As to the oft-repeated response to Jobs' statement, I answer those concerns in one of my previous responses to another similar response. Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to do it":
They already store unprotected files on the server that are accessible from certain clients. I'm sure they probably thought of the eventuality that they could sell unprotected music someday, and if they have any sense they already have something designed and implemented. It is definitely a business decision and not technical limitations that are holding them back.
Yes. And the business processes that go into rolling something like this out are probably far more complex than the technical processes. This actually speaks to my point: technically, sure, it may be that "2-3 day" operation people think it should be. From a business and support perspective, it's not. There may even be legal issues in one or more of Apple's other contractual relationships. This is the same as people thinking Apple should have been able to create an iPod battery replacement service in a week or two. In reality, it took the better part of a year. The point is that things are a little more complex and take a little longer than people seem to think.
I never said he was in love with DRM.
You didn't say that, but others making this argument essentially say that.
The simple fact is that Apple does not sell songs without DRM, even though they have the ability
You don't know that they have that ability right now. Just because the songs are stored unprotected on their servers doesn't mean they have the end-to-end business, technical, and logistical processes, today, to do that. I can just see people saying, "Please...how hard can it be?" It may NOT be "that hard". But it's a LOT harder than people seem to think it is. It's not as if they can just flip a switch. There are a lot of things that would have to happen at the back end to support this, not to mention a client update may even be needed.
I'm NOT saying any of this is impossible, or that it would be "hard" for Apple to do, or that they shouldn't do it.
I'm simply saying that using the fact that they're not currently doing it as some sort of "proof" that Apple doesn't really want to be rid of DRM is disingenuous.
and many independent labels have requested to have their music sold unshackled.
But how many of these labels have direct relationships with iTunes (i.e., not another intermediary)? I honestly don't know. Even if there are many, they, in total, comprise a very small portion (much less than "30%") and don't include any major labels. And the major labels - the ones who WANT DRM - are what's at issue here. I know that to some people, the converse situation of applying DRM to these other artists' music who may not want it stands as some sort of "proof" that Apple really isn't serious about ridding iTunes Music Store of DRM.
If Steve was anti-DRM, then why does iTunes not have the ability to sell unrestricted music from those labels that want it?
This is a legitimate question. Even if the number of people with valid rights to request this (i.e., people with direct contractual relationships with Apple) is very small, Apple should still enable this, even if only as a symbol.
The answer is that they can make a whole shitload of money while still appearing
The solution isn't standardized DRM. It's no DRM. The music industry (and apparently government regulators) want you to believe the only practical solution is the former. The real solution is the latter, for all the reasons Jobs outlined, not the least of which is that DRM will NEVER stop piracy and ALWAYS be able to be defeated.
The AppleCare Premium Service and Support Plan delivers up to three years of 24/7 telephone and email support -- with 30-minute response. For Xserve, the plan covers server administration and network management issues using the graphical user interface of Mac OS X Server. For Xserve RAID, the plan covers RAID Admin software, as well as connectivity issues between your Mac or Xserve and your Xserve RAID storage system.
The hardware repair coverage provides worldwide onsite response for Xserve and Xserve RAID. You get onsite response within four business hours, and next-day onsite response when you contact Apple after business hours.
The money didn't "bail Apple out", as some people think. It was a symbolic gesture. The symbolism of the "badly needed" "investment" (which really wasn't needed from a financial standpoint) renewed peoples' faith in Apple, renewed the faith that Microsoft and Office would still be on the Mac platform, etc.
So while you could argue that the gesture was needed (and I'd tend to agree), the money itself wasn't.
And Microsoft made out like bandits on that investment.
The solution isn't standardized DRM. It's no DRM. The music industry wants you to believe the only practical solution is the former. The real solution is the latter, for all the reasons Jobs outlined, not the least of which is that DRM will NEVER stop piracy and ALWAYS be able to be defeated.
In short, I think the conspiracy theories that Jobs only said he was against DRM for PR reasons and to look good are utter bullshit. Jobs' statement on DRM is the single biggest shot across the bow of DRM that anyone anywhere near this industry has taken, ever. From the CEO of the company with the largest online music store, no less. From a board member of a major motion picture house, no less.
This isn't just lip service. This is huge, and that's why all the DRM and music industry types have been reacting to it so vocally and aversely since it was made. Apple doesn't need DRM to keep people on iTunes and iPod. People get iPods because they don't utterly suck. Jobs also (likely correctly) feels that the entire online music industry - of which iTunes is a huge part - would be MUCH better off without DRM.
In fact, if it's true that online sales would explode if you could actually get lossless, no-DRM versions of music and media online, as so many staunch anti-DRM advocates argue, then it's true that Apple's business would significantly grow, as the existing market leader in this area. I know that people want to think that Jobs was just lying for PR's sake and really secretly wants to hold onto DRM as tightly as it can, but that simply doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, considering the scope and impact of this statement. Further, iPods - which is where Apple makes its money - were already the market leader by far before the iTunes store even existed.
Jobs said it would get rid of DRM in a heartbeat on all media on the iTunes Music Store. I believe that to be true.
Further, I think Apple believes that it would actually be in a better position without DRM than with in terms of sales volume and customer satisfaction.
Long before the iTunes Store existed, the iPod was already the best selling music player. That's because it didn't suck, not because people were "locked in" to iTunes. In another way, you could argue that even before the store, you still got the most benefit from iPod by using it in conjunction with iTunes.
So in some respects I agree that Apple definitely encourages people to use its products and the "ecosystems" that go along with them (iLife, iTunes Store, and so on), but Jobs doesn't feel that DRM is good for the industry as a whole, and indeed only hurts and confuses honest consumers, in addition to never stopping piracy, since it will always be able to be defeated.
So, to expand on this a bit, would Apple be happy if it lost customers? No. But I believe Apple thinks the iTunes/iPod combo is so compelling to most ordinary consumers that they'd get even more customers without DRM. Apple doesn't need DRM to keep people on iTunes and iPod.
