Sounds like you are better off using a PC with Windows or Linux. You are not in Apple's target market. If you are holding out for Apple to someday provide the configurations you propose, you'll be waiting a lifetime. They are not interested in crowded markets where the margins are paper thin. Apple never has and, in all likelihood, never will attempt to serve the PC hobbyist-build-your-own-hardware-and-tweak-the-software-and-play-games market. Being upset by Apple choosing not to serve those markets is a waste of energy.
As for your assessment of the their products and quality, my experience has been different. All the Apple machines I've owned have been high quality and reliable. I find their OS to be superior to others on the market (I'm adept at using many OS's). I like all-in-one desktops and laptops. Towers are for hobbyists and graphic/CAD/video/audio pros who need/want to add third party hardware. 99% of computer users never add hardware to their machines.
Did you bother to do any research on Apple's financial condition before commenting? Mortgaging the future? Huh?
Apple's stock is up for good, sound reasons. Their revenues have nearly quadrupled in the past six years. Profits are through the roof and rising consistently year-over-year. Apple has $13.7 billion in cash. Their gross margins blow away everyone else in the business by a huge margin. Their computer sales are growing at three times the industry average. And so forth and so on.....
Yes, sometimes stocks rise for dubious reasons. Such is not the case with Apple. Five minutes of research. That's all it takes. An opinion based on facts always beats random, off-the-cuff speculation.
Certainly anything is possible. But, Apple is doing spectacularly well right now and has been since Jobs returned. Apple's customers and shareholders have been well rewarded during Jobs's tenure. Why replace him when he's doing a fine job? Even more to the point, name one single person who could possibly do a better job of running Apple.
The thing that Apple investors and customers should fear is the day Jobs leaves. If he left tomorrow, the stock would tank by half and the company would eventually degrade over time.
Notice that during the two periods of skyrocketing growth (1980-1985 and 1998-present), Jobs was at the helm. During the period when he was gone, the stock tanked. By the time he returned in the late nineties, the company was nearly belly up. Scully and his successors nearly killed Apple. Are you saying that Jobs would have made it even worse? Yeah, right.
Since Jobs' return to Apple, the stock is up about 3300%.
In light of these facts (check that stock chart timeline out again just for good measure), explain to me again how, exactly, Jobs is bad for Apple and needs to be kicked out?
I agree. Widespread deployment of WiMAX or similar technologies is way out in the future. And, I believe these wireless technologies will only succeed if the lower frequency spectrum going up of auction soon ends up in the hands of someone other than than the be telcos. I don't have a lot of confidence that will occur.
Well, you are a lot more optimistic than I when it comes to various up-and-coming, point-to-multipoint wireless technologies. Most of the frequencies currently available for these systems are too high and therefore require line-of-sight paths with little to no obstruction. Maybe if the big telcos fail to acquire all that UHF spectrum the government plans to auction off (say, Google ends up the highest bidder) and the wireless equipment vendors can redesign their equipment to use those frequencies, I would be a bit less pessimistic.
Even if that pans out, it's really not equivalent to what the telcos and cable companies can offer in terms of bandwidth. Plus, home owners have to put up with antennas and powered NIDs.
I would love to be proved wrong and be shown that my pessimism is unwarranted. But having spent 20 years in the telecom industry I've seen dozens of over-hyped, supposedly disruptive technologies fail, I'm a bit jaded.
If the networks go to hell in a flaming hand basket, what would it take for Google to start lighting up fiber they already own? Get a few major metropolitan areas wired up, get word out, and consumers will begin switching in droves. It wouldn't take much pressure beyond that to wake up the telecoms and get them right back into the game.
What would it take? Well, a hell of a lot more money and influence than Google or any other company has.
Light up some fibers? You think that is all that it takes? It appears you have a poor understanding of the telecommunications infrastructure. Since the telcos and cable companies are no longer required to share their lines, Google (or whoever) would have to dig up every street and yard in the United States to offer a competing service. Google doesn't have that kind of money, the cities wouldn't let them do it and granny wouldn't let them dig up her rose garden. Furthermore, there is currently no wireless technology that can provide competitive bandwidth on a large scale.
