to be sold off eventually, a nice cash investment in a short-term industry.
1) Apple has continued to release new products across all of it's hardware and software lines consistently. iPod/iTunes probably gets the lions share of the marketing budget, but that's because it's a cash cow. You make it sound as though Apple's other products have taken a back seat, when there is no evidence of this.
2) There is also no evidence that Apple planned to sell off the iPod. This goes against pretty much everything the company has done since Steve Jobs returned.
The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying.
You misspelled "beleaguered".
It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.
Apple doesn't have to beat diddly squat. They're a profitable company with growing sales. The move to Intel chips means virtually nothing in regards to Microsoft.
Apple therefore needs to make the Mac an attractive aquisition target for someone else.
Because two of the most valuable brands in all of personal computing, the best ID in the industry, and an intensely loyal customer base aren't worth anything if Dell can't "milk it until it's stagnant". Apple has every reason to sell off it's highly succesful and profitable business, with all of it's well-respected, quality products, so that it can be "milked until stagnant" by the Wal-Mart of the PC world.
a company like Dell, HP, or Gateway, can essentially buy the brand, and simply rebrand its existing lines...
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And I've been reading Slashdot for a long time.
That means you're taking a frame about every 15 seconds, were you to fill that up.
Ah, but the real target for flash cards this big is people that are out shooting 24, 30, 60 frames per second. With something like Panasonic's P2 system, the demand for really friggin' big flash cards is going to keep growing. When a relatively cheap camera is capable of recording 1GB/minute of high-def video, you start needing a lot of compact, fast storage.
Don't forget Sneakers, which was way cooler (IMNSHO) than Hackers.
Sneakers may be cooler, but Hackers is more 1337.
Wait, what am I saying? They both sux0red.
Should some half-assed radio station start spewing out false information, with thousands of people listening and believing them, they quite literally could cause a lot of harm.
This is a risk with any broadcaster, one that we generally find acceptable. This is why we have the FCC.
Keep in mind that radios inside the Astrodome can still pick up a half dozen radio stations from outside, any one of which could do as you're suggesting. They probably already have. The only differences with this group are it's political connotations, and the size of its transmitter.
I'm sure that whomever at FEMA is holding this back thinks that they are doing a good thing, but from where I stand it looks more like an act of highly selective censorship.
This faith is about as well founded as the faith other religions are based on.
Unfortunately, the government doesn't go away if you stop believing in it.
I see the nano as a step backwards because the 4GB mini was $199, so I either get half the storage for the same price, or I pay $50 more for that 4G.
...and for $50 more than that you can get 20GB instead of 4GB.
This is just how smart companies price products. It's like a big fat arrow pointing up the ladder. They don't really care if you think it's a good deal: they want you to spend as much as you can convince yourself to.
...up-date enough of GNUstep to make iTunes work there by just recompiling (something which Apple is probably worried about 'cause then people could run more software on Linux instead of Mac OS X)
1) Apple has no connection to GNUstep.
2) The number of people running GNUstep is miniscule.
3) Very little Mac OS X software could be "just recompiled" to run on Linux/GNUStep. Apple has nothing to fear.
Hell, I'd pay Apple to have a version of iTunes for Linux. If they're concerned about distro compatibility, then release it as a Java application!
That might be a good option...if iTunes were coded in Java. No, wait, Java is never a good option.
Note to Apple: please make it easier for me to give you my money.
They already make it pretty easy to buy a Mac, which is what they want you to do anyway. They don't want your 99 cents a song. They want your hundreds for an iPod and thousands for a Mac.
The "ignore browser differences" paradigm isn't a good one. It promotes the use of websites other than the one you're designing. It's much better to remain in touch with reality.
They say Video because the average person never got the hang of the acronym "VHS" and found it easier to refer to those black tapes as videos.
I think that has a lot more to do with VHS being a shitty acronym coined in the 70s, when people who could come up with good names were in short supply. I think the marketing department decided that the best way to avoid comming up with another awful name like "Betamax" or "DiscoVision" was to use as few letters as possible. They still used a few too many.