DRM is what's hurting the (online) music industry. It needs to be eliminated, not "opened up".[1] Looks like the industry is a little irked at Jobs' statement.
Apple has already laid down its cards. "Open" DRM (can there be such a thing?[2]) is just as bad as any other DRM. It does not serve the customer.
The labels are hurting the industry with DRM. Apple is willing to ditch it wholesale (i.e., isn't interested in iTunes/iPod "lock-in").
The ball's in the music industry's court, not Apple's.
[1] Arguments about whether or not there would have been an iTunes store in the first place aside. There is one now, and online music has made a good showing. It's up to the industry to decide how to proceed, not Apple. Simply changing the face of DRM isn't a "step in the right direction."
[2] Yes, I know what they mean by "open" DRM. But who's it open to? Only other competitive music stores? So we can have one universal DRM "standard"? Aside from the massive technical hurdles to coalescing DRM with all the disparate formats and stores, is that really the right step to take?
funny how the BBC managed to acquire images, then. We saw the launch right here in the UK. I guess you yanks don't have us free a media as we do.
So, there's this notion called the "passage of time." Perhaps you're familiar with it? When time passes, things can change, and new events and information can develop. I think you guys in the UK even have this "passage of time" thing.
Amazing, eh?
The quote "No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing," was from the BBC article linked in the submission itself.
In the ensuing 24 hours, Iranian state TV released images and video that purport to be the launch, which have since been covered in Western media, including the US.
I'd tell you not to feel bad for being wrong, but judging from how misguided your response was, you're probably used to it, "pal."
If only someone - maybe even Apple - had already created a multimedia device that has been around for several years without a replaceable battery, and had no problems doing so.
And then, if they could just make the multimedia battery life of the iPhone greater than the battery life of said multimedia device.
Oh wait, they did. Oops.
But because there are certain groups of people who it's not appropriate for, or who feel they need on-the-fly replacement, it's just too bad that Apple has made iPhone ownership mandatory, and forces everyone to buy an iPhone.
While there are some people for whom a non-changeable-on-the-fly battery would be a deal-breaker, there are many, many others for whom that does not matter at all.
For example, my wife and I both have Treos we use pretty heavily, and neither of us have ever had a need or desire to change the battery on-the-fly, nor have we gotten new batteries even after a couple of years. Our usage patterns mean that not changing the battery midday works perfectly fine for us. And by the time we'd even need to replace the battery for degradation reasons, we'll both have new phones.
Others will always carry spare batteries with them, and know in advance they need or want this capability on iPhone. For those, iPhone is obviously not appropriate. Thankfully, no one is forcing them to buy one!
There will also be a third group of people: those who think they need to be able to change the battery routinely, but actually don't, and never even have on any phone they've owned. Some people who currently have smartphone/PDA class devices who have never changed batteries will be in this group. We'll call this the "FUD" or "iPod's Dirty Secret" group.
Actually, I think the biggest problem with the battery isn't that it's not quickly user-accessible; it's going to ultimately be whether or not Apple requires the phone to be sent in to have its battery replaced. Personally, I would hope they would be replaceable on-demand while you wait at any Apple or AT&T/Cingular corporate store. Sending your phone in for a week if and when you need a new battery won't fly.
On the other hand, Apple is also operating under the presumption that many people will want to - and in fact do - replace their phones when the subsidy contract period is up. Therefore, the number of people who actually do need a battery replacement while the device is in service as a phone (as opposed to keeping it as an iPod) will be small. There will also no doubt be numerous third-party and do-it-yourself solutions, likely including higher capacity batteries as they become available, just as there are with iPod. However, I still admit I was very surprised that Apple went the way of the iPod with the iPhone, in terms of the battery setup.
In any case, all of the power accessories for iPod already work with iPhone, and there will be large groups of customers - indeed, the vast majority - who won't be affected by not being able to replace the battery on the fly. Now, I can see some people saying "what if I want to watch my hour of TV on the train ride to work, and then again on the way home, and listen to music all day, and make four hours of voice calls" and such, but I think the answer is that the battery life will work for some people, and for others it won't. Still others will realize that they have power outlets or USB ports or cigarette lighters around them all day long, and having to use them for iPhone is just, well, the tradeoff of wanting an iPhone (if they're in fact in the group who exhausts the battery every day).
I'm tracking iPhone battery issues here as they develop. Disclaimer: that is my site, and it does have Google AdSense. As was the case with iPod, I really don't think it will be a big deal for iPhone, save for a vocal minority. I wonder how long we'll have to wait for an iPhone's Dirty Secret movie that intentionally misrepresents the situation?
Aaaiiiiiggghghh! The point is: not your facts, but the opinions they support. So other countries don't want Iran to have nuclear power. Fine.
The reason isn't because other countries "don't want Iran to have nuclear power." It's because any nucelar production capability could someday be applied to weapons. No, not now. Not tomorrow. And in Iran's case, not for several years. Their uranium enrichment at 5%, 85% lower than where it needs to be for weapons production. Also, the amount of uranium they have is sufficient only for research.
It's not as if other nations just don't want Iran to have nuclear power for the hell of it, and the US is off on its own saying Iran will make nuclear weapons. ALL of the nations involved in the UN Security Coucil resolution don't want Iran to continue refining uranium because they fear Iran may someday develop weapons. The road to nuclear weapons development is a long one, and that's the reason the UN and other nations in agreement with the UN want to stop Iran now. There's no disconnect between the reasons the international community wants Iran to stop refinement and the reasons the US does: no one wants a nuclear-armed Iran.
What other countries aren't doing is spreading lies about how Iran intends to build nucular weapons. Iran has never expressed an interest in making weapons.
Again, all of the other nations opposed to Iran's continued refinement aren't doing it because they want to withhold nuclear power from Iran. They don't want Iran to continue to enhance its scientific and industrial capabilities with regard to nuclear materials and processes so they won't get to the point where they can be used to develop weaponry. You might think even that is wrong, but that's what the UN has said - not just the US.