While it's true that Google has bought up some dark fiber, that only allows them to bypass the core network to a certain extent. The key is the last mile and it's locked-up in the hands of the telcos and the cable companies.
It is very naive to believe there is a viable competitor waiting in the wings. There isn't one. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile. It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
Well, smartass, if you had read my original message, you would have seen that I already listed the ability to sync bookmarks, etc. as one possible reason for a Windows version of Safari. I was looking for other possible reasons.
Developing and maintaining a browser for another platform is a huge and expensive effort. Apple would not take on such a huge task just to sync bookmarks with their phone. They could develop a much smaller and easy to maintain plug-in for iTunes to do that if that were their only goal.
Several other very polite and insightful respondents put forth a number of other possible tactical and strategic advantages for developing a Windows version of Safari. If you go back and read these responses you might learn something new. I did. I wish I could say the same for your response.
So, my genius friend, explain to me how, specifically, Safari on Windows increases revenues for Apple via the iPhone. That was my question. You haven't answered that. Make sure your response does not keep you up past your bedtime, though. I wouldn't want you to get in trouble with your parents over this.
I see your point. But honestly, I don't find that argument very compelling. I just don't see how having an Apple browser for Windows would be a significant driver for Mac sales in the same way as iPod and iPhone. You may be right, but I'm still inclined to think there is more to the picture than that. Perhaps the reasons for a Windows version are many fold and this is one of the drivers.
I didn't miss that part, but I didn't really make the connection until you brought it up. So, I'm a dope.
Still, do you think that's it? They developed Safari for Windows primarily to provide a Windows-based development platform for the iPhone? Seems like it's got to be more than that.
Are you saying that the benefit is: more iPhone apps->increased iPhone sales->increased revenue/profit? Or, am I missing some other obvious angle?
I'm sure there will be many threads here comparing features and performance to existing browsers available for Windows. I'm not interested in that. What I'm trying to figure out is how porting Safari to Windows will improve Apple's bottom line.
When Apple developed a Windows version of iTunes the justification was obvious. It was developed to sell more iPods.
I see no obvious reason for a Windows version of Safari. How is it going to generate additional revenue for Apple? Apple did not develop this just to have a greater market share for their browser. There is no money in that. The speculation one forum is that there must be a yet to be disclosed functional tie-in between the iPhone Safari and the PC/Mac Safari. But, besides being able to sync your PC bookmarks with your iPhone bookmarks, I can't think of any advantages.
Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?
However there is an alternative to that PoV. DRM as a whole is making online music purchasing highly unattractive and *reducing* the overall market for music consumption, and potential iPod purchasing. In Jobs' ideal universe everyone would buy all their media from iTS with DRM. Thereby giving Apple total media player domination. But even Jobs' is not megalomaniacal enough to realistically entertain that scenario, so he has to choose between a lock-in on a small market segment versus growing the entire market hugely and taking his slice. Given Apple's past success at dominating the music/media player market my guess is he'd prefer to expand the market.
Well said. This is precisely the point I was trying to make, but you've done a better job of describing it. Those looking for hidden agendas in Job's words wasting their time. A CEO's job is to increase revenue and profit to increase shareholder value. Jobs realizes given that most iPods and iTunes libraries are full of unencumbered music, "lock-in" is not possible and therefore a poor business strategy. Unencumbered music will increase revenues and shareholder value. It's really that simple.
You make some good points, but I do still see it as pretty cut and dry. DRM serves the record companies, not equipment manufacturers. Any supposed future "lock-in" benefit is negligible to the increased revenue and lower costs that would come with removal of DRM entirely. Jobs is taking this stand not because he wants to be seen as a good guy (from all the accounts I've read, he's an insufferable prick and proud of it), but because it's in Apple's best interest to get rid of DRM from their products. It will increase sales and shareholder value.
Of course his stance is self-serving, or more accurately, it's in the best interest of Apple's shareholders. If it wasn't, then he would be fired because CEOs are paid to do things in the best interests of the shareholders. The record company's retorts to Jobs's stance are equally self-serving. Surprise, surprise. The self-serving nature of the remarks from both sides does not change the facts. The blame lies with the record companies, so it is appropriate to point the finger in that direction regardless of whether some Norwegian official is willing to accept the facts or not.
I use iTunes as well. Although it is set up to encode using ACC by default, it will also encode to MP3. So, I changed the encoding format to MP3 on day one so that my music files would be in a format supported by all players. While the ACC encoder is superior in that you can create high quality files of smaller size, you can get equal quality MP3s by choosing a higher bit rate. Disk space is cheap, so file size isn't much of an issue. I encode MP3 at 192 kbps and sometimes 256 kbps. That's good enough quality for me and the file sizes are still reasonable.
That's an interesting theory, but the evidence doesn't support it. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. The lock-in argument is bogus. If the opposite were true, e.g. ninety-seven percent of iPod music was protected by Apple's DRM, then your argument would be valid.
Of course, you could also argue that Steve Jobs' letter [theregister.co.uk] said little in plain English apart from "Hey Europe, don't get upset with me, the content producers make me do it". Norway saw through it...
Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen this assertion made many times and I still don't get the logic. The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. When he says the that the recording industry is to blame for the situation, he is, in fact, telling the truth and justifiably pointed the finger in that direction.
I understand that people who subscribe to the view that Jobs's statement was a cynical ploy believe that Apple secretly wants to keep DRM alive to "lock in" customers, but the evidence simply doesn't support that viewpoint. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. Customers are not locked in. The lock-in argument is bogus. Furthermore, DRM is a pain in the butt for online music retailers and consumer electronics manufacturers. It is of no benefit to them. It increases the complexity of product development, increases support costs and makes for a poorer customer experience.
So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them. Also, I'd be interested in what your response would have been had Apple announced that they would license Fairplay to third parties rather than calling for the end of DRM. Would you have preferred that? I just don't get it. A good portion of the ubiquitously anti-DRM Slashdot crowd seems to be implying that it would be better if Apple proliferated their proprietary DRM than call for the end of DRM. Is that what you want? Would you rather Apple appease Norway's regulators and further entrench DRM than getting rid of it completely?
Well, dude, you lost me. I know you are trying to make a point, but I don't know what it is. It does appear that you are speculating that Apple has some hidden motives. My original assertion, which I stand by, is there are no hidden motivations in Apple's statement opposing DRM. So, to repeat....DRM is major pain in the butt to consumer electronic manufacturers and online music distributers. Apple is both of those. It adds cost and complexity to their products that diminish sales. That's why Apple is against DRM.
It appears to me that most people trying to read more into Apple's statements harbor some personal dislike for their CEO. I don't know if that applies to you, but I do think that you are reading way to much into my statements and statements that are the subject of this thread. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes the interests of a corporate CEO coincide with the best interests of consumers. It doesn't happen often, but it's not unheard of.
I'm just pointing out that Steve Jobs is phoney and full of shit.
And your proof this assertion is what, Mr. Anonymous Coward?
If you believe this is what Steve Jobs really wants, then you are a sucker and a fool.
Ouch. That really smarts coming for some pussy who post anonymously.
If you weren't such an Steve Jobs sucker, then you wouldn't have made such stupid assumptions.
No, asshat, you are the one is making stupid assumptions. I don't know nor care two shits about Steve Jobs. You, however, obviously have some sort of pathological dislike for the man. This twisted psycho-pathology has caused you to seethe in anger at the mention of his name. It's sad, actually. And pathetic.
You are truly the type of hyper-cynical idiot I wrote about in my first message. Get a life. And grow some balls. Quit posting AC.
I don't know. Let me see...maybe because the contract they signed with the owners of the content stipulates that the files must have DRM? Maybe it's because the record companies will not let them distribute the content without DRM? Yes, I think that is the answer.
Why is this subject so hard for people to understand. The finger of blame has been pointed correctly at owners of the content. They are the ones demanding DRM. Consumer electronic manufacturers have absolutely nothing to gain from DRM. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It increases the complexity of their development and support. It leads to a poorer customer experience with products.
So, let me make it even more clear. If Apple chooses to license the Fairplay DRM, that is a bad thing because it further entrenches DRM throughout the industry. Apple's call for the end of DRM is a good thing. Just because they are not willing to shut down their music store to make their point doesn't negate the importance of the stance they have taken.
So are you saying you would rather Apple proliferate the use of DRM by licensing their proprietary DRM rather than calling for the end of DRM? That would be better? How so?
You are just the type of idiot I was talking about. You can't be pleased. If Jobs had called for licensing Fairplay, you would have derided him for further proliferating their proprietary DRM. You, my friend are the pathetic one given your silly logic.
Over the last five years, not a week has gone by that there hasn't been an anti-DRM screed posted to this forum. Yet, when finally some industry leaders come out publicly against DRM, the mostly highly modded posts are those claiming it's nothing but a cynical ploy.
You know, I'm just as cynical as the next guy when it comes to proclamations from the CEOs of giant multinational corporations. But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a statement isn't some carefully crafted strategic move based on hidden motives. DRM is a big pain in the butt to online music distributers and equipment manufacturers. The leaders of these industries are now making public statements on this matter. That's a good thing. If you are reading more into it than that, you've got too much time on your hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you are better off using a PC with Windows or Linux. You are not in Apple's target market. If you are holding out for Apple to someday provide the configurations you propose, you'll be waiting a lifetime. They are not interested in crowded markets where the margins are paper thin. Apple never has and, in all likelihood, never will attempt to serve the PC hobbyist-build-your-own-hardware-and-tweak-the-software-and-play-games market. Being upset by Apple choosing not to serve those markets is a waste of energy.
As for your assessment of the their products and quality, my experience has been different. All the Apple machines I've owned have been high quality and reliable. I find their OS to be superior to others on the market (I'm adept at using many OS's). I like all-in-one desktops and laptops. Towers are for hobbyists and graphic/CAD/video/audio pros who need/want to add third party hardware. 99% of computer users never add hardware to their machines.
Did you bother to do any research on Apple's financial condition before commenting? Mortgaging the future? Huh?
Apple's stock is up for good, sound reasons. Their revenues have nearly quadrupled in the past six years. Profits are through the roof and rising consistently year-over-year. Apple has $13.7 billion in cash. Their gross margins blow away everyone else in the business by a huge margin. Their computer sales are growing at three times the industry average. And so forth and so on.....
Yes, sometimes stocks rise for dubious reasons. Such is not the case with Apple. Five minutes of research. That's all it takes. An opinion based on facts always beats random, off-the-cuff speculation.
Certainly anything is possible. But, Apple is doing spectacularly well right now and has been since Jobs returned. Apple's customers and shareholders have been well rewarded during Jobs's tenure. Why replace him when he's doing a fine job? Even more to the point, name one single person who could possibly do a better job of running Apple.
The thing that Apple investors and customers should fear is the day Jobs leaves. If he left tomorrow, the stock would tank by half and the company would eventually degrade over time.
You, my friend, do not know what you are talking about. The facts show your assessment to be nonsensical.
I submit to you Exhibit A: A chart of Apple's stock price
Notice that during the two periods of skyrocketing growth (1980-1985 and 1998-present), Jobs was at the helm. During the period when he was gone, the stock tanked. By the time he returned in the late nineties, the company was nearly belly up. Scully and his successors nearly killed Apple. Are you saying that Jobs would have made it even worse? Yeah, right.
