Re:[OT] Re:How to boycott? mercantilism
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 1
Second post of yours I stumbled across this week.
Both of which were OT, and both of which were rife with pure opinionated, insubstantial claims. A word of advice, if you MUST break into rants, please try to keep them on topic, and please try to substantiate you claims, instead of leaving your extreme minority views as some form of given. The burden of proof is on you, since most people dismiss those claims as ravings.
BTW, corporations have no reason to build anything for anyone, since people don't matter. Making people happy is okay, as long as it doesn't cost to much. Thus corporations have an inspiration towards mediocracy, where we keep 'em happy enough to come back, but no more.
So, I guess a BBS with no network connects, unless it is purely dialup.
Transfers from "outside" would be stenographic, to minimize detection/flagging. Possibly hand transfered, or something. Perhaps the more dangerous items, in our police state, would be stenographic, even on the BBS. Keeping an amount of background chatter to make it look innocuous.
Now, to up the paranoia, is it possible for the telecoms to differentiate data transfers from voice/fax? Some sort of "this is data, it is not going to state monitored ISP. " If this is it, then I think that there will always be a certain point where paranoia ceases to be viable, no matter your precautions.
Not that I think it will get this bad, even in the most data-unfriendly regions (China, for the cliche example).
That BBSmates thing is terrible! Five minutes and I found my first board (well second, the first was using some ancient software, and had one line, and 10 users). I could waste some time here finding all the old folk.
I remember watching single lines of ascii snake across the screen, slowly.
What happened to my attention span since then? On this T1 I can hardly contain my impatience download anything over 10meg.
The warez thing isn't quite what I was thinking, though it is a possible application, as would be any large restricted amount of transfers. I was trying to find a novel way to unlimit the data types.
Imagination!
I think any access to the regular net (such as off BBS/BBS network) email would be a serious point of weakness, warez or no.
As for the wifi scheme you could make it possible to detect, but it would be harder to tell what it is, hence the tweaked protocol, you would need a specialized detector to tell the traffic type.
I never thought it would be a viable handler for larger amounts of encrypted data, transfering plain text, sure, perhaps other simple data, like other date. But lets say I wanted to send a CD image to someone, how does one hide 700MB of data hidden in images? If we split it into managable portions, then it still would add to much overhead to our actual packet. If we were running it as a BBS style app, every forum post read/posted, message sent, file downloaded, would have to be stenographied (?), sent, and unstenographied. This would also be true of coordination packets, to keep the nodes working in sync, though I suppose these could just be bundled with the actual data, if there was a high enough amount of data being constantly transfered between nodes, rather equally.
It just seems that stenography isn't quite the answer, too much excess data, and too many transforms to make it quick enough for regular operations.
I've been thinking along the lines of avoiding observable lines completely. Some sort of huge wi-fi network, running a tweaked protocol, with encrypted land line connections to other broadcast nodes. Do this in a nondistributed manner, and you avoid all central data points, meaning snooping gets really hard, barring someone running around with wi-fi detectors, and accessing meaningful content would become impossible. Sadly this looses the non-proximal nature we need, since the exterior lines would be the weak points, unless you had each node connected, sending portions of data to the external points. Might be able to think of a better method...
"Bullshit" as defined by what standard? Some elite, educated, geeks on a noisy technology blog. Or as defined by the 100s of millions of people who watch it?
What, really, makes our opinion so much better than that of the masses?
Not a bad idea at all. Would it be doable in a purely distributed way (tasks and packages) or in a purely tasked way. By purely distributed, I mean each user has the full software, but that software includes a means for distributing tasks among all the constituant users. Or would each person have a component/task of the entire system. The latter lacks scalability and resilience, so it should be ignored. Just imagining this.
Perhaps even going so far as that no one actually have a full array of information stored, for further security, just encrypted packets spread about, and of course sent and requested through encryption, as well.
