I've never met a smart rugby player, But they are handy in a brawl.
OK, I know you're referring to pro sports people here, but still.I know two rugby players who program computers in their day jobs and play semi-pro rugger on weekends. Not only do they have technical skills, they're also great team players and natural leaders. So it seems to be with most people who play sports outside of work.
===If you pay for a cheap unit and they give you an expensive one with the additional features disabled instead, you have no cause to whine about it being disabled===
You have every cause, it's stupid and wasteful and it treats the customer as a mug.
This happens all the time. The i386DX and i386SX chips back in the early 90s for instance, where the SX was a DX with 2 pin connectors swapped so that the on-board FPU wouldn't function.
It's like selling the same engine as a 2.5 litre and 3 litre, the difference being that on the former you pull one of the spark plugs out.
No, it's like selling EXACTLY the same engine in two different models where one is tuned to produce a higer BHP than the other, and is sold as a "sports" engine. The VW/Audi group and just about every other car maker do this all of the time.
I have to say, I don't like these practices, but customers aren't mugs - we all know what the score is and we all find it conveinient to go along with it, seemingly.
Ok, I know that iTMS and Sony are not the only options, which was why I asked the question.
Just read some reviews here which indicate that most other services are based on subscriptions and/or don't carry music from the "major" labels. eMusic looks good. I'll probably try that at some point, but what I like about iTMS is that I haven't used it (or paid for anything) for about 4 months now, but I can grab a tune here and there at some point in the future - subscription free.
I thought I said; "appearing to be a harmless, benign hippy". Of course he's ruthless. My point was that people have underestimated him at their peril. (the "grinning pullover" is attributed to Lord King of British Airways).
think after 10 years of The Steve back at the helm of Apple, the next CEO needn't be anywhere near as hands-on as The Steve is. They just need to avoid hiring someone as clueless as Spindler. The technological team Apple put together is good enough and strong enough to carry on unless a Spindler-level fuckup winds up at the reins.
I'm not sure I agree that Apple can afford to coast on the strength of the tech team (and their industrial designers). They'd need someone to lead from the front the way Jobs does. He seems to see his position not as a run-of-the-mill corporate CEO spot, keeping the shareholders happy, following the obvious roads and being cautious, but as an opportunity to change the world. Make no mistake, he's obviously committed to the bottom line and a strong stock price, but at the same time he has a relentless focus on his vision for Apple.
So, a strong tech team and a tame chief exec wouldn't cut the mustard. As someone said in the time of wooden ships, "Any man can sail a ship, but who's to set a course?"
I seem to have adopted a new role over the past few days; Apple Fan boys Advocate. But is that about to come to an end?
You see, I think Apple without Steve Jobs is like Virgin without Richard Branson. Branson is the Spirit of the Virgin group, know for his wacky publicity stunts and appearing to be a harmless, benign hippy, while in reality, being an unlikely corporate billionaire. Indeed, one of his business rivals so underestimated him that he referred to Branson as "The grinning pullover".
Not that Jobs has that image, it's just the close association each man has with their companies product which is where I'm making the comparison. Branson is still pretty much Virgin, while Jobs is definitely Apple. He's the one who appears to have the vision and drive which is taking the company forward.
Apple without Jobs would definitely be perceived differently by consumers.
Out of curiosity, why WOULDN'T you want a subscription model?
Wouldn't I or wouldn't one? (As in, was it a rhetorical question?)
I don't want it for the same reason that you don't want it - as soon as you/one stop(s) subscribing, you/one loose(s) the right to download anything new and you/one also can't play what you've/one's already downloaded.
I wish you would stop SHOUTING too. I'm on the wrong side of a couple of beers now;o)
if iTunes (and, again, other online downloading services) makes less money, the record companies make less money. If that happens enough, they will be more likely to get rid of DRM.
The record companies will never get rid of DRM while it allows them a measure of control over a distribution channel which they can't otherwise control. If enough people walk away, they'll just refuse to distribute music through that channel and we'll be back to 1995 when CDs were king, every distribution channel was controlled, prices could be dictated to artists and consumers and the middleman made lots of money at eveyone elses expense - and make no mistake, that's where the record companies want to be.
Apple is a distributor. They don't own the content that they distribute. As a condition of distribution, they must add "copy protection" to the media they're distributing. You may not care about why they do it, but to ignore the reason they do it while castigating them for "supporting" DRM is just silly.
If individual recording companies overcame their paranoia of distributing copy DRM free, Apple would be free of that restriction the minute the recording companies decide to do that.
It won't happen in a hurry, because the record companies want to control every channel of distribution - which they did before the original Napster came along. They want to return to something like those days which is why they're leaning towards Microsoft and the shedload of DRM that's built into Vista.
Glad to hear you are supporting people you will never meet telling you what you can and can't do with something that you legally purchase, download, and own
I'm a pragmatist. I recognise that if Apple didn't do what they do, we'd all have to be "renting" music under a subscription model. Thankfully, Apple got to market with iTunes before Microsoft or any of the other more natural RIAA bedfellows and have, so far, refused to support a music "subscription" model and to insist that every track costs the same regardless of when it was recorded and who recorded it. More power to them, I say.
All these fucks out there..."iPod is awesome!" "I want a PowerBook!" "OOO SHINY NEW APPLE PHONE!!! GIMME"
Congrats on supporting a company that backs the very reason so many people are pissed off.
Oh wake up and get a clue! Apples DRM is easily circumvented and exists because the Association representing the copyright holders of the material Apple distributes demands that their content be "copy protected".
Also, iPods being awesome - yeah they are. Awesome in their simplicity, their relentless focus on their core function and the ability to get out of the way of the person who is using that function. That's why they're so popular. If you wish to telnet into the Kremlin from your music player, then obviously, you'll be disappointed with Apples offering.
What's interesting is that the companies that "get it" and have dropped the DRM restrictions have been doing better than those who have clung to it
Just for the record, Apple can't drop the DRM restrictions because they don't own the content they're distributing. The companies that need to "get it" are, as you rightfully point out, the record companies. Wish everyone else in this discussion understood that too.
I'm not even going to RTFM. Apple sells 2 billion DRM'd songs, ergo, Apple must be the biggest road block to removing DRM from electronically distributed goods? That's nonsense. It wouldn't be nonsense if Apple owned rights to what they're selling, but they don't - they're just the distributors. The DRM is a condition of being able to distribute. Take Apple out of the equation and you'll see what the RIAA really want - which is price differentiation (latest pop "hits" cost more than old stuff), music "rentals" (you never own what you buy) and a big slice of the revenue from every device sold for use to play or perform the digital content.
So far as I know, the DRM stops casual copying but is easily circumvented. It seems like a pragmatic solution to me and if people want to see real DRM, bring on the Microsofts, and Napsters of this world!
In this thread I want to give you the opportunity to state whether your earlier trolling against cellphones with mp3 playback functionality was 100%-Apple-fanboyism or if you stand by it and think the iPhone should never have happened.
I'm late on this one, but I definitely think that mobile phones which play MP3s are a waste of time. I've never used the MP3 playback facility on the various phones I've had, because mp3 playback hasn't been core to the device - it's always been an ill thought out added extra, and the phone has been just that - a phone. With a mp3 player. With a crap cut down internet browser. With woeful email capability.
My position has always been, I don't want a phone that plays mp3s, I want an mp3 player that can make phone calls - and no they're not the same thing.
That's what Apple has delivered here - a device that is built from the ground up to elegantly and easily play and handle music, handle voice and data communications. It's a truly convergant device.
Haven't three just started an "unlimted" data service in the UK? They call it X-series
Seems there's some level of Yahoo, Google and Skype integration in there too. In fact, when iPhone launches in the UK, I rather hope it'll be available on x-series.
How could Microsoft develop Windows applications without using the Windows API?
Well, AFAIK, Microsofts own apps do use the windows API, but the published Windows API (available and recommended for use by third party devs) is only a subset of all that's available.
People are crying foul because some of the hidden stuff is quicker/easier to use/more reliable than the published stuff thereby giving MS an advantage when developing its own apps over a 3rd party doing the same (1-2-3 vs Excel for instance) AND making it much more difficult to produce an API call conversion layer (like WINE) on a non-windows platform which will acurately and completely run MS windows apps.
The only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't publish the full API is that the hidden parts are unstable and subject to frequent change - which can't be true when they're using those hidden features in major business applications.
(Although that might explain the trainwreck called Lotus Notes.) No it wouldn't.
That comment reminds me of a piece I heard on a radio show about a man who had been jailed for a crime he hadn't committed. After 16 years, he was freed and they asked him what being free was like. He said, "Being out of prison is like being in a big prison. There are cameras everywhere, watching you..."
I hope he doesn't leave microsoft - especially not for US President.He has a bit of a wet fish personality - he's a bit too much of a geek for me to support. Ballmer, on the other hand, would be great. Imagine the pre election debates - Ballmer dances in shouting, "Developers, America, Developers, America". Then when his opponent (Hilary) makes a point that he doesn't like, he just throws a chair at her...
Slashdot Mirror
I've never met a smart rugby player, But they are handy in a brawl.
OK, I know you're referring to pro sports people here, but still.I know two rugby players who program computers in their day jobs and play semi-pro rugger on weekends. Not only do they have technical skills, they're also great team players and natural leaders. So it seems to be with most people who play sports outside of work.
You need to give up the substance abuse and get some sleep...
===If you pay for a cheap unit and they give you an expensive one with the additional features disabled instead, you have no cause to whine about it being disabled===
You have every cause, it's stupid and wasteful and it treats the customer as a mug.
This happens all the time. The i386DX and i386SX chips back in the early 90s for instance, where the SX was a DX with 2 pin connectors swapped so that the on-board FPU wouldn't function.
It's like selling the same engine as a 2.5 litre and 3 litre, the difference being that on the former you pull one of the spark plugs out.
No, it's like selling EXACTLY the same engine in two different models where one is tuned to produce a higer BHP than the other, and is sold as a "sports" engine. The VW/Audi group and just about every other car maker do this all of the time.
I have to say, I don't like these practices, but customers aren't mugs - we all know what the score is and we all find it conveinient to go along with it, seemingly.
Ok, I know that iTMS and Sony are not the only options, which was why I asked the question.
Just read some reviews here which indicate that most other services are based on subscriptions and/or don't carry music from the "major" labels. eMusic looks good. I'll probably try that at some point, but what I like about iTMS is that I haven't used it (or paid for anything) for about 4 months now, but I can grab a tune here and there at some point in the future - subscription free.
Hence why I don't buy songs from iTunes anymore. Or Sony
Just out of interest, where do you buy your songs from? (Not trolling, just interested)
Just before the rising water levels swamp my house, I'll be moving to one of these new Islands.
Oh, wait...
I thought I said; "appearing to be a harmless, benign hippy". Of course he's ruthless. My point was that people have underestimated him at their peril. (the "grinning pullover" is attributed to Lord King of British Airways).
Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher
No, but he leaves Steve Jobs messages on his iPhone apologising for not being at Jobs keynote. And he invented the interne...oh never mind.
Richard Branson?
What is Microsoft without Steve Ballmer?
A place where chairs don't need replacing every day?
think after 10 years of The Steve back at the helm of Apple, the next CEO needn't be anywhere near as hands-on as The Steve is. They just need to avoid hiring someone as clueless as Spindler. The technological team Apple put together is good enough and strong enough to carry on unless a Spindler-level fuckup winds up at the reins.
I'm not sure I agree that Apple can afford to coast on the strength of the tech team (and their industrial designers). They'd need someone to lead from the front the way Jobs does. He seems to see his position not as a run-of-the-mill corporate CEO spot, keeping the shareholders happy, following the obvious roads and being cautious, but as an opportunity to change the world. Make no mistake, he's obviously committed to the bottom line and a strong stock price, but at the same time he has a relentless focus on his vision for Apple.
So, a strong tech team and a tame chief exec wouldn't cut the mustard.
As someone said in the time of wooden ships, "Any man can sail a ship, but who's to set a course?"
And whatever else is true, they must never ever have worked for HP
Freaking eel - Carly Fiorina heading up Apple? That would be a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare himself!
I seem to have adopted a new role over the past few days; Apple Fan boys Advocate. But is that about to come to an end?
You see, I think Apple without Steve Jobs is like Virgin without Richard Branson. Branson is the Spirit of the Virgin group, know for his wacky publicity stunts and appearing to be a harmless, benign hippy, while in reality, being an unlikely corporate billionaire. Indