There is a program called OmniGraffle that is shipping with modern macs that can import and export Visio files very cleanly:-)
Things like this are excuses and, while they are occasionally valid for contributing to the barrier to entry, saying that "we can't use it because it doesn't have Visio" is kind of like saying "we can't use it because it doesn't have Windows."
Because it is hell to those who have to correct you.
Lets say that I am running a bunch of small tasks (such as a typical home user who can justify buying a tower)--I might have a webpage open in Safari, something like MS Word (or TeXShop), iTunes playing in the background, and a few other applications that I never bothered to close.
I tell TeXShop to compile my killer doc, it takes its sweet time going to one processor (this is seriously oversimplified). With one processor this is going to keep switching out with iTunes for continuous playback, the clock, and whatever maintenance needs to be done with Safari. These swaps also include the OS taking over for a moment (this is still very simplified) so it can figure out who is supposed to go next and improve the priority of things that haven't gotten their chance (I assume that the schedular is based on BSD's).
Two processors mean that each application has a *lot* less waiting to do since things can get sent to both processors. So when that heavy process hits one processor, the other processor can maintain the operating system without bothering the other process. Net result? Everything is faster and, almost as importantly, *smoother* for the user--no more interupting that heavy task so that you can open the menu or check the day.
There are no windows applications that I need that don't have a Mac varient--they all exist either natively or through Apple's excellent X11 implementation.
There have been exactly two programs I truly wish ran on the Mac and didn't. 1) OrCAD, 2) TorilEdit. The latter problem I am solving by writing my own in Python, its dirt simple. The former I actually had to borrow someone else's system to use, but I don't use it anymore and hope I can die without seeing it.
Everything else--Swarm, R, JMP, Python, gcc, Goban, TeTeX, MS Powerpoint, Keynote, &c run quite nicely on the Mac and two of them are Mac Only.
>These are the reasons why businesses and often home >users choose the PC platform time and time again.
Yep, its called "Market Lock-in" and "Increasing Returns," I suggest looking up Brian Arthur's work in the field.
This is also a bandwagon appeal.
>So the legendary Apple marketing machine will whip up a >hyped frenzy in its followers
Speaking of hyperbole...
> But other than being in the running again, nothing will >have really changed.
You do realize that most of us purchased our machines because the work for what we do and not for religious convictions on the matter? You also realize that a G3 is fast enough for what the *vast* majority of users do, including many/.ers?
Now, in terms of Apple "being in the running" in terms of speed w/o AltiVec optimization... you have given one of the greatest understatements in the importance of that point that I have ever seen. Now it makes their XServes a serious contender for raw *speed* and not just for stability and Operating System.
"Gee, I dunno... maybe from the fact that they are making money on open source code?"
No, they are making money on closed-source code which is on-top of open-source code.
Darwin is Open Source but they don't make any money off of Darwin.
Aqua, Cocoa, &c are *Closed Source* and similar are what they are truly selling. It could even be argued that they are selling *hardware* and the reason they don't open their source is that by keeping that source code closed they can keep it on their platform.
I repeat, where do you get off on this idea that they could open all of their source and stay in business?
" I admit, I don't know much about Apple, their computers or their business model. But their corporate policies sure do not seem to be in line with the same ideals associated with Open Source."
Perhaps because Apple is a "business" trying to make a "profit"?
Seriously, where do you get off with this religious conviction that everyone should open their source to the world and think that they could still afford to stay in business?
"Why? Why shouldn't people be able to assemble their own cars from spare parts? The contract is just a way to get around the fact that once you've sold a part, you don't have control over it."
The United States of America is a Neoliberal economy, we practice a philosophy of free market.
Repeat that 100 times before you go to bed each night, until you understand what it really means and what it does not mean.
A couple of years ago I was hired to put together an LDAP server for a major university. It had to hold student records, give them the option to change them, and do a few other nice things along these lines.
We used RedHat Linux in a Penguin Computing Rackmount, it is ashame one of these things was not available then.
It didn't need to have a 1337 processor(s), it needed to never crash and have protection and backups in case it did. It didn't need a fast hard drive, it did need to be easy to configure and nearly brainless to maintain or use.
You think a link to a severely opinionated news source is going to sway anyone? Particularly when nothing on the page you cited has any affect whatsoever on anything that I said.
It is kind of like citing Storm Front in a debate discussing blacks, except less relevant.
Or perhaps, rather than throw meaningless tripe at me that has no relevance to the discussion at hand, you could try to refute the arguments presented?