Though this wouldn't work too well, I think, as a classical BBS (dial-up/local) system, unless each node had several lines. And if run, somehow, through existing ISP lines, it would run into the traffic analysis problem brought up previously in this discussion, it would be noticable by bandwidth, and by the regular exchange of encrypted packets.
We're talking about willfully inserting a bit of code into a webpage.
Hopefully the person doing this is tech savvy, and knows what they are doing. We're not really talking about the lay-public anymore, we are talking about people verging on geeks.
Sony DRM can effect everyone, most of whom have no idea what DRM is, what a root kit is, or how it can compromise security, it also is done on the sly. With Google's new gizmo, you must copy the code, into your existant code, by hand (meaning you have knowledge). This pre-supposes SOME knowledge of the operations of code, and probably even some knowledge of what the script could do. Also, if you a resposible webmaster, you are monitoring activities on your site, meaning you would know if Google did something overtly malicious.
Sony and Google are on different sides. Google, in part, relies on tech savvy people, we build their search into our tools (browsers, etc), we insert their code into our pages. If we were to stop doing this Google might take a hit. For Sony, they probably have come to hate us tech people for bringing this in the open. John Q. User could have never EVER discovered the root kit.
Americans are desensitized because they don't accept my extreme minority positions.
That seems to be the crux of your arguement.
First we will need to define what a NATURAL RIGHT is, I'm not sure that we can claim that there are any, or at least I haven't run into any in the NATURAL sciences, or evolutionary theory (unless we can say you have the right to TRY to spread your genes).
Please don't posit points as evidence of something, when your points are not supported.
Re:There's is a reason
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Interesting. Could we look at SARs as a test of this.
Everyone in the media thought it would be HUGE and nasty, when in fact it was rather mild because of decent controls and quarantines.
The bad thing about the flu though, is that most people are used to it. (I haven't gotten a flu shot since I was a wee lad because it is just the flu, it won't kill you) So they won't react with ugency when reporting symptoms.
For some reason I blanked out on some of the bigger BBSs/platforms that actually had email access, most of them were mBBS, or the like, with full telnet (or tintin for the MUDers), and net access (I don't think it was TCP/IP, I want to say it started with an S, like SLIP or SSS, I doubt I'm right on this, its been quite a time). Some form of BBS-BBS email would be perfect, actually, since it would still be point to point, avoiding a network. I guess, if sophisticated enough, it would be a network of its own, a... darknet!
I mostly stuck with local Renegade, or Wildcat boards, the big boards always seemed like cesspools (especially Flatland Center, in Phoenix, loved it... but...).
I think it is evolutionary, the sticking with the long term boards. The other fizzled, so of course you stuck with the remainers. I remember the great die off of the late-mid 90's, when 90% of BBSs dropped carrier, some lived a ghastly telnet halflife for awhile, but... Perhaps this is different now, perhaps they have reached their optimum number for this time period, and are somewhat stable.
As for encrypted, I vaguely remember a couple boards with a couple encrypted forums. Most of the encrypted files were warez, though (the obl. warezed Wildcat package, and obl. copy of DoomII). The anon. factor was there, the never give your name, idea. I even remember one local board that was completely anon, it used some system to verify that you were a member, and generated a session name/number for you. Again, been too long, don't remember the specifics.
Heh, I got my 900Bd Commodore cradle modem sitting around somewhere. You can't BBS with anything faster than a 14.4 any ways, it would be cheating. I'd reccomend using a 2400, or better, a 1200.
The thing is, if more and more people use encryption, it will get harder and harder to find the signal (illegal activity) from the noise (legitimate encrypted network traffic). Encryption is slowly leaving the geek circle, every email program has an encryption tick box now, ditto with IM clients, and a lot of websites that allow for authentication. In a couple years most things will be encrypted.
And how, pardon my naivety, does one go about telling what is encrypted traffic from non-encrypted traffic? Can't you just mask encryption as raw data transfer, isn't that the goal of encryption? It sort of loses its point when you flag the data as "Hey! Look at me! I'm encrypted!" it screams "CRACK ME!".