Since Jobs' return to Apple, the stock is up about 3300%.
In light of these facts (check that stock chart timeline out again just for good measure), explain to me again how, exactly, Jobs is bad for Apple and needs to be kicked out?
Will the new iWork suite open old Claris/Appleworks documents?
Yes, according to the User Guides for Pages and Numbers. I have not tried it myself though.
I agree. Widespread deployment of WiMAX or similar technologies is way out in the future. And, I believe these wireless technologies will only succeed if the lower frequency spectrum going up of auction soon ends up in the hands of someone other than than the be telcos. I don't have a lot of confidence that will occur.
Well, you are a lot more optimistic than I when it comes to various up-and-coming, point-to-multipoint wireless technologies. Most of the frequencies currently available for these systems are too high and therefore require line-of-sight paths with little to no obstruction. Maybe if the big telcos fail to acquire all that UHF spectrum the government plans to auction off (say, Google ends up the highest bidder) and the wireless equipment vendors can redesign their equipment to use those frequencies, I would be a bit less pessimistic.
Even if that pans out, it's really not equivalent to what the telcos and cable companies can offer in terms of bandwidth. Plus, home owners have to put up with antennas and powered NIDs.
I would love to be proved wrong and be shown that my pessimism is unwarranted. But having spent 20 years in the telecom industry I've seen dozens of over-hyped, supposedly disruptive technologies fail, I'm a bit jaded.
If the networks go to hell in a flaming hand basket, what would it take for Google to start lighting up fiber they already own? Get a few major metropolitan areas wired up, get word out, and consumers will begin switching in droves. It wouldn't take much pressure beyond that to wake up the telecoms and get them right back into the game.
What would it take? Well, a hell of a lot more money and influence than Google or any other company has.
Light up some fibers? You think that is all that it takes? It appears you have a poor understanding of the telecommunications infrastructure. Since the telcos and cable companies are no longer required to share their lines, Google (or whoever) would have to dig up every street and yard in the United States to offer a competing service. Google doesn't have that kind of money, the cities wouldn't let them do it and granny wouldn't let them dig up her rose garden. Furthermore, there is currently no wireless technology that can provide competitive bandwidth on a large scale.
While it's true that Google has bought up some dark fiber, that only allows them to bypass the core network to a certain extent. The key is the last mile and it's locked-up in the hands of the telcos and the cable companies.
It is very naive to believe there is a viable competitor waiting in the wings. There isn't one. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile. It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
Well, smartass, if you had read my original message, you would have seen that I already listed the ability to sync bookmarks, etc. as one possible reason for a Windows version of Safari. I was looking for other possible reasons.
Developing and maintaining a browser for another platform is a huge and expensive effort. Apple would not take on such a huge task just to sync bookmarks with their phone. They could develop a much smaller and easy to maintain plug-in for iTunes to do that if that were their only goal.
Several other very polite and insightful respondents put forth a number of other possible tactical and strategic advantages for developing a Windows version of Safari. If you go back and read these responses you might learn something new. I did. I wish I could say the same for your response.
Wow. What a thoughtful and mature reply.
So, my genius friend, explain to me how, specifically, Safari on Windows increases revenues for Apple via the iPhone. That was my question. You haven't answered that. Make sure your response does not keep you up past your bedtime, though. I wouldn't want you to get in trouble with your parents over this.
I see your point. But honestly, I don't find that argument very compelling. I just don't see how having an Apple browser for Windows would be a significant driver for Mac sales in the same way as iPod and iPhone. You may be right, but I'm still inclined to think there is more to the picture than that. Perhaps the reasons for a Windows version are many fold and this is one of the drivers.
Really? Wow, I did not know that. So, Apple essentially gets a kickback on ad revenues for having Google search built in? Is that the deal?
I didn't miss that part, but I didn't really make the connection until you brought it up. So, I'm a dope.
Still, do you think that's it? They developed Safari for Windows primarily to provide a Windows-based development platform for the iPhone? Seems like it's got to be more than that.
Are you saying that the benefit is: more iPhone apps->increased iPhone sales->increased revenue/profit? Or, am I missing some other obvious angle?
I'm sure there will be many threads here comparing features and performance to existing browsers available for Windows. I'm not interested in that. What I'm trying to figure out is how porting Safari to Windows will improve Apple's bottom line.
When Apple developed a Windows version of iTunes the justification was obvious. It was developed to sell more iPods.
I see no obvious reason for a Windows version of Safari. How is it going to generate additional revenue for Apple? Apple did not develop this just to have a greater market share for their browser. There is no money in that. The speculation one forum is that there must be a yet to be disclosed functional tie-in between the iPhone Safari and the PC/Mac Safari. But, besides being able to sync your PC bookmarks with your iPhone bookmarks, I can't think of any advantages.
Anyone have some insights on how this development will put money in the bank at Apple?
However there is an alternative to that PoV. DRM as a whole is making online music purchasing highly unattractive and *reducing* the overall market for music consumption, and potential iPod purchasing. In Jobs' ideal universe everyone would buy all their media from iTS with DRM. Thereby giving Apple total media player domination. But even Jobs' is not megalomaniacal enough to realistically entertain that scenario, so he has to choose between a lock-in on a small market segment versus growing the entire market hugely and taking his slice. Given Apple's past success at dominating the music/media player market my guess is he'd prefer to expand the market.
Well said. This is precisely the point I was trying to make, but you've done a better job of describing it. Those looking for hidden agendas in Job's words wasting their time. A CEO's job is to increase revenue and profit to increase shareholder value. Jobs realizes given that most iPods and iTunes libraries are full of unencumbered music, "lock-in" is not possible and therefore a poor business strategy. Unencumbered music will increase revenues and shareholder value. It's really that simple.
You make some good points, but I do still see it as pretty cut and dry. DRM serves the record companies, not equipment manufacturers. Any supposed future "lock-in" benefit is negligible to the increased revenue and lower costs that would come with removal of DRM entirely. Jobs is taking this stand not because he wants to be seen as a good guy (from all the accounts I've read, he's an insufferable prick and proud of it), but because it's in Apple's best interest to get rid of DRM from their products. It will increase sales and shareholder value.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Of course his stance is self-serving, or more accurately, it's in the best interest of Apple's shareholders. If it wasn't, then he would be fired because CEOs are paid to do things in the best interests of the shareholders. The record company's retorts to Jobs's stance are equally self-serving. Surprise, surprise. The self-serving nature of the remarks from both sides does not change the facts. The blame lies with the record companies, so it is appropriate to point the finger in that direction regardless of whether some Norwegian official is willing to accept the facts or not.
I use iTunes as well. Although it is set up to encode using ACC by default, it will also encode to MP3. So, I changed the encoding format to MP3 on day one so that my music files would be in a format supported by all players. While the ACC encoder is superior in that you can create high quality files of smaller size, you can get equal quality MP3s by choosing a higher bit rate. Disk space is cheap, so file size isn't much of an issue. I encode MP3 at 192 kbps and sometimes 256 kbps. That's good enough quality for me and the file sizes are still reasonable.
That's an interesting theory, but the evidence doesn't support it. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. The lock-in argument is bogus. If the opposite were true, e.g. ninety-seven percent of iPod music was protected by Apple's DRM, then your argument would be valid.
Of course, you could also argue that Steve Jobs' letter [theregister.co.uk] said little in plain English apart from "Hey Europe, don't get upset with me, the content producers make me do it". Norway saw through it ...
Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen this assertion made many times and I still don't get the logic. The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. When he says the that the recording industry is to blame for the situation, he is, in fact, telling the truth and justifiably pointed the finger in that direction.
I understand that people who subscribe to the view that Jobs's statement was a cynical ploy believe that Apple secretly wants to keep DRM alive to "lock in" customers, but the evidence simply doesn't support that viewpoint. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. Customers are not locked in. The lock-in argument is bogus. Furthermore, DRM is a pain in the butt for online music retailers and consumer electronics manufacturers. It is of no benefit to them. It increases the complexity of product development, increases support costs and makes for a poorer customer experience.
So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them. Also, I'd be interested in what your response would have been had Apple announced that they would license Fairplay to third parties rather than calling for the end of DRM. Would you have preferred that? I just don't get it. A good portion of the ubiquitously anti-DRM Slashdot crowd seems to be implying that it would be better if Apple proliferated their proprietary DRM than call for the end of DRM. Is that what you want? Would you rather Apple appease Norway's regulators and further entrench DRM than getting rid of it completely?
Well, dude, you lost me. I know you are trying to make a point, but I don't know what it is. It does appear that you are speculating that Apple has some hidden motives. My original assertion, which I stand by, is there are no hidden motivations in Apple's statement opposing DRM. So, to repeat....DRM is major pain in the butt to consumer electronic manufacturers and online music distributers. Apple is both of those. It adds cost and complexity to their products that diminish sales. That's why Apple is against DRM.
It appears to me that most people trying to read more into Apple's statements harbor some personal dislike for their CEO. I don't know if that applies to you, but I do think that you are reading way to much into my statements and statements that are the subject of this thread. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes the interests of a corporate CEO coincide with the best interests of consumers. It doesn't happen often, but it's not unheard of.
I'm just pointing out that Steve Jobs is phoney and full of shit.
And your proof this assertion is what, Mr. Anonymous Coward?
If you believe this is what Steve Jobs really wants, then you are a sucker and a fool.
Ouch. That really smarts coming for some pussy who post anonymously.
If you weren't such an Steve Jobs sucker, then you wouldn't have made such stupid assumptions.
No, asshat, you are the one is making stupid assumptions. I don't know nor care two shits about Steve Jobs. You, however, obviously have some sort of pathological dislike for the man. This twisted psycho-pathology has caused you to seethe in anger at the mention of his name. It's sad, actually. And pathetic.
You are truly the type of hyper-cynical idiot I wrote about in my first message. Get a life. And grow some balls. Quit posting AC.
Um, then why is iTunes still using DRMed files?
I don't know. Let me see...maybe because the contract they signed with the owners of the content stipulates that the files must have DRM? Maybe it's because the record companies will not let them distribute the content without DRM? Yes, I think that is the answer.
Why is this subject so hard for people to understand. The finger of blame has been pointed correctly at owners of the content. They are the ones demanding DRM. Consumer electronic manufacturers have absolutely nothing to gain from DRM. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It increases the complexity of their development and support. It leads to a poorer customer experience with products.
So, let me make it even more clear. If Apple chooses to license the Fairplay DRM, that is a bad thing because it further entrenches DRM throughout the industry. Apple's call for the end of DRM is a good thing. Just because they are not willing to shut down their music store to make their point doesn't negate the importance of the stance they have taken.
So are you saying you would rather Apple proliferate the use of DRM by licensing their proprietary DRM rather than calling for the end of DRM? That would be better? How so?
You are just the type of idiot I was talking about. You can't be pleased. If Jobs had called for licensing Fairplay, you would have derided him for further proliferating their proprietary DRM. You, my friend are the pathetic one given your silly logic.
...the Slashdot crowd?
Over the last five years, not a week has gone by that there hasn't been an anti-DRM screed posted to this forum. Yet, when finally some industry leaders come out publicly against DRM, the mostly highly modded posts are those claiming it's nothing but a cynical ploy.
You know, I'm just as cynical as the next guy when it comes to proclamations from the CEOs of giant multinational corporations. But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a statement isn't some carefully crafted strategic move based on hidden motives. DRM is a big pain in the butt to online music distributers and equipment manufacturers. The leaders of these industries are now making public statements on this matter. That's a good thing. If you are reading more into it than that, you've got too much time on your hands.