Exactly _how_ is this a "troll"? DigiShaman is just pointing out some facts. Just because they may not be aligned with the typical left-mentality doesn't mean he is trolling. If anything I would mod this interesting.
/. is really going down the tubes. The moderation system is really abused. Basically if a mod doesn't agree with you, you get modded down as flambait or a troll. Too bad we can't have _intelligent_ discussions here on/. anymore.
No, perl doesn't care about whitespace. So you don't need to end your lines after;. If you RTFA, you would see that the definition of a "line" in this "competition" is 80 characters. What is even more important then line count is file size. MoleSter is 466 bytes while TinyP2P is 1,072 bytes which is much bigger then MoleSter.
No, MS DRM can be licensed by anyone that wants to license it. And Linux Based Portable Media players actually _DO_ support MS DRMed content. The Archos PMA400 is Linux based and supports MS DRM. There is nothing stopping Apple from licensing MS DRM and allowing their users to enjoy MS DRMed content.
Well, the "the infamous French Competition Council" holds no water in the USA where Apple is based.
But... has anyone considered that the decision to license their format may not be Apple's choice? Apple itself licenses the DRM they are using, they didn't create it in house. Much like Nvidia may not be able to legally open their graphics card drivers, Apple may be in a position where it is not their call to make.
That doesn't hold water with me. Why would the company that owns the FariPlay/AAC format not want to make money? The only thing I can think of is that Apple forced _them_ to sign an exclusive license to prevent them from licensing FairPlay/AAC to any other company.
Apple's music store is so popular because of the experience as a whole. It is easy, attractive, and has a good selection. But other music stores have comparable selections, and other music players integrate with them just fine. We are not yet at a situation where you must use an iPod and iTMS in order to get anything done in the digital music world.
IMO, that argument has no merit. This same argument could have been used to defend MS.
Microsoft's OS is so popular because of the experience as a whole. It is easy, attractive, and has a good selection. But other Oses have comparable selections, and other software can integrate with them just fine. We are not yet at a situation where you must use MS Windows and MS software in order to get anything done in the commputing world.
I know the above is true because I have been able to acomplish any computing task I have needed to do with non-MS OSes.
To further prove the case, note that it's trivially easy to burn the protected songs to CDs, and then rip them back into another format.
Yes, and that _does_ degrade the quality of the music. You PAID for the song and now the only way to use that song in a non-iPod device is to _lower_ the quality of your purchase, that is basically throwing money out the window.
Maybe in 5 years he'll have grounds for it.
So the industry should wait until the situation _really_ gets out of hand instead of doing a minor adjustment now that would allow greater competition?
Anti-competitive practices are not only legal, but common, as long as you're not a monopoly
Huh? MS was convicted as a monopoly for actions they did _before_ they were a monopoly. The special rules apply once you are a monopoly. The action of MS with some of their products before they were found guilty of being a monopoly are no different then the current actions of Apple now surrounding their iPod/iTMS.
The iTMS is an optional service offered to users of iTunes and/or iPod. That's it. Users of iTunes and/or iPod have a myriad of non-Apple ways to load music into the app and/or device.
Just as MS windows is an optional OS. All the computers I have had over the past 5 years has not had MS Windows on it.
Just as IE is an optional application. When I do use MS Windows, I never use IE.
Everything you pointed out about MS I agree with and that is why they had their hand slapt and was declared a monopoly. However, I don't see how what MS did is any different than what Apple is doing with their 87% market share of portable music players and on-line music stores. When you have that much of a market, you should not be allowed to stifle competition such as not licensing their protected AAC format or tyring to prevent Real's AAC wrapped music from playing on an iPod.
Besides, anyone can inter-operate with the iPod all they want, just use MP3, AIFF, or WAV
No legitimate music site is allowed to sell songs in any of those formats. So other music sites cannot inter-operate with the iPod, unless they break their license agreement with the RIAA.
I fail to see what people think Apple has a monopoly on.
I am sure many people will disagree with you, especially when they consider the fact that Apple currently controls 87% of the on-line music market. When you have that much control over a market, your moves as a company are watched and you are not allowed to try to prevent competition like Apple does. Apple won't license their protected AAC and made a big stink when Real legally reverse engineered the format to allow their sold music to work on a iPod.
Apple's been the underdog for so long, they've finally got a market niche that they can dominate.
I don't have a problem with Apple being able to dominate any market, as long as it is not in an anti-competive way. Not licensing their protected AAC format is anti-competitive. At least MS will license their DRMed windows audio to anyone who wants it.
The difference is, they continue to deliver high-quality, well-designed products. I don't see anything wrong with that.
That is an opinion not fact. Yes, I do think that most of their stuff is better then most of the same/competing stuff from MS. But just because someone is an under-dog or delivers better quality items, doesn't make it OK for them to be anit-competitive. Competition is the only thing that drives true capitalism. If we allow competition to be taken away (such as with Apple not licensing their protected AAC), then we end up with broken capitalism and more monopolies like MS.
I personally would rather see Apple license their protected AAC format and compete then see Apple try to lock-in a market segment.
So you can copy your protected AAC files to your Nomad Jukebox 3 or your mom's 256mb flash mp3 and listen to them?
Tell the manufacturer of your mp3 player to build an iTunes plugin, that's all it takes.
No. That only allows you to transfer MP3 files using iTunes. There are pleny of other software to do that. The only way to play your iTMS purchased music on any other device other then an iPod is burn to CD and rip back to an MP3 and which degrades the quality of your purchase. Oh, or Apple could not be anti-competitve and actaully license their protected AAC format. Even MS licenses their DRMed windows audio format to anyone that wants it.
Songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store are encoded using the AAC Protected format and
cannot be converted to MP3 format. You can burn them to audio CDs and play them in consumer audio CD players.
So your only options to use iTMS music that YOU PAY FOR are to buy an iPod or go through the long process of burning to CD and ripping to MP3 and losing a bunch of quality for the music that you pay for.
To play AAC and AAC Protected songs, your iPod must have iPod Software 1.3 or later installed. Not all digital music players can play AAC songs and
only iPod can play AAC Protected songs.
So iTunes 4 can copy mp3 files to other players. I don't see that as a big deal. Tons of software can do that. Let me know when Apple starts to license FairPlay AAC so they work on _anything_ but the iPod.
Yes, MS was convicted of being a monopoly. That has nothing to do with Apple or the actions of Apple.
If Apple are doing monopolistic things, then they are being a monopoly, even though they haven't been convicted yet or may never be convicted of those practices.
If I murder someone, I am a murder. It doesn't matter if I am ever convicted of being a murder or not. Just as if Apple never gets convicted of these practices doesn't change the fact that the current practices of Apple wrt the iPod and iTMS are anti-competitive and monopolistic.
These tactics are the same tactics MS used and what causes Apple fans to screem about MS. Yet being anti-competitive and monopolistic is OK if Apple is doing it?
One has to wonder if this is an effort by some company to force Apple to open up the iPod without having to pay Apple to license it like HP has. Somebody somewhere is always trying to get something for free.
But the thing is, is that Apple will not license FairPlay. They didn't license FairPlay to HP so that HP could use it in their _own_ players. Apple just allowed HP to re-sell iPods. There is a huge difference.
If Apple would just license FairPlay, people/companies wouldn't be complaining. As it is now, Apple wants to keep FairPlay locked up to lock customers into the iPod and iTMS. I really don't see how this is any different that what MS does that gets all the Apple fans screaming against MS.
Spybot and SpywareBlaster are still a better combo. Spybot scans while SpywareBlaster prevents the spyware in the first place. SpywareBlaster will work with IE _and_ Firefox. Will this offering from MS help protect non-IE browsers?
Well, I personally wouldn't take that bet since I think your correct. However, there are still too many devices that run Linux that do not support Linux as a client. I just think that is wrong IMO.
See! This post was modded troll just because I mentioned that Steve Jobs "may not be doing the best job"!
You gotta love the/. modderation system where Apple zealots just mod you down because they want to protect their "precious" Stevie, even though what you say may be true!
Have you ever served in the military? I have. I served in the US Marine Corps. I went in right after high school at 18. The Marines _really_ changed me. I think the Marines could also _really_ change most criminals.
I personally would not recommend sending criminals into the Air Force, Navy or even the Army. I think the only option should be the Marines. Yes, there is that much difference between them. That is why the Marines slogan is "The few the proud". It is tough and they kick your butt. It could just be the training that a life-time criminal needs to get on the right path.
In actual fact, the Military isn't very enthusiastic about enlisting criminals.
Correct. The military doesn't want felons. However, we could change that to give first time felons the option of a long jail sentence or 4-8 years in the US Marine Corps. If they pick the Marines. We could have a "special" Marine boot camp for the criminals that was even harder then typical Marine boot camp. I am willing to bet that this "special" Marine boot camp could get at least a 95% conversion rate if not 100%.
Oh, and don't forget that if they commit a crime during their 4-8 years in the Marines, they would be subject to military law vs. civilian law. You don't want to get busted for a crime while your in the military, you get some _really_ bad punishments.
Well, the one article says that he shined the laser on the plane while his daughter shined it on the police helicopter. Still, I agree with you that he wasn't a very good example as a father. I am a father of a 3 year old and a 9 month old. I also happen to be an amateur astronomer. I would _never_ shine a laser pointer at a person or a plane or anything but stars.
I believe the guy was pointing it at a plane for "kicks", I don't believe he did it to be malicious and cause damage. I think the terms you or I recommended would send a message _and_ punish this guy enough to make him not be an idiot in the future.
Honestly, the best "rehabilitation" program I've ever heard of was forced military service.
Well, as a former US Marine, I could not agree more! The Marines kicked my butt and whipped me into shape (physically and mentally).
I watched a shown on Discovery or The Learning Channel about a "boot camp" like school for troubled teens. The success rate was just incredible. The boot camp actually used retired Marine Drill Instructors and retired Army Drill Sergeants.
Even the most hardened criminals would break down and be reformed if they went through the U.S.M.C boot camp, it is no joke. Semper Fi.
And that attitude is exactly what is causing the downfall of the US family structure where we have 50%+ of marriages ending in divorce. When people get married, they say "till death do us part", and it should be that way. A _family_ should work through their down-times, not split up.
So the guy made a mistake (yes a big one), but that doesn't mean you abandon him. He is a human, and should be given another chance. Now, if he goes and does the same thing again, _than_ society should come down on him. I personally believe in the "two-strike" rule. If you mess up once (as long as it is a non-violent crime) you get a slap on the wrist. If you mess up again, then you should be locked away for a _long_, _long_ time.
For this case, this guy should get 5 years or so of probation with 1,000 hours or so of community service and a nice big fine of $5,000-$10,000. If this punishment doesn't send a message to others, _then_ you start to up the anti by adding 6 months to 1 year jail time. You don't start out with such harsh punishments.
Whatever happened to the US government working for the people? To me a better solution than all this jail time for "criminals" would be to at least try rehabilitation programs first. Shouldn't our government want healthy and happy citizens? You don't keep happy, healthy and productive citizens by having the largest documented prison population in the world.
So why not a harsh punishment _without_ jail time? The gov can still make an example without tearing this guys family apart and denying his daughter of a father.
How about 5 years probation, 1,000 hours of community service and maybe $5,000-$10,000 in fines? IMO, that would send the same message without breaking up this guys family. The feds can check how much this guy made last year, so if he makes a lot of money, maybe they can even up the fines to match his income?
I am not comparing Apple's success to how much I make or how much you make. That would be silly. I was just comparing Apple's success to what I percieve they could accomplish if Steve would just stop with the whole "fashion" statement thing. If Apple just lowered their prices, they could _really_ take some Joe User desktop market share from MS. Look at the fortune 500, there are a lot of companies doing 2+ billion per quarter, and there are a lot doing far more then that.
I am not coming down on Apple. I just don't understand why the continue to do things that keep them a niche market when they could be earning _far_ more money for their shareholders. If Apple offered two or three Macs between $500 and $800, they could really pick up some desktop marketshare. The only thing Apple seems to have in that price range is the rumored headless Mac. Not a very good deal when you consider that Joe User will see a similar priced PC that includes a monitor and a printer.
Slashdot Mirror
That device is limited to up to 30 ft. I don't see that being very useful unless you only want to listen to audio within 30 ft. of your computer.
No, perl doesn't care about whitespace. So you don't need to end your lines after ;. If you RTFA, you would see that the definition of a "line" in this "competition" is 80 characters. What is even more important then line count is file size. MoleSter is 466 bytes while TinyP2P is 1,072 bytes which is much bigger then MoleSter.
No, MS DRM can be licensed by anyone that wants to license it. And Linux Based Portable Media players actually _DO_ support MS DRMed content. The Archos PMA400 is Linux based and supports MS DRM. There is nothing stopping Apple from licensing MS DRM and allowing their users to enjoy MS DRMed content.
Microsoft's OS is so popular because of the experience as a whole. It is easy, attractive, and has a good selection. But other Oses have comparable selections, and other software can integrate with them just fine. We are not yet at a situation where you must use MS Windows and MS software in order to get anything done in the commputing world.
I know the above is true because I have been able to acomplish any computing task I have needed to do with non-MS OSes.Yes, and that _does_ degrade the quality of the music. You PAID for the song and now the only way to use that song in a non-iPod device is to _lower_ the quality of your purchase, that is basically throwing money out the window.So the industry should wait until the situation _really_ gets out of hand instead of doing a minor adjustment now that would allow greater competition?
Just as IE is an optional application. When I do use MS Windows, I never use IE.
Everything you pointed out about MS I agree with and that is why they had their hand slapt and was declared a monopoly. However, I don't see how what MS did is any different than what Apple is doing with their 87% market share of portable music players and on-line music stores. When you have that much of a market, you should not be allowed to stifle competition such as not licensing their protected AAC format or tyring to prevent Real's AAC wrapped music from playing on an iPod.
I personally would rather see Apple license their protected AAC format and compete then see Apple try to lock-in a market segment.
If Apple are doing monopolistic things, then they are being a monopoly, even though they haven't been convicted yet or may never be convicted of those practices.
If I murder someone, I am a murder. It doesn't matter if I am ever convicted of being a murder or not. Just as if Apple never gets convicted of these practices doesn't change the fact that the current practices of Apple wrt the iPod and iTMS are anti-competitive and monopolistic.
These tactics are the same tactics MS used and what causes Apple fans to screem about MS. Yet being anti-competitive and monopolistic is OK if Apple is doing it?
If Apple would just license FairPlay, people/companies wouldn't be complaining. As it is now, Apple wants to keep FairPlay locked up to lock customers into the iPod and iTMS. I really don't see how this is any different that what MS does that gets all the Apple fans screaming against MS.
Spybot and SpywareBlaster are still a better combo. Spybot scans while SpywareBlaster prevents the spyware in the first place. SpywareBlaster will work with IE _and_ Firefox. Will this offering from MS help protect non-IE browsers?
Well, I personally wouldn't take that bet since I think your correct. However, there are still too many devices that run Linux that do not support Linux as a client. I just think that is wrong IMO.
You gotta love the /. modderation system where Apple zealots just mod you down because they want to protect their "precious" Stevie, even though what you say may be true!
Personally, I can't stand devices that are based on Linux yet don't support a Linux desktop client.
I personally would not recommend sending criminals into the Air Force, Navy or even the Army. I think the only option should be the Marines. Yes, there is that much difference between them. That is why the Marines slogan is "The few the proud". It is tough and they kick your butt. It could just be the training that a life-time criminal needs to get on the right path.
Correct. The military doesn't want felons. However, we could change that to give first time felons the option of a long jail sentence or 4-8 years in the US Marine Corps. If they pick the Marines. We could have a "special" Marine boot camp for the criminals that was even harder then typical Marine boot camp. I am willing to bet that this "special" Marine boot camp could get at least a 95% conversion rate if not 100%.Oh, and don't forget that if they commit a crime during their 4-8 years in the Marines, they would be subject to military law vs. civilian law. You don't want to get busted for a crime while your in the military, you get some _really_ bad punishments.
I believe the guy was pointing it at a plane for "kicks", I don't believe he did it to be malicious and cause damage. I think the terms you or I recommended would send a message _and_ punish this guy enough to make him not be an idiot in the future.
I watched a shown on Discovery or The Learning Channel about a "boot camp" like school for troubled teens. The success rate was just incredible. The boot camp actually used retired Marine Drill Instructors and retired Army Drill Sergeants.
Even the most hardened criminals would break down and be reformed if they went through the U.S.M.C boot camp, it is no joke. Semper Fi.
So the guy made a mistake (yes a big one), but that doesn't mean you abandon him. He is a human, and should be given another chance. Now, if he goes and does the same thing again, _than_ society should come down on him. I personally believe in the "two-strike" rule. If you mess up once (as long as it is a non-violent crime) you get a slap on the wrist. If you mess up again, then you should be locked away for a _long_, _long_ time.
For this case, this guy should get 5 years or so of probation with 1,000 hours or so of community service and a nice big fine of $5,000-$10,000. If this punishment doesn't send a message to others, _then_ you start to up the anti by adding 6 months to 1 year jail time. You don't start out with such harsh punishments.
Whatever happened to the US government working for the people? To me a better solution than all this jail time for "criminals" would be to at least try rehabilitation programs first. Shouldn't our government want healthy and happy citizens? You don't keep happy, healthy and productive citizens by having the largest documented prison population in the world.
How about 5 years probation, 1,000 hours of community service and maybe $5,000-$10,000 in fines? IMO, that would send the same message without breaking up this guys family. The feds can check how much this guy made last year, so if he makes a lot of money, maybe they can even up the fines to match his income?
I am not coming down on Apple. I just don't understand why the continue to do things that keep them a niche market when they could be earning _far_ more money for their shareholders. If Apple offered two or three Macs between $500 and $800, they could really pick up some desktop marketshare. The only thing Apple seems to have in that price range is the rumored headless Mac. Not a very good deal when you consider that Joe User will see a similar priced PC that includes a monitor and a printer.