Back, well more so, on topic, would DC++ be considered a darknet? It is a limited network (if the hub is passworded), based on trust. Wouldn't any VPN be considered a darknet? Or most VoIP schemes?
Problem with this is getting email from outside sources. A BBS would be a great system for local communications, or a small trusted network.
I really hope that a solution like this takes off, I miss the BBS scene, perhaps we can find some way to make FIDOnet and doors into a trusted scheme too. Seriously though the BBS idea is great, with the execption of the Sysop, I've been on many a board (back in the day) that ran into troubles when the Sysop either lost interest, or got pissy. Is there a way to develop a secure, and for the most part Sysopless, BBS system? Where, while hosted on his computer, all ptp communications are fully encrypted, even from him? Or some sort of "dumb router" taking the place of a real sysop?
Before you open your mouth and say I don't know Jobs, please reread my statement, and notice the "I think" qualifier, marking it as a suposition instead of an actual proposition.
And please leave/., since most of us are discussion the practices of various companies (Apple, MS, Google, SCO, and most recently Sony) and probably NONE of us are their boards. I guess all discourse should cease here, since none of us have the first hand experience on their boards, or in their corporate strategy.
Yes, I like my Mac, I also like my PC after 3 years of customization, my freinds keep telling me to hop back into Linux, since its usablity has been improved since my last jaunt into KDE. I try to keep an open mind, and remain critical of each OS paradigm, but my main area of intrest is human usability, and interface, so of course I'm going to lean Mac-ward, since they are the only OS group who seem to care about HID.
Go over my posts, I never claimed, unilaterally, that IP law was bad. I actually think it is a necissary evil. I think when you take too much away from the user, control of property, then it becomes bad, but you still need to PROTECT you brand.
Propaganda to a point. i only bought a Mac because of using one.
I do think, reguardless of image, that OS X is probably the best OS out there right now. But that is a subjective judgement, to a point.
I also think Mac has transcended the "art people computer" image now. My father is planning on getting a Mini, and he is as far from being an art person as you can get. He's getting one for the information appliance ideology, something you don't have to tinker with. (He is migrating from ME, so ANYTHING will be a treat)
I wouldn't call myself a fanatic. I do think it is the best OS platform, but then again I bet you there is a ton of people on/. that would claim the same about Linux and perhaps even Windows. Preference does not make on a fanatic.
On the other hand I am an optimist. Apple hasn't proved themselves evil yet. I have no reason to see this change. Same thing with Google. The/. trend to say Google=Bad is as silly as the Apple = Bad trend, neither company has earned their loathing like some other companies (SCO, MS).
And actually, I view OS design as VERY important. And actually consumer product design. Its been too long, with ALL consumer products, where they ignore any usability standard (even apple is guilty of this in 10.4), Would you rather have a stylized beige box, or something aethetically pleasing? The PC manufacures don't care if humans are using their product, they just design them to be an ugly beige/white/black box. They design them to require work. They design the HI to be attrocious and complicated. None of this is inductive to work. Apple at least, is close to getting this right. MS isn't too far behind (even if Vista sounds like a whale), and the Linux OSS kids are lightyears behind (except maybe modern Gnome, not too bad looking)
Unless they really changed PC hardware in the last two years, then there is something wrong. Perhaps your right, it isn't the hardware then, it is purely the driver issue.
On my Mac I have never really worried about a driver CD. On my XP box I always had nasty little driver issues. My favorite is doing the annual XP reinstall/format, and having to remember the exact order of my driver reinsrtallation. If I messed it up my computer would get stuck in 800x600 256, with popping sound. Not quite the user experience that sells computers. Actually that is why I switched to a mac, and my high-end PC is sitting in a garage in Phoenix (i.e. dead). After highschool, unless your paid for it, one should never have to fight with a computer.
The unified experience is their main seller of parts. So selling JUST an OS wouldn't work. Since the little issues that plague both MS and the Linux Community would plague Apple too. Probably worse, since their competition has been along longer on the platform.