Do you agree with everything your government does?
I don't agree with everything my government does, certainly, and think that there might even be better places to live. Why haven't I moved there? The world is a big place, I haven't visited them yet, and I have enough trouble finding work in a place where I speak the language.
Elsewhere I have to go through the process of get a work permit, work, and citizenship.
This leads us to point two:
They have to do all of this by the time they are drafted into the military.
I'm not sure about you, but by the time I was old enough to serve in the Israel army I had only vaguely considered leaving the country and that was at "some point in the vague future"--I had visited outside of the US, but not with the intent of moving there.
What, do you think that everyone who falls under your so-called qualifer of a "zionist" (which has two meanings, incidentally, which are you using?) is automatically transported to Israel and the moment they disagree they are kicked out?
Three:
You are telling me now that all Jews--even secular ones or those who don't agree with the current government--living in Israel are "bad jews". Think carefully about this one--you are using the same justification used to hold bigotry over thousand other peoples throughout the world. This is racism, not reason.
"who were living in what is now the country of Israel."
Well, more likely parts of Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan... just to name a few, but hey, who's counting? This is/especially/ true for Turkey--there are a lot of references in there which can pretty explicitly be traced to that region.
I've heard this a lot along with the argument of "we don't hate good jews, just the bad ones." The justifications I've heard used sound a *lot* like those used by the KKK for the eradication/removal of blacks.
Also, since when did Israeli soldiers have to be/zionist/? Israel has mandatory service in their military--if you live there, you are going to be in it at some point.
I know a lot of people in a lot of paths that would argue this point.
Whether you believe them is irrelevant--they believe themselves and have experiences which back that up.
You can assign a probability (nonzero) to them being "right" (type II error on your part) or "wrong" (type I error on theirs) but in the end you won't know for sure.
They might be able to give you repeatable experiments which demonstrate this, however, you would lack the training (not having been through their path) to be capable of repeating them. Oddly, this can be likened to many branches of science, where you have to trust that the experiment was done correctly and the scientist was being honest because you lack the ability to repeat his experiment or (possibly) even understand the foundation behind it.
In other words, saying that the probability is "essentially zero" is missing the point.
" The difference between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel is that a microkernel has offloaded most system services to outside the protected boundary. "
Despite that anyone who has taken a course in basic Operating Systems knows this, this review has was not written for people who can name the four principle components of a Unix operating system--it was written for laypeople.
If I go up to my father, who has a Ph.D. in Microbiology and is well known in that field but lacks the time/patience to learn the Unix side of MacOS X, and start talking about "protected boundaries" I am going to get a blank stare.
One of the first rules when writing anything vaguely technical is that you have to consider your audience. This was not written for people who can spout off MIPS assembly, have done work with OSP or NACHOS, and can recite from memory the man pages for a dozen unix commands--it was written for laypeople.
His explanation could have been more technically precise or more accurate, but it wasn't important to do so for the purposes of the article.
First, as another reader pointed out, this has nothing to do with Apple publishing source code.
Second, in order for the music-labels to agree to the iTMS they *had* to implement some form of protection.
Third, RTFA--read the link you posted. Apple's iTMS DRM is *extremely* mild--letting you burn it to an unlimited number of CDs (which can then be reripped to unrestricted AAC files), spread between three computers, and copied to as many iPods as you happen to have. About the only things you can't do with it are a) Share it across a P2P network, b) spread it to every computer in a computer lab.
Further, the AACs and MP3s that you rip yourself are not copy protected.
If anything the page you linked to shows how Apple is *more* open--I thought at first, even, that you meant to indicate this, but your other posts show that evidently not.
Okay, would you and the others spreading this myth cool it? I'm getting sick of seeing it.
iCommune (in its original form) was in violation of the license the author signed in good faith in order to use the API he had used in creating the product.
Apple hasn't even given a second glance to the new version of iCommune. Why? It doesn't use the iTunes API or fall under its license.
"Great, so why doesn't the site sell in MP3 format?"
I covered this.
Quality vs. File Size, it was one or the other, it lets them advertise it as such, the license can't be changed under them (the MP3 license can), and it increases the market for iPods. It also was already prepped for the mild DRM that they wanted to implement.
"If AAC is better than MP3 offering higher quality at a lower bitrate, where is the harm in offering both formats?"
1) You would have to, at a minimum, encode and do a quality check in both formats. Not to mention offer more than one "buy" button, store all of your content twice, and be prepared for people whining about "I bought one why isn't the other free"
2) The License for mp3 can change in the future (remember why people like ogg? Apple likes AAC--which it was involved in creating--for the same reasons)
3) They would have had to implement a DRM system on top of mp3 as well as on top of AAC.
4) Every one of their customers uses the iTMS, which is integrated into iTunes. iTunes is a kick-ass player and supports AAC files. iTunes only syncs with one mp3 player--and that's the iPod, which also supports AAC files. Thus, if the customer is capapble of using the iTMS, they are capable of playing AAC files. They are not "alienating their customers"
" So why can't it do the same for MP3s?"
They could, they don't. This is irrelevant.
"Why are they losing that money? Because (and it is so obvious to be laughable) they offer nothing comparable to Kazaa. "
1) No, they are "losing money" (rather losing profit--they are still making one IIRC) at the same rate as the economy. Their recent economic downturn is no different than everyone elses, no matter what you claim. You have bought into a little too much of their propaganda.
2) iTMS.
"When they start to do so, providing a high quality mp3 from a guaranteed, high speed site with all trimmings like fan news, ratings, chat etc. the popularity of p2p networks will be slashed overnight."
Ah, so you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry, it won't happen.
If you stick a form of DRM on it, like what Apple has done, it is no different than if they used AAC files--which is what Apple is doing. If you don't stick a form of DRM on there the networks will be *flooded* with high quality mp3s that people have pulled from this source.
Can you persecute them with the watermark? Possibly, but they just have to change the string to make just an email address invalid. Anything more complicated is still prone to hacking and you *still* have to bother to track down who has that email address and then prosecute them, which will drastically lower your popularity and give you severely negative press for your service.
"This is assuming you want to burn all of the songs to a CD."
Or store them on your computer for use when you aren't online, or so that you can put them on your iPod or other portable MP3 player.
It also assumes that you buy all of your songs individually from iTMS and not as part of an album and assumes that you are willing to give money to both Real and Apple. There is also the assumption that you even can download the song (100% of the content on iTMS is downloadable, only 2/3rds of the content on Rhapsody is).
If you are willing to stream all of your music then Real has some value for that purpose, but you aren't going to be "saving money" at $0.80 a song if that's your intent.
"To do this with Apples service would cost you $350,000."
Only if you wanted to listen to all 350,000 and iTMS does offer a 30 second preview of all of the songs availble. Most of us use something called a "radio" to sample songs and are willing to pay 99 cents to put it on our iPod, burn it to a CD, and keep it in our playlists when we are offline.
Since I promise you I won't even like 100,000 songs on the Real Service or on the Apple Store, net cost to me is not going to be $350,000 to get the full value out of the iTMS.
If you want to stream all of your music and only listen to those groups that Real is going to carry, this might work for you. However, if you are in to keeping music on your computer, burning your own CDs, or have an iPod it is wiser by far to use iTMS.
"It is a wonder that Apple et al do not support mp3"
iTunes supported mp3 format before it supported ACC.
"If their proprietary or licenced technology is so wonderful and superior, where is the harm of offering mp3 as well for backwards compatibility since it doesn't compete?"
Simple for Apple--They want to provide higher quality at a lower bitrate, all of the people downloading their music would be doing so through the iTMS, they didn't want to bother with the technical difficulties of ripping from the masters to both mp3 and AAC (doing a quality check, selecting 30 seconds out for streaming, getting the track information added, &c) and then deal with adding the (very mild) DRM to mp3s as well.
"why not watermark the songs as they fly off the server so they can be tracked?"
Apple does--your email address is in every AAC file.
" The net result is users will stick to free p2p services, grabbing their songs from Kazaa and the record companies will get NOTHING and the services will have a fraction of the customers. It doesn't make any business sense."
You must have flunked basic economics--either that or have been living under a rock.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a program called OmniGraffle that is shipping with modern macs that can import and export Visio files very cleanly :-)
Things like this are excuses and, while they are occasionally valid for contributing to the barrier to entry, saying that "we can't use it because it doesn't have Visio" is kind of like saying "we can't use it because it doesn't have Windows."
>6. Apple is dying
That should be:
6. Beleaguered Apple is Dying.
No Apple Criticism is complete without it!
Because it is hell to those who have to correct you.
Lets say that I am running a bunch of small tasks (such as a typical home user who can justify buying a tower)--I might have a webpage open in Safari, something like MS Word (or TeXShop), iTunes playing in the background, and a few other applications that I never bothered to close.
I tell TeXShop to compile my killer doc, it takes its sweet time going to one processor (this is seriously oversimplified). With one processor this is going to keep switching out with iTunes for continuous playback, the clock, and whatever maintenance needs to be done with Safari. These swaps also include the OS taking over for a moment (this is still very simplified) so it can figure out who is supposed to go next and improve the priority of things that haven't gotten their chance (I assume that the schedular is based on BSD's).
Two processors mean that each application has a *lot* less waiting to do since things can get sent to both processors. So when that heavy process hits one processor, the other processor can maintain the operating system without bothering the other process. Net result? Everything is faster and, almost as importantly, *smoother* for the user--no more interupting that heavy task so that you can open the menu or check the day.
Remember, MacOS X takes advantage itself of SMP.
> What about stuff like price point
/.ers?
Quality IamTheRealMike. Some of us value quality.
> compatability
With what?
With Unix networks and files? I'm there.
With Windows networks and files? Absolutely.
There are no windows applications that I need that don't have a Mac varient--they all exist either natively or through Apple's excellent X11 implementation.
There have been exactly two programs I truly wish ran on the Mac and didn't. 1) OrCAD, 2) TorilEdit. The latter problem I am solving by writing my own in Python, its dirt simple. The former I actually had to borrow someone else's system to use, but I don't use it anymore and hope I can die without seeing it.
Everything else--Swarm, R, JMP, Python, gcc, Goban, TeTeX, MS Powerpoint, Keynote, &c run quite nicely on the Mac and two of them are Mac Only.
>These are the reasons why businesses and often home
>users choose the PC platform time and time again.
Yep, its called "Market Lock-in" and "Increasing Returns," I suggest looking up Brian Arthur's work in the field.
This is also a bandwagon appeal.
>So the legendary Apple marketing machine will whip up a
>hyped frenzy in its followers
Speaking of hyperbole...
> But other than being in the running again, nothing will
>have really changed.
You do realize that most of us purchased our machines because the work for what we do and not for religious convictions on the matter? You also realize that a G3 is fast enough for what the *vast* majority of users do, including many
Now, in terms of Apple "being in the running" in terms of speed w/o AltiVec optimization... you have given one of the greatest understatements in the importance of that point that I have ever seen. Now it makes their XServes a serious contender for raw *speed* and not just for stability and Operating System.
"Gee, I dunno... maybe from the fact that they are making money on open source code?"
No, they are making money on closed-source code which is on-top of open-source code.
Darwin is Open Source but they don't make any money off of Darwin.
Aqua, Cocoa, &c are *Closed Source* and similar are what they are truly selling. It could even be argued that they are selling *hardware* and the reason they don't open their source is that by keeping that source code closed they can keep it on their platform.
I repeat, where do you get off on this idea that they could open all of their source and stay in business?
" I admit, I don't know much about Apple, their computers or their business model. But their corporate policies sure do not seem to be in line with the same ideals associated with Open Source."
Perhaps because Apple is a "business" trying to make a "profit"?
Seriously, where do you get off with this religious conviction that everyone should open their source to the world and think that they could still afford to stay in business?
"Why? Why shouldn't people be able to assemble their own cars from spare parts? The contract is just a way to get around the fact that once you've sold a part, you don't have control over it."
The United States of America is a Neoliberal economy, we practice a philosophy of free market.
Repeat that 100 times before you go to bed each night, until you understand what it really means and what it does not mean.
A couple of years ago I was hired to put together an LDAP server for a major university. It had to hold student records, give them the option to change them, and do a few other nice things along these lines.
We used RedHat Linux in a Penguin Computing Rackmount, it is ashame one of these things was not available then.
It didn't need to have a 1337 processor(s), it needed to never crash and have protection and backups in case it did. It didn't need a fast hard drive, it did need to be easy to configure and nearly brainless to maintain or use.
This would have been perfect for that task.
You think a link to a severely opinionated news source is going to sway anyone? Particularly when nothing on the page you cited has any affect whatsoever on anything that I said.
It is kind of like citing Storm Front in a debate discussing blacks, except less relevant.
Or perhaps, rather than throw meaningless tripe at me that has no relevance to the discussion at hand, you could try to refute the arguments presented?
Three points.
One:
Do you agree with everything your government does?
I don't agree with everything my government does, certainly, and think that there might even be better places to live. Why haven't I moved there? The world is a big place, I haven't visited them yet, and I have enough trouble finding work in a place where I speak the language.
Elsewhere I have to go through the process of get a work permit, work, and citizenship.
This leads us to point two:
They have to do all of this by the time they are drafted into the military.
I'm not sure about you, but by the time I was old enough to serve in the Israel army I had only vaguely considered leaving the country and that was at "some point in the vague future"--I had visited outside of the US, but not with the intent of moving there.
What, do you think that everyone who falls under your so-called qualifer of a "zionist" (which has two meanings, incidentally, which are you using?) is automatically transported to Israel and the moment they disagree they are kicked out?
Three:
You are telling me now that all Jews--even secular ones or those who don't agree with the current government--living in Israel are "bad jews". Think carefully about this one--you are using the same justification used to hold bigotry over thousand other peoples throughout the world. This is racism, not reason.
"who were living in what is now the country of Israel."
/especially/ true for Turkey--there are a lot of references in there which can pretty explicitly be traced to that region.
Well, more likely parts of Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan... just to name a few, but hey, who's counting? This is
>anti-zionist != anti-jewish
/zionist/? Israel has mandatory service in their military--if you live there, you are going to be in it at some point.
I've heard this a lot along with the argument of "we don't hate good jews, just the bad ones." The justifications I've heard used sound a *lot* like those used by the KKK for the eradication/removal of blacks.
Also, since when did Israeli soldiers have to be
"You don't know he exists until you die. "
I know a lot of people in a lot of paths that would argue this point.
Whether you believe them is irrelevant--they believe themselves and have experiences which back that up.
You can assign a probability (nonzero) to them being "right" (type II error on your part) or "wrong" (type I error on theirs) but in the end you won't know for sure.
They might be able to give you repeatable experiments which demonstrate this, however, you would lack the training (not having been through their path) to be capable of repeating them. Oddly, this can be likened to many branches of science, where you have to trust that the experiment was done correctly and the scientist was being honest because you lack the ability to repeat his experiment or (possibly) even understand the foundation behind it.
In other words, saying that the probability is "essentially zero" is missing the point.
" The difference between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel is that a microkernel has offloaded most system services to outside the protected boundary. "
Despite that anyone who has taken a course in basic Operating Systems knows this, this review has was not written for people who can name the four principle components of a Unix operating system--it was written for laypeople.
If I go up to my father, who has a Ph.D. in Microbiology and is well known in that field but lacks the time/patience to learn the Unix side of MacOS X, and start talking about "protected boundaries" I am going to get a blank stare.
One of the first rules when writing anything vaguely technical is that you have to consider your audience. This was not written for people who can spout off MIPS assembly, have done work with OSP or NACHOS, and can recite from memory the man pages for a dozen unix commands--it was written for laypeople.
His explanation could have been more technically precise or more accurate, but it wasn't important to do so for the purposes of the article.
Yep, except that the body acts like a resistor (varying between a few hundred ohms and the Mega-ohm range) and V = I R
So voltage may not cause physical pain, but the current the voltage will create through your body certainly will.
Dyslexics of the world, untie!
1) If you want an intelligent reply, you need to give better statistics on your (ancient) machines.
2) You shouldn't judge modern systems by ones that are nearly 10 years old.
3) If you want to debate, log in. I won't go back and forth with an anonymous coward.
Or are you just going off at the mouth?
First, as another reader pointed out, this has nothing to do with Apple publishing source code.
Second, in order for the music-labels to agree to the iTMS they *had* to implement some form of protection.
Third, RTFA--read the link you posted. Apple's iTMS DRM is *extremely* mild--letting you burn it to an unlimited number of CDs (which can then be reripped to unrestricted AAC files), spread between three computers, and copied to as many iPods as you happen to have. About the only things you can't do with it are a) Share it across a P2P network, b) spread it to every computer in a computer lab.
Further, the AACs and MP3s that you rip yourself are not copy protected.
If anything the page you linked to shows how Apple is *more* open--I thought at first, even, that you meant to indicate this, but your other posts show that evidently not.
Okay, would you and the others spreading this myth cool it? I'm getting sick of seeing it.
iCommune (in its original form) was in violation of the license the author signed in good faith in order to use the API he had used in creating the product.
Apple hasn't even given a second glance to the new version of iCommune. Why? It doesn't use the iTunes API or fall under its license.
The problem was playback, not encoding.
Also, no one encodes at 96 that I know of--we all do 128 as a minimum.
There is no iTunes Pro--nor even the vaguest rumor of one--thus your assertion has exactly zero merit
"Great, so why doesn't the site sell in MP3 format?"
I covered this.
Quality vs. File Size, it was one or the other, it lets them advertise it as such, the license can't be changed under them (the MP3 license can), and it increases the market for iPods. It also was already prepped for the mild DRM that they wanted to implement.
"If AAC is better than MP3 offering higher quality at a lower bitrate, where is the harm in offering both formats?"
1) You would have to, at a minimum, encode and do a quality check in both formats. Not to mention offer more than one "buy" button, store all of your content twice, and be prepared for people whining about "I bought one why isn't the other free"
2) The License for mp3 can change in the future (remember why people like ogg? Apple likes AAC--which it was involved in creating--for the same reasons)
3) They would have had to implement a DRM system on top of mp3 as well as on top of AAC.
4) Every one of their customers uses the iTMS, which is integrated into iTunes. iTunes is a kick-ass player and supports AAC files. iTunes only syncs with one mp3 player--and that's the iPod, which also supports AAC files. Thus, if the customer is capapble of using the iTMS, they are capable of playing AAC files. They are not "alienating their customers"
"
So why can't it do the same for MP3s?"
They could, they don't. This is irrelevant.
"Why are they losing that money? Because (and it is so obvious to be laughable) they offer nothing comparable to Kazaa. "
1) No, they are "losing money" (rather losing profit--they are still making one IIRC) at the same rate as the economy. Their recent economic downturn is no different than everyone elses, no matter what you claim. You have bought into a little too much of their propaganda.
2) iTMS.
"When they start to do so, providing a high quality mp3 from a guaranteed, high speed site with all trimmings like fan news, ratings, chat etc. the popularity of p2p networks will be slashed overnight."
Ah, so you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry, it won't happen.
If you stick a form of DRM on it, like what Apple has done, it is no different than if they used AAC files--which is what Apple is doing. If you don't stick a form of DRM on there the networks will be *flooded* with high quality mp3s that people have pulled from this source.
Can you persecute them with the watermark? Possibly, but they just have to change the string to make just an email address invalid. Anything more complicated is still prone to hacking and you *still* have to bother to track down who has that email address and then prosecute them, which will drastically lower your popularity and give you severely negative press for your service.
How is this a good plan again?
"This is assuming you want to burn all of the songs to a CD."
Or store them on your computer for use when you aren't online, or so that you can put them on your iPod or other portable MP3 player.
It also assumes that you buy all of your songs individually from iTMS and not as part of an album and assumes that you are willing to give money to both Real and Apple. There is also the assumption that you even can download the song (100% of the content on iTMS is downloadable, only 2/3rds of the content on Rhapsody is).
If you are willing to stream all of your music then Real has some value for that purpose, but you aren't going to be "saving money" at $0.80 a song if that's your intent.
"To do this with Apples service would cost you $350,000."
Only if you wanted to listen to all 350,000 and iTMS does offer a 30 second preview of all of the songs availble. Most of us use something called a "radio" to sample songs and are willing to pay 99 cents to put it on our iPod, burn it to a CD, and keep it in our playlists when we are offline.
Since I promise you I won't even like 100,000 songs on the Real Service or on the Apple Store, net cost to me is not going to be $350,000 to get the full value out of the iTMS.
If you want to stream all of your music and only listen to those groups that Real is going to carry, this might work for you. However, if you are in to keeping music on your computer, burning your own CDs, or have an iPod it is wiser by far to use iTMS.
"It is a wonder that Apple et al do not support mp3"
iTunes supported mp3 format before it supported ACC.
"If their proprietary or licenced technology is so wonderful and superior, where is the harm of offering mp3 as well for backwards compatibility since it doesn't compete?"
Simple for Apple--They want to provide higher quality at a lower bitrate, all of the people downloading their music would be doing so through the iTMS, they didn't want to bother with the technical difficulties of ripping from the masters to both mp3 and AAC (doing a quality check, selecting 30 seconds out for streaming, getting the track information added, &c) and then deal with adding the (very mild) DRM to mp3s as well.
"why not watermark the songs as they fly off the server so they can be tracked?"
Apple does--your email address is in every AAC file.
" The net result is users will stick to free p2p services, grabbing their songs from Kazaa and the record companies will get NOTHING and the services will have a fraction of the customers. It doesn't make any business sense."
You must have flunked basic economics--either that or have been living under a rock.
Apple Sells 2 Million Songs in 16 Days