And regardless of what the US does or doesn't say, the fact that plenty of other nations don't want a nuclear armed Iran still stands, and that's the reason they want to halt Iran's refinement. I repeat: they DO NOT simply want to withhold nuclear power from Iran. They want Iran to stop refinement because of future weapons concerns. That's one of the reasons that a binding Chapter VII Security Council resolution demanding Iran to halt enrichment was unanimously adopted.
Even if they do want to, they probably wouldn't get the capability for ten years. Ten years.
That's kind of why the goal is to stop them now, not after they've already done it, or are well on the way there.
Get it?
With absolutely no evidence that they intend to do so. So, your facts support more White House lies
So let me get this straight - the facts that many nations and the UN want Iran to halt enrichment supports the lie that -- and let me see if I understand this -- that many nations and the UN want Iran to halt enrichment? That's...interesting.
It's clear you don't agree with the action on Iraq, but it's far, far, far more complex than you think it is. I know that "Bush lied, people died" is catchy and rhymes and everything, but the situation is a tad more complicated than that. And definitely not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
And here's all the references, too, for anyone who doubts there is significant opposition in Europe and worry in other parts of the world with regard to Iran's continued nuclear refinement operations, as well as unanimous acknowledgment that Iran is in fact in violation of a binding UN security council resolution (1737) ordering it to stop, as verified by the IAEA:
Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment an
I didn't cherry pick those sources. They're official international reaction from various nations. There are two articles posted. One is a compilation of official international reaction to the fact that Iran hadn't stopped refining, as verified by the IAEA, and the other was an AFP article also speaking to that fact.
Are you actually serious that you think the US is the only nation condemning Iran for continued uranium refinement? Where do you think UNSEC 1737 came from?
SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)
What's even more hilarious is that you call statements made by foreign governments condemning Iran's continued enrichment "White House talking points," when I didn't even speak about US reaction at all (which is why the post was titled, "Here, let's look at international reaction," and then you act is if it's opinion!
I didn't think you could be more childish or ignorant, but you proved me wrong on both counts. Good show.
I have an SIR-T165 and it works great. Tunes all analog cable, OTA analog and digital, plus OTA HDTV. Supports all formats. No broadcast flag, IEEE-1394/FireWire, DVI, VGA/RGB, S-Video, component, composite. Samsung did a really great job packing in a lot of connectors, formats, and functionality. The SIR-T451 appears to add QAM for digital cable (in the clear, no doubt), and HDCP on the DVI.
This doesn't answer the question about where they've all gone, but Samsung did a good job and hopefully you can pick one of these, or something like it, up somewhere.
He made a totally incorrect statement ("Iran never claimed a cure for AIDS"), when the reference even contained a reference to Iran's official announcement in English.
I pointed him at two official Iranian sources claiming Iran's government discovered a "cure for AIDS," and he again denied it and tried to sidestep it, probably realizing he was totally wrong and trying to weasel out of it instead of admitting it.
And even though the fact that Iran claimed a "cure for AIDS" is absolutely correct, and his assertions that Iran never did any such thing and was just a victim of evil Western governments and/or Israel trying to wage a propaganda campaign on the AIDS cure topic to make Iran look bad were absolutely wrong, people like you then stop intelligently debating (because you've lost, and were wrong) and react like you just did: with off-topic immaturity.
Wow! What an 'explosion' of stupidity! And by that, yes, I mean your post.
The post to which you were responding was the official international reaction from nations OTHER than the US.
The second included article was the IAEA (not US) report on Iran's current uranium production capabilities.
The UNSEC resolution is, well, a unanimous UNSEC resolution and not a product of the US, propaganda or otherwise.
Not sure how you got your little deluded rant from international, non-US reaction to Iran's defiance, or an IAEA report, or a UN Security Council resolution, but, by all means, keep going. It saves me the time of having to prove you a fool since you're doing a fine job yourself.
No. You said, "Iran never claimed a cure for AIDS," and blamed it on Israeli political propaganda.
I posted two news articles - one from Iran's state news agency and one from a quasi-independent news agency, titled "Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS" and "Iran Introduces AIDS Cure," respectively, which go on to claim:
"Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)"
No matter what it is, they claimed a "cure" for AIDS. Repeatedly. And astoundingly, after being proven utterly wrong, you still don't admit it. Actually, that's not so surprising, I guess. (And yes, I know it's some "herbal" remedy. The point is, both Iran official and un-/quasi-official media called it an AIDS cure, as did the Iranian government.
This has nothing to do with competence. It has to do with the state of mind and sanity of Ahmadenijad and the Iranian leadership. Which, you might guess, doesn't bode well for a nuclear program conducted in defiance of international wishes (i.e., not remotely just the US).
Well, whatever the issue - which is probably something similar to what you suspect - it's now fixed. Here's the transcript from CNN this morning. Since the F-22 is fly-by-wire, it's also worth pointing out that all systems didn't crash, else these F-22s would be sitting in the Pacific. I've no doubt it affected navigation, communications, and similar subsystems, and was probably related to physical location in terms of time, position over the Earth, or both, given the nature of the issue.
>> 25 Years from development to deployment, the F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighting machine in the air. It was no match for a computer glitch that left six of them high above the pacific ocean, deaf, dumb, and blind as they headed to their first deployment. So what happened? We turn to a man that's at home in the cockpit. Retired Air Force General Don Shepperd. Let me set the scene, Don. These F-22s, headed from the Air Force base in Hawaii to an Air Force base in Japan. They were approaching the international date line, pick it up from there.
>> You got it right. You want everything to go right with the frontline fighter. $125, 135 Million a copy. The F-22 raptor is our frontline fighter, air defense, air superiority, and it can drop bombs. It is stealthy and fast. You want it to go right. On the international deployment to the pacific, it didn't. At the international date line, whoops. All systems dumped. When i say all systems I mean all systems, navigation, part of the communications, fuel systems, and they were -- they could have been in real trouble. They were with their tankers. The tankers -- tried to reset their systems. Couldn't get them reset. Tankers brought them back to Hawaii. This could have been real serious. Certainly could have been real serious if the weather had been bad. Turned out okay. Fixed in 48 hours. It was a computer glitch in the millions of lines of code; somebody made an error in a couple lines of the code and everything goes.
>> This is almost like the feared Y2K problem that happened to these aircraft. We should point out, the computer problems in 2000. The computers absolutely went absolutely haywire and became useless?
>> Absolutely. When you think of airplanes from the old days, with cables and that type of thing and connects between the sticks and the yokes and the controls -- not that way anymore. Everything is by computer. When your computers go the airplanes go. You have multiple systems. When they all dump at the same time, you can be in real trouble. Luckily this turned out okay.
>> What would have happened if these brand-new $120 million F-22s had been going into battle?
>> You would have been in real trouble in the middle of combat. The good thing is we found this out. Any time -- before, you know, before we get into combat with an airplane like this. Any time you introduce a new airplane, you are going to find glitches, and you are going to find things that go wrong. It happens in our civilian airliners. You don't hear much about it. These things absolutely happen. And luckily had time we found out about it before combat. We got it fixed with tiger teams in about 48 hours and the airplanes were flying again, and completed the deployment. This could have been real serious in combat.
>> You had these advanced air -- not just superiority but air supremacy fighters in there, up there in the air, above the Pacific Ocean, not much more sophisticated than a Cessna 152 with a jet engine?
>> You got it. They are on a 15-hour flight from Hawaii to Okinawa. When all their systems dumped, they needed help. Had they gotten separated from their tankers or weather gotten bad they had no reference and no communications or navigation. They would have turned around and could have found the Hawaiian Islands. If the weather had been bad on approach there could have been real trouble. You get refueling from your tankers and you don't run -- you don't get yourself where you run out of fuel. You
I'm amazed at how people who don't speak Farsi keep on bringing the "wiped off the map" misinterpretation. Go learn some basic Persian and get back to me.
Indeed..."eliminated from the pages of history" is much better than "wiped off the map."
Between that, the Holocaust(-denial) conference, and other rhetoric, I can see one would think Iran shows absolutely no hostility to the existence of Israel or the Jews in land they believe should be occupied by neither.
WASHINGTON Feb 12, 2007 (AP)-- President Bush on Monday sought to dampen speculation about a U.S. military strike on Iran as the Islamic republic's president softened his tone, too, and said he wanted dialogue rather than confrontation.
SEVILLE, Spain (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday dismissed suggestions that Washington had raised its rhetoric against Iran, saying the Bush administration was trying to soften the tone as tensions with Tehran climb.
Mr Bush confirmed a report in Friday's Washington Post that he had authorised US troops to shoot and kill Iranian operatives in Iraq, but denied this was a prelude to stronger action. "We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically," said the US president.
-----
Dumbass, too dumb to read the fucking papers or even listen to the news.
So how do those new LCD/mirror combo displays work?
Trust me, I'm familiar with what's going on with Iran right now. And in case you've missed, the US is taking pains to ensure that people like you don't interpret everything as a "pretext for war," when it's in fact the entirety of the international community essentially speaking in unison on the Iran situation.
Speaking of reading the news, you might want to do a little reading yourself. Otherwise, I hear Iran has a cure for AIDS that should be very profitable. You may want to invest now, but it could be risky because it's probably being held back by the US and Israel!
Also, the semantics of saying "viable weapons program" is subtle, but a great move on your part. Having a "viable weapons program" doesn't imply you have current production capacity for nuclear weapons. It means you have a weapons program. They're still refining uranium at below 5%, which is a far cry from the over 90% they'd need for weapons production. But not being there now doesn't mean they won't get there, and the key is to prevent that from happening.
I utterly misread what he said. For some reason, I jumped to the conclusion that the post to which he was replying was saying that they ran UNIXes or BSDs as guests inside of VMware on a *Windows* host, but they were really making the opposite assertion, which he answered correctly. I glossed over the "host" thing completely, and when I saw "BSD" and "VMware", immediately assumed it was another person who didn't think any BSD was supported as a *guest* under VMWare.
So yes, my reply was totally not speaking to that point, since I misread what he said and assumed a different context. Thanks for pointing that out.
You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article.
That doesn't matter. Iran knows that this kind of provocative behavior and claims such as this (even if they're false) will successfully shift the debate to the US, in effect, further shifting or solidifying opinion against the US among groups of people both inside and outside of the US, even though the US hasn't done anything at all, and indeed, the only "action" of any kind taken, by anyone, has been by Iran.
It's a really brilliant strategic move on Iran's part, actually. They can deflect attention from themselves, and shift the focus to what US reaction might or should be, even though the focus should remain on the fact that Iran shouldn't be allowed to proceed down this path, as has repeatedly been reiterated by UN and the rest of the international community. How long until revisionist history forgets that fact, and pretends it was "only the US" that had these feelings on Iran (which is ironic, since the US is probably one of the most silent nations on Iran right now, and has intentionally restricted any rhetoric on the Iran issue)?
Slashdot Mirror
DRM free music is the only true path to interoperability. Anything else will fall short.
For the record, I agree.
As to the oft-repeated response to Jobs' statement, I answer those concerns in one of my previous responses to another similar response. Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to do it":
They already store unprotected files on the server that are accessible from certain clients. I'm sure they probably thought of the eventuality that they could sell unprotected music someday, and if they have any sense they already have something designed and implemented. It is definitely a business decision and not technical limitations that are holding them back.
Yes. And the business processes that go into rolling something like this out are probably far more complex than the technical processes. This actually speaks to my point: technically, sure, it may be that "2-3 day" operation people think it should be. From a business and support perspective, it's not. There may even be legal issues in one or more of Apple's other contractual relationships. This is the same as people thinking Apple should have been able to create an iPod battery replacement service in a week or two. In reality, it took the better part of a year. The point is that things are a little more complex and take a little longer than people seem to think.
I never said he was in love with DRM.
You didn't say that, but others making this argument essentially say that.
The simple fact is that Apple does not sell songs without DRM, even though they have the ability
You don't know that they have that ability right now. Just because the songs are stored unprotected on their servers doesn't mean they have the end-to-end business, technical, and logistical processes, today, to do that. I can just see people saying, "Please...how hard can it be?" It may NOT be "that hard". But it's a LOT harder than people seem to think it is. It's not as if they can just flip a switch. There are a lot of things that would have to happen at the back end to support this, not to mention a client update may even be needed.
I'm NOT saying any of this is impossible, or that it would be "hard" for Apple to do, or that they shouldn't do it.
I'm simply saying that using the fact that they're not currently doing it as some sort of "proof" that Apple doesn't really want to be rid of DRM is disingenuous.
and many independent labels have requested to have their music sold unshackled.
But how many of these labels have direct relationships with iTunes (i.e., not another intermediary)? I honestly don't know. Even if there are many, they, in total, comprise a very small portion (much less than "30%") and don't include any major labels. And the major labels - the ones who WANT DRM - are what's at issue here. I know that to some people, the converse situation of applying DRM to these other artists' music who may not want it stands as some sort of "proof" that Apple really isn't serious about ridding iTunes Music Store of DRM.
If Steve was anti-DRM, then why does iTunes not have the ability to sell unrestricted music from those labels that want it?
This is a legitimate question. Even if the number of people with valid rights to request this (i.e., people with direct contractual relationships with Apple) is very small, Apple should still enable this, even if only as a symbol.
The answer is that they can make a whole shitload of money while still appearing
The solution isn't standardized DRM. It's no DRM. The music industry (and apparently government regulators) want you to believe the only practical solution is the former. The real solution is the latter, for all the reasons Jobs outlined, not the least of which is that DRM will NEVER stop piracy and ALWAYS be able to be defeated.
Actually (and I know you know this, jcr), this service is available from Apple as well, albeit for the server grade products:
l
http://www.apple.com/support/products/premium.htm
The AppleCare Premium Service and Support Plan delivers up to three years of 24/7 telephone and email support -- with 30-minute response. For Xserve, the plan covers server administration and network management issues using the graphical user interface of Mac OS X Server. For Xserve RAID, the plan covers RAID Admin software, as well as connectivity issues between your Mac or Xserve and your Xserve RAID storage system.
The hardware repair coverage provides worldwide onsite response for Xserve and Xserve RAID. You get onsite response within four business hours, and next-day onsite response when you contact Apple after business hours.
I know the parent didn't make reference to this, but a lot of people think it, so:
In August 1997, Microsoft purchased $150 million in non-voting Apple stock.
As of the prior quarter, Apple had $1.2 billion in cash on hand .
The money didn't "bail Apple out", as some people think. It was a symbolic gesture. The symbolism of the "badly needed" "investment" (which really wasn't needed from a financial standpoint) renewed peoples' faith in Apple, renewed the faith that Microsoft and Office would still be on the Mac platform, etc.
So while you could argue that the gesture was needed (and I'd tend to agree), the money itself wasn't.
And Microsoft made out like bandits on that investment.
That must be why he allows indie artists and studios to sell their music on iTunes without DRM.
0 14768
Oh wait, he doesn't.
Oh wait, it's not that simple, and I already answered those concerns in the very post to which you replied:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222358&cid=18
The solution isn't standardized DRM. It's no DRM. The music industry wants you to believe the only practical solution is the former. The real solution is the latter, for all the reasons Jobs outlined, not the least of which is that DRM will NEVER stop piracy and ALWAYS be able to be defeated.
This post of mine will answer your questions:
0 14768
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222358&cid=18
In short, I think the conspiracy theories that Jobs only said he was against DRM for PR reasons and to look good are utter bullshit. Jobs' statement on DRM is the single biggest shot across the bow of DRM that anyone anywhere near this industry has taken, ever. From the CEO of the company with the largest online music store, no less. From a board member of a major motion picture house, no less.
This isn't just lip service. This is huge, and that's why all the DRM and music industry types have been reacting to it so vocally and aversely since it was made. Apple doesn't need DRM to keep people on iTunes and iPod. People get iPods because they don't utterly suck. Jobs also (likely correctly) feels that the entire online music industry - of which iTunes is a huge part - would be MUCH better off without DRM.
In fact, if it's true that online sales would explode if you could actually get lossless, no-DRM versions of music and media online, as so many staunch anti-DRM advocates argue, then it's true that Apple's business would significantly grow, as the existing market leader in this area. I know that people want to think that Jobs was just lying for PR's sake and really secretly wants to hold onto DRM as tightly as it can, but that simply doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, considering the scope and impact of this statement. Further, iPods - which is where Apple makes its money - were already the market leader by far before the iTunes store even existed.
Could you further explain that?
Sure.
Jobs said it would get rid of DRM in a heartbeat on all media on the iTunes Music Store. I believe that to be true.
Further, I think Apple believes that it would actually be in a better position without DRM than with in terms of sales volume and customer satisfaction.
Long before the iTunes Store existed, the iPod was already the best selling music player. That's because it didn't suck, not because people were "locked in" to iTunes. In another way, you could argue that even before the store, you still got the most benefit from iPod by using it in conjunction with iTunes.
So in some respects I agree that Apple definitely encourages people to use its products and the "ecosystems" that go along with them (iLife, iTunes Store, and so on), but Jobs doesn't feel that DRM is good for the industry as a whole, and indeed only hurts and confuses honest consumers, in addition to never stopping piracy, since it will always be able to be defeated.
So, to expand on this a bit, would Apple be happy if it lost customers? No. But I believe Apple thinks the iTunes/iPod combo is so compelling to most ordinary consumers that they'd get even more customers without DRM. Apple doesn't need DRM to keep people on iTunes and iPod.
DRM is what's hurting the (online) music industry. It needs to be eliminated, not "opened up".[1] Looks like the industry is a little irked at Jobs' statement.
Apple has already laid down its cards. "Open" DRM (can there be such a thing?[2]) is just as bad as any other DRM. It does not serve the customer.
The labels are hurting the industry with DRM. Apple is willing to ditch it wholesale (i.e., isn't interested in iTunes/iPod "lock-in").
The ball's in the music industry's court, not Apple's.
[1] Arguments about whether or not there would have been an iTunes store in the first place aside. There is one now, and online music has made a good showing. It's up to the industry to decide how to proceed, not Apple. Simply changing the face of DRM isn't a "step in the right direction."
[2] Yes, I know what they mean by "open" DRM. But who's it open to? Only other competitive music stores? So we can have one universal DRM "standard"? Aside from the massive technical hurdles to coalescing DRM with all the disparate formats and stores, is that really the right step to take?
funny how the BBC managed to acquire images, then. We saw the launch right here in the UK. I guess you yanks don't have us free a media as we do.
So, there's this notion called the "passage of time." Perhaps you're familiar with it? When time passes, things can change, and new events and information can develop. I think you guys in the UK even have this "passage of time" thing.
Amazing, eh?
The quote "No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing," was from the BBC article linked in the submission itself.
In the ensuing 24 hours, Iranian state TV released images and video that purport to be the launch, which have since been covered in Western media, including the US.
I'd tell you not to feel bad for being wrong, but judging from how misguided your response was, you're probably used to it, "pal."
If only someone - maybe even Apple - had already created a multimedia device that has been around for several years without a replaceable battery, and had no problems doing so.
And then, if they could just make the multimedia battery life of the iPhone greater than the battery life of said multimedia device.
Oh wait, they did. Oops.
But because there are certain groups of people who it's not appropriate for, or who feel they need on-the-fly replacement, it's just too bad that Apple has made iPhone ownership mandatory, and forces everyone to buy an iPhone.
Oh wait, they haven't. Oops.
While there are some people for whom a non-changeable-on-the-fly battery would be a deal-breaker, there are many, many others for whom that does not matter at all.
For example, my wife and I both have Treos we use pretty heavily, and neither of us have ever had a need or desire to change the battery on-the-fly, nor have we gotten new batteries even after a couple of years. Our usage patterns mean that not changing the battery midday works perfectly fine for us. And by the time we'd even need to replace the battery for degradation reasons, we'll both have new phones.
Others will always carry spare batteries with them, and know in advance they need or want this capability on iPhone. For those, iPhone is obviously not appropriate. Thankfully, no one is forcing them to buy one!
There will also be a third group of people: those who think they need to be able to change the battery routinely, but actually don't, and never even have on any phone they've owned. Some people who currently have smartphone/PDA class devices who have never changed batteries will be in this group. We'll call this the "FUD" or "iPod's Dirty Secret" group.
Actually, I think the biggest problem with the battery isn't that it's not quickly user-accessible; it's going to ultimately be whether or not Apple requires the phone to be sent in to have its battery replaced. Personally, I would hope they would be replaceable on-demand while you wait at any Apple or AT&T/Cingular corporate store. Sending your phone in for a week if and when you need a new battery won't fly.
On the other hand, Apple is also operating under the presumption that many people will want to - and in fact do - replace their phones when the subsidy contract period is up. Therefore, the number of people who actually do need a battery replacement while the device is in service as a phone (as opposed to keeping it as an iPod) will be small. There will also no doubt be numerous third-party and do-it-yourself solutions, likely including higher capacity batteries as they become available, just as there are with iPod. However, I still admit I was very surprised that Apple went the way of the iPod with the iPhone, in terms of the battery setup.
In any case, all of the power accessories for iPod already work with iPhone, and there will be large groups of customers - indeed, the vast majority - who won't be affected by not being able to replace the battery on the fly. Now, I can see some people saying "what if I want to watch my hour of TV on the train ride to work, and then again on the way home, and listen to music all day, and make four hours of voice calls" and such, but I think the answer is that the battery life will work for some people, and for others it won't. Still others will realize that they have power outlets or USB ports or cigarette lighters around them all day long, and having to use them for iPhone is just, well, the tradeoff of wanting an iPhone (if they're in fact in the group who exhausts the battery every day).
I'm tracking iPhone battery issues here as they develop. Disclaimer: that is my site, and it does have Google AdSense. As was the case with iPod, I really don't think it will be a big deal for iPhone, save for a vocal minority. I wonder how long we'll have to wait for an iPhone's Dirty Secret movie that intentionally misrepresents the situation?
Aaaiiiiiggghghh! The point is: not your facts, but the opinions they support. So other countries don't want Iran to have nuclear power. Fine.
The reason isn't because other countries "don't want Iran to have nuclear power." It's because any nucelar production capability could someday be applied to weapons. No, not now. Not tomorrow. And in Iran's case, not for several years. Their uranium enrichment at 5%, 85% lower than where it needs to be for weapons production. Also, the amount of uranium they have is sufficient only for research.
It's not as if other nations just don't want Iran to have nuclear power for the hell of it, and the US is off on its own saying Iran will make nuclear weapons. ALL of the nations involved in the UN Security Coucil resolution don't want Iran to continue refining uranium because they fear Iran may someday develop weapons. The road to nuclear weapons development is a long one, and that's the reason the UN and other nations in agreement with the UN want to stop Iran now. There's no disconnect between the reasons the international community wants Iran to stop refinement and the reasons the US does: no one wants a nuclear-armed Iran.
What other countries aren't doing is spreading lies about how Iran intends to build nucular weapons. Iran has never expressed an interest in making weapons.
Again, all of the other nations opposed to Iran's continued refinement aren't doing it because they want to withhold nuclear power from Iran. They don't want Iran to continue to enhance its scientific and industrial capabilities with regard to nuclear materials and processes so they won't get to the point where they can be used to develop weaponry. You might think even that is wrong, but that's what the UN has said - not just the US.
And regardless of what the US does or doesn't say, the fact that plenty of other nations don't want a nuclear armed Iran still stands, and that's the reason they want to halt Iran's refinement. I repeat: they DO NOT simply want to withhold nuclear power from Iran. They want Iran to stop refinement because of future weapons concerns. That's one of the reasons that a binding Chapter VII Security Council resolution demanding Iran to halt enrichment was unanimously adopted.
Even if they do want to, they probably wouldn't get the capability for ten years. Ten years.
That's kind of why the goal is to stop them now, not after they've already done it, or are well on the way there.
Get it?
With absolutely no evidence that they intend to do so. So, your facts support more White House lies
So let me get this straight - the facts that many nations and the UN want Iran to halt enrichment supports the lie that -- and let me see if I understand this -- that many nations and the UN want Iran to halt enrichment? That's...interesting.
It's clear you don't agree with the action on Iraq, but it's far, far, far more complex than you think it is. I know that "Bush lied, people died" is catchy and rhymes and everything, but the situation is a tad more complicated than that. And definitely not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
And here's all the references, too, for anyone who doubts there is significant opposition in Europe and worry in other parts of the world with regard to Iran's continued nuclear refinement operations, as well as unanimous acknowledgment that Iran is in fact in violation of a binding UN security council resolution (1737) ordering it to stop, as verified by the IAEA:
UN Security Council
SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)
Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment an
Uh, the US *isn't* alone on condemning Iran.
I didn't cherry pick those sources. They're official international reaction from various nations. There are two articles posted. One is a compilation of official international reaction to the fact that Iran hadn't stopped refining, as verified by the IAEA, and the other was an AFP article also speaking to that fact.
Are you actually serious that you think the US is the only nation condemning Iran for continued uranium refinement? Where do you think UNSEC 1737 came from?
SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)
What's even more hilarious is that you call statements made by foreign governments condemning Iran's continued enrichment "White House talking points," when I didn't even speak about US reaction at all (which is why the post was titled, "Here, let's look at international reaction," and then you act is if it's opinion!
I didn't think you could be more childish or ignorant, but you proved me wrong on both counts. Good show.
If you can find a Samsung SIR-T165, SIR-T451 or DTB-H260F, pick one up.
I have an SIR-T165 and it works great. Tunes all analog cable, OTA analog and digital, plus OTA HDTV. Supports all formats. No broadcast flag, IEEE-1394/FireWire, DVI, VGA/RGB, S-Video, component, composite. Samsung did a really great job packing in a lot of connectors, formats, and functionality. The SIR-T451 appears to add QAM for digital cable (in the clear, no doubt), and HDCP on the DVI.
This doesn't answer the question about where they've all gone, but Samsung did a good job and hopefully you can pick one of these, or something like it, up somewhere.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, I did.
He made a totally incorrect statement ("Iran never claimed a cure for AIDS"), when the reference even contained a reference to Iran's official announcement in English.
I pointed him at two official Iranian sources claiming Iran's government discovered a "cure for AIDS," and he again denied it and tried to sidestep it, probably realizing he was totally wrong and trying to weasel out of it instead of admitting it.
And even though the fact that Iran claimed a "cure for AIDS" is absolutely correct, and his assertions that Iran never did any such thing and was just a victim of evil Western governments and/or Israel trying to wage a propaganda campaign on the AIDS cure topic to make Iran look bad were absolutely wrong, people like you then stop intelligently debating (because you've lost, and were wrong) and react like you just did: with off-topic immaturity.
Wow! What an 'explosion' of stupidity! And by that, yes, I mean your post.
The post to which you were responding was the official international reaction from nations OTHER than the US.
The second included article was the IAEA (not US) report on Iran's current uranium production capabilities.
The UNSEC resolution is, well, a unanimous UNSEC resolution and not a product of the US, propaganda or otherwise.
Not sure how you got your little deluded rant from international, non-US reaction to Iran's defiance, or an IAEA report, or a UN Security Council resolution, but, by all means, keep going. It saves me the time of having to prove you a fool since you're doing a fine job yourself.
No. You said, "Iran never claimed a cure for AIDS," and blamed it on Israeli political propaganda.
I posted two news articles - one from Iran's state news agency and one from a quasi-independent news agency, titled "Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS" and "Iran Introduces AIDS Cure," respectively, which go on to claim:
"Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)"
No matter what it is, they claimed a "cure" for AIDS. Repeatedly. And astoundingly, after being proven utterly wrong, you still don't admit it. Actually, that's not so surprising, I guess. (And yes, I know it's some "herbal" remedy. The point is, both Iran official and un-/quasi-official media called it an AIDS cure, as did the Iranian government.
This has nothing to do with competence. It has to do with the state of mind and sanity of Ahmadenijad and the Iranian leadership. Which, you might guess, doesn't bode well for a nuclear program conducted in defiance of international wishes (i.e., not remotely just the US).
Well, whatever the issue - which is probably something similar to what you suspect - it's now fixed. Here's the transcript from CNN this morning. Since the F-22 is fly-by-wire, it's also worth pointing out that all systems didn't crash, else these F-22s would be sitting in the Pacific. I've no doubt it affected navigation, communications, and similar subsystems, and was probably related to physical location in terms of time, position over the Earth, or both, given the nature of the issue.
>> 25 Years from development to deployment, the F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighting machine in the air. It was no match for a computer glitch that left six of them high above the pacific ocean, deaf, dumb, and blind as they headed to their first deployment. So what happened? We turn to a man that's at home in the cockpit. Retired Air Force General Don Shepperd. Let me set the scene, Don. These F-22s, headed from the Air Force base in Hawaii to an Air Force base in Japan. They were approaching the international date line, pick it up from there.