I bought a Mac because my freind has one, and it was solid. All my friends/parents are buying Macs next cycle because mine is so solid. This solidity, coupled with word of mouth is what makes Apple work. Now say I could have my 10.5 with ANY HARDWARE, then it will be less stable by nature of having many more options, 90% unforseen, I no longer could claim to have a REALLY REALLY stable OS, just a "meh" stable one like XP. This would cut down on the word of mouth factor.
Apple is not MS, I think they have other standards besides JUST market share.
I think they want to be BETTER in all ways, and let that sell their computers.
Jobs is a perfectionist, I think, before he is a capitalist.
You make better customers when you do this, have a superior product in all ways. How many Windows fanatics are there compaired to the Mac people. Much more? Pretty good being that MS has a 80% market share, yeah?
I don't think the comparison is fair, they are trying to lock you into hardware, JUST LIKE NOW! Apple is mostly a hardware company, with some really good software as a bonus. They make most of their money off of quality hardware. I hope they keep making money, too. Apple is one of the few companies I support out of the good of my heart, since they are doing business right. (shut up iTunes trolls!)
Also, my main worry with the x86 switch was that they would loose their "Just Works" image, and enter the annoyances of Windows and Linux, with fighting drivers, and incompatable hardware bugs. By locking out 3rd party, they can assure the quality of any and all components of their system. This is a good thing. It makes me happy that I 'm not going to have go back to fighting with my OS to get it to work with hardware.
I don't think, as it seems like you imply, that they are going for soft DRM ala MS and the **AA. I think they are trying to keep their hardware lockout.
My only worry is having to buy new hardware now. I hope they keep a 10.5 PPC port for at least the next release cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
Second post of yours I stumbled across this week.
Both of which were OT, and both of which were rife with pure opinionated, insubstantial claims. A word of advice, if you MUST break into rants, please try to keep them on topic, and please try to substantiate you claims, instead of leaving your extreme minority views as some form of given. The burden of proof is on you, since most people dismiss those claims as ravings.
BTW, corporations have no reason to build anything for anyone, since people don't matter. Making people happy is okay, as long as it doesn't cost to much. Thus corporations have an inspiration towards mediocracy, where we keep 'em happy enough to come back, but no more.
Point taken.
So, I guess a BBS with no network connects, unless it is purely dialup.
Transfers from "outside" would be stenographic, to minimize detection/flagging. Possibly hand transfered, or something. Perhaps the more dangerous items, in our police state, would be stenographic, even on the BBS. Keeping an amount of background chatter to make it look innocuous.
Now, to up the paranoia, is it possible for the telecoms to differentiate data transfers from voice/fax? Some sort of "this is data, it is not going to state monitored ISP. " If this is it, then I think that there will always be a certain point where paranoia ceases to be viable, no matter your precautions.
Not that I think it will get this bad, even in the most data-unfriendly regions (China, for the cliche example).
That BBSmates thing is terrible! Five minutes and I found my first board (well second, the first was using some ancient software, and had one line, and 10 users). I could waste some time here finding all the old folk.
I remember watching single lines of ascii snake across the screen, slowly.
What happened to my attention span since then? On this T1 I can hardly contain my impatience download anything over 10meg.
The warez thing isn't quite what I was thinking, though it is a possible application, as would be any large restricted amount of transfers. I was trying to find a novel way to unlimit the data types.
Imagination!
I think any access to the regular net (such as off BBS/BBS network) email would be a serious point of weakness, warez or no.
As for the wifi scheme you could make it possible to detect, but it would be harder to tell what it is, hence the tweaked protocol, you would need a specialized detector to tell the traffic type.
A couple problems from stenography:
I never thought it would be a viable handler for larger amounts of encrypted data, transfering plain text, sure, perhaps other simple data, like other date. But lets say I wanted to send a CD image to someone, how does one hide 700MB of data hidden in images? If we split it into managable portions, then it still would add to much overhead to our actual packet. If we were running it as a BBS style app, every forum post read/posted, message sent, file downloaded, would have to be stenographied (?), sent, and unstenographied. This would also be true of coordination packets, to keep the nodes working in sync, though I suppose these could just be bundled with the actual data, if there was a high enough amount of data being constantly transfered between nodes, rather equally.
It just seems that stenography isn't quite the answer, too much excess data, and too many transforms to make it quick enough for regular operations.
I've been thinking along the lines of avoiding observable lines completely. Some sort of huge wi-fi network, running a tweaked protocol, with encrypted land line connections to other broadcast nodes. Do this in a nondistributed manner, and you avoid all central data points, meaning snooping gets really hard, barring someone running around with wi-fi detectors, and accessing meaningful content would become impossible. Sadly this looses the non-proximal nature we need, since the exterior lines would be the weak points, unless you had each node connected, sending portions of data to the external points. Might be able to think of a better method...
"Bullshit" as defined by what standard? Some elite, educated, geeks on a noisy technology blog. Or as defined by the 100s of millions of people who watch it?
What, really, makes our opinion so much better than that of the masses?
Sorry, feeling rather philosophical today.
Not a bad idea at all. Would it be doable in a purely distributed way (tasks and packages) or in a purely tasked way. By purely distributed, I mean each user has the full software, but that software includes a means for distributing tasks among all the constituant users. Or would each person have a component/task of the entire system. The latter lacks scalability and resilience, so it should be ignored. Just imagining this.
Perhaps even going so far as that no one actually have a full array of information stored, for further security, just encrypted packets spread about, and of course sent and requested through encryption, as well.
Though this wouldn't work too well, I think, as a classical BBS (dial-up/local) system, unless each node had several lines. And if run, somehow, through existing ISP lines, it would run into the traffic analysis problem brought up previously in this discussion, it would be noticable by bandwidth, and by the regular exchange of encrypted packets.
We're talking about willfully inserting a bit of code into a webpage.
Hopefully the person doing this is tech savvy, and knows what they are doing. We're not really talking about the lay-public anymore, we are talking about people verging on geeks.
Sony DRM can effect everyone, most of whom have no idea what DRM is, what a root kit is, or how it can compromise security, it also is done on the sly. With Google's new gizmo, you must copy the code, into your existant code, by hand (meaning you have knowledge). This pre-supposes SOME knowledge of the operations of code, and probably even some knowledge of what the script could do. Also, if you a resposible webmaster, you are monitoring activities on your site, meaning you would know if Google did something overtly malicious.
Sony and Google are on different sides. Google, in part, relies on tech savvy people, we build their search into our tools (browsers, etc), we insert their code into our pages. If we were to stop doing this Google might take a hit. For Sony, they probably have come to hate us tech people for bringing this in the open. John Q. User could have never EVER discovered the root kit.
Perhaps I should just link my sig to it. Believe it or not, some kids out there have never learnt the ways of Juffo Wup.
Nice. The ambiguity makes me happy!
So, he's right in thinking that others think he's nuts?
Or he's right in thinking that his unsupported claims are right?
I love it!
Wait, the logic made no sense.
Americans are desensitized because they don't accept my extreme minority positions.
That seems to be the crux of your arguement.
First we will need to define what a NATURAL RIGHT is, I'm not sure that we can claim that there are any, or at least I haven't run into any in the NATURAL sciences, or evolutionary theory (unless we can say you have the right to TRY to spread your genes).
Please don't posit points as evidence of something, when your points are not supported.
Interesting. Could we look at SARs as a test of this.
Everyone in the media thought it would be HUGE and nasty, when in fact it was rather mild because of decent controls and quarantines.
The bad thing about the flu though, is that most people are used to it. (I haven't gotten a flu shot since I was a wee lad because it is just the flu, it won't kill you) So they won't react with ugency when reporting symptoms.
For some reason I blanked out on some of the bigger BBSs/platforms that actually had email access, most of them were mBBS, or the like, with full telnet (or tintin for the MUDers), and net access (I don't think it was TCP/IP, I want to say it started with an S, like SLIP or SSS, I doubt I'm right on this, its been quite a time). Some form of BBS-BBS email would be perfect, actually, since it would still be point to point, avoiding a network. I guess, if sophisticated enough, it would be a network of its own, a... darknet!