>> You got it right. You want everything to go right with the frontline fighter. $125, 135 Million a copy. The F-22 raptor is our frontline fighter, air defense, air superiority, and it can drop bombs. It is stealthy and fast. You want it to go right. On the international deployment to the pacific, it didn't. At the international date line, whoops. All systems dumped. When i say all systems I mean all systems, navigation, part of the communications, fuel systems, and they were -- they could have been in real trouble. They were with their tankers. The tankers -- tried to reset their systems. Couldn't get them reset. Tankers brought them back to Hawaii. This could have been real serious. Certainly could have been real serious if the weather had been bad. Turned out okay. Fixed in 48 hours. It was a computer glitch in the millions of lines of code; somebody made an error in a couple lines of the code and everything goes.
>> This is almost like the feared Y2K problem that happened to these aircraft. We should point out, the computer problems in 2000. The computers absolutely went absolutely haywire and became useless?
>> Absolutely. When you think of airplanes from the old days, with cables and that type of thing and connects between the sticks and the yokes and the controls -- not that way anymore. Everything is by computer. When your computers go the airplanes go. You have multiple systems. When they all dump at the same time, you can be in real trouble. Luckily this turned out okay.
>> What would have happened if these brand-new $120 million F-22s had been going into battle?
>> You would have been in real trouble in the middle of combat. The good thing is we found this out. Any time -- before, you know, before we get into combat with an airplane like this. Any time you introduce a new airplane, you are going to find glitches, and you are going to find things that go wrong. It happens in our civilian airliners. You don't hear much about it. These things absolutely happen. And luckily had time we found out about it before combat. We got it fixed with tiger teams in about 48 hours and the airplanes were flying again, and completed the deployment. This could have been real serious in combat.
>> You had these advanced air -- not just superiority but air supremacy fighters in there, up there in the air, above the Pacific Ocean, not much more sophisticated than a Cessna 152 with a jet engine?
>> You got it. They are on a 15-hour flight from Hawaii to Okinawa. When all their systems dumped, they needed help. Had they gotten separated from their tankers or weather gotten bad they had no reference and no communications or navigation. They would have turned around and could have found the Hawaiian Islands. If the weather had been bad on approach there could have been real trouble. You get refueling from your tankers and you don't run -- you don't get yourself where you run out of fuel. You
Indeed..."eliminated from the pages of history" is much better than "wiped off the map."
Between that, the Holocaust(-denial) conference, and other rhetoric, I can see one would think Iran shows absolutely no hostility to the existence of Israel or the Jews in land they believe should be occupied by neither.
...
WASHINGTON Feb 12, 2007 (AP)-- President Bush on Monday sought to dampen speculation about a U.S. military strike on Iran as the Islamic republic's president softened his tone, too, and said he wanted dialogue rather than confrontation.
Gates says U.S. trying to ease tone in Iran dispute
SEVILLE, Spain (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday dismissed suggestions that Washington had raised its rhetoric against Iran, saying the Bush administration was trying to soften the tone as tensions with Tehran climb.
Bush denies preparing attack against Iran
Mr Bush confirmed a report in Friday's Washington Post that he had authorised US troops to shoot and kill Iranian operatives in Iraq, but denied this was a prelude to stronger action. "We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically," said the US president.
-----
Dumbass, too dumb to read the fucking papers or even listen to the news.
So how do those new LCD/mirror combo displays work?
Trust me, I'm familiar with what's going on with Iran right now. And in case you've missed, the US is taking pains to ensure that people like you don't interpret everything as a "pretext for war," when it's in fact the entirety of the international community essentially speaking in unison on the Iran situation.
Speaking of reading the news, you might want to do a little reading yourself. Otherwise, I hear Iran has a cure for AIDS that should be very profitable. You may want to invest now, but it could be risky because it's probably being held back by the US and Israel!
...
No, that's pretty much "certain".
Also, the semantics of saying "viable weapons program" is subtle, but a great move on your part. Having a "viable weapons program" doesn't imply you have current production capacity for nuclear weapons. It means you have a weapons program. They're still refining uranium at below 5%, which is a far cry from the over 90% they'd need for weapons production. But not being there now doesn't mean they won't get there, and the key is to prevent that from happening.
Thus, the recent unanimously approved Chapter VII UNSEC resolution with regard to Iran.
It's not just the US.
I utterly misread what he said. For some reason, I jumped to the conclusion that the post to which he was replying was saying that they ran UNIXes or BSDs as guests inside of VMware on a *Windows* host, but they were really making the opposite assertion, which he answered correctly. I glossed over the "host" thing completely, and when I saw "BSD" and "VMware", immediately assumed it was another person who didn't think any BSD was supported as a *guest* under VMWare.
So yes, my reply was totally not speaking to that point, since I misread what he said and assumed a different context. Thanks for pointing that out.
Ok, then here it is from the Fars News Agency, Iran's supposedly "independent" news agency:
Iran Introduces AIDS Cure
And here's one from the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's state news agency:
Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS
That good enough for you, or do you want to keep thinking it's a propaganda game against innocent little Iran?
You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article.
That doesn't matter. Iran knows that this kind of provocative behavior and claims such as this (even if they're false) will successfully shift the debate to the US, in effect, further shifting or solidifying opinion against the US among groups of people both inside and outside of the US, even though the US hasn't done anything at all, and indeed, the only "action" of any kind taken, by anyone, has been by Iran.
It's a really brilliant strategic move on Iran's part, actually. They can deflect attention from themselves, and shift the focus to what US reaction might or should be, even though the focus should remain on the fact that Iran shouldn't be allowed to proceed down this path, as has repeatedly been reiterated by UN and the rest of the international community. How long until revisionist history forgets that fact, and pretends it was "only the US" that had these feelings on Iran (which is ironic, since the US is probably one of the most silent nations on Iran right now, and has intentionally restricted any rhetoric on the Iran issue)?