I mostly stuck with local Renegade, or Wildcat boards, the big boards always seemed like cesspools (especially Flatland Center, in Phoenix, loved it... but...).
I think it is evolutionary, the sticking with the long term boards. The other fizzled, so of course you stuck with the remainers. I remember the great die off of the late-mid 90's, when 90% of BBSs dropped carrier, some lived a ghastly telnet halflife for awhile, but... Perhaps this is different now, perhaps they have reached their optimum number for this time period, and are somewhat stable.
As for encrypted, I vaguely remember a couple boards with a couple encrypted forums. Most of the encrypted files were warez, though (the obl. warezed Wildcat package, and obl. copy of DoomII). The anon. factor was there, the never give your name, idea. I even remember one local board that was completely anon, it used some system to verify that you were a member, and generated a session name/number for you. Again, been too long, don't remember the specifics.
Heh, I got my 900Bd Commodore cradle modem sitting around somewhere. You can't BBS with anything faster than a 14.4 any ways, it would be cheating. I'd reccomend using a 2400, or better, a 1200.
Sadly, padding your CV will be a crime.
To jail with you!
Completely OT, your sig is broken, you seem to be missing all the fun stuff that most browsers rely on to know its a site. Like the www and the .com.
Unless that was part of the Zen. (grab the locator from my hand butterfly!)
The thing is, if more and more people use encryption, it will get harder and harder to find the signal (illegal activity) from the noise (legitimate encrypted network traffic). Encryption is slowly leaving the geek circle, every email program has an encryption tick box now, ditto with IM clients, and a lot of websites that allow for authentication. In a couple years most things will be encrypted.
And how, pardon my naivety, does one go about telling what is encrypted traffic from non-encrypted traffic? Can't you just mask encryption as raw data transfer, isn't that the goal of encryption? It sort of loses its point when you flag the data as "Hey! Look at me! I'm encrypted!" it screams "CRACK ME!".
Back, well more so, on topic, would DC++ be considered a darknet? It is a limited network (if the hub is passworded), based on trust. Wouldn't any VPN be considered a darknet? Or most VoIP schemes?
Forgot to say, pirate/warez boards are as old as BBSs. Nothing really new.
Problem with this is getting email from outside sources. A BBS would be a great system for local communications, or a small trusted network.
I really hope that a solution like this takes off, I miss the BBS scene, perhaps we can find some way to make FIDOnet and doors into a trusted scheme too. Seriously though the BBS idea is great, with the execption of the Sysop, I've been on many a board (back in the day) that ran into troubles when the Sysop either lost interest, or got pissy. Is there a way to develop a secure, and for the most part Sysopless, BBS system? Where, while hosted on his computer, all ptp communications are fully encrypted, even from him? Or some sort of "dumb router" taking the place of a real sysop?
You do not *smell* like Orz.
Omestes is not a *happy camper*, do you want to *dance*?
Lets *play*!
Before you open your mouth and say I don't know Jobs, please reread my statement, and notice the "I think" qualifier, marking it as a suposition instead of an actual proposition.
/., since most of us are discussion the practices of various companies (Apple, MS, Google, SCO, and most recently Sony) and probably NONE of us are their boards. I guess all discourse should cease here, since none of us have the first hand experience on their boards, or in their corporate strategy.
And please leave
Yes, I like my Mac, I also like my PC after 3 years of customization, my freinds keep telling me to hop back into Linux, since its usablity has been improved since my last jaunt into KDE. I try to keep an open mind, and remain critical of each OS paradigm, but my main area of intrest is human usability, and interface, so of course I'm going to lean Mac-ward, since they are the only OS group who seem to care about HID.
Go over my posts, I never claimed, unilaterally, that IP law was bad. I actually think it is a necissary evil. I think when you take too much away from the user, control of property, then it becomes bad, but you still need to PROTECT you brand.
Propaganda to a point. i only bought a Mac because of using one.
I do think, reguardless of image, that OS X is probably the best OS out there right now. But that is a subjective judgement, to a point.
I also think Mac has transcended the "art people computer" image now. My father is planning on getting a Mini, and he is as far from being an art person as you can get. He's getting one for the information appliance ideology, something you don't have to tinker with. (He is migrating from ME, so ANYTHING will be a treat)
I wouldn't call myself a fanatic. I do think it is the best OS platform, but then again I bet you there is a ton of people on /. that would claim the same about Linux and perhaps even Windows. Preference does not make on a fanatic.
/. trend to say Google=Bad is as silly as the Apple = Bad trend, neither company has earned their loathing like some other companies (SCO, MS).
On the other hand I am an optimist. Apple hasn't proved themselves evil yet. I have no reason to see this change. Same thing with Google. The
And actually, I view OS design as VERY important. And actually consumer product design. Its been too long, with ALL consumer products, where they ignore any usability standard (even apple is guilty of this in 10.4), Would you rather have a stylized beige box, or something aethetically pleasing? The PC manufacures don't care if humans are using their product, they just design them to be an ugly beige/white/black box. They design them to require work. They design the HI to be attrocious and complicated. None of this is inductive to work. Apple at least, is close to getting this right. MS isn't too far behind (even if Vista sounds like a whale), and the Linux OSS kids are lightyears behind (except maybe modern Gnome, not too bad looking)
Unless they really changed PC hardware in the last two years, then there is something wrong. Perhaps your right, it isn't the hardware then, it is purely the driver issue.
On my Mac I have never really worried about a driver CD. On my XP box I always had nasty little driver issues. My favorite is doing the annual XP reinstall/format, and having to remember the exact order of my driver reinsrtallation. If I messed it up my computer would get stuck in 800x600 256, with popping sound. Not quite the user experience that sells computers. Actually that is why I switched to a mac, and my high-end PC is sitting in a garage in Phoenix (i.e. dead). After highschool, unless your paid for it, one should never have to fight with a computer.
The unified experience is their main seller of parts. So selling JUST an OS wouldn't work. Since the little issues that plague both MS and the Linux Community would plague Apple too. Probably worse, since their competition has been along longer on the platform.
I bought a Mac because my freind has one, and it was solid. All my friends/parents are buying Macs next cycle because mine is so solid. This solidity, coupled with word of mouth is what makes Apple work. Now say I could have my 10.5 with ANY HARDWARE, then it will be less stable by nature of having many more options, 90% unforseen, I no longer could claim to have a REALLY REALLY stable OS, just a "meh" stable one like XP. This would cut down on the word of mouth factor.
Apple is not MS, I think they have other standards besides JUST market share.
I think they want to be BETTER in all ways, and let that sell their computers.
Jobs is a perfectionist, I think, before he is a capitalist.
You make better customers when you do this, have a superior product in all ways. How many Windows fanatics are there compaired to the Mac people. Much more? Pretty good being that MS has a 80% market share, yeah?
I don't think the comparison is fair, they are trying to lock you into hardware, JUST LIKE NOW! Apple is mostly a hardware company, with some really good software as a bonus. They make most of their money off of quality hardware. I hope they keep making money, too. Apple is one of the few companies I support out of the good of my heart, since they are doing business right. (shut up iTunes trolls!)
Also, my main worry with the x86 switch was that they would loose their "Just Works" image, and enter the annoyances of Windows and Linux, with fighting drivers, and incompatable hardware bugs. By locking out 3rd party, they can assure the quality of any and all components of their system. This is a good thing. It makes me happy that I 'm not going to have go back to fighting with my OS to get it to work with hardware.
I don't think, as it seems like you imply, that they are going for soft DRM ala MS and the **AA. I think they are trying to keep their hardware lockout.
My only worry is having to buy new hardware now. I hope they keep a 10.5 PPC port for at least the next release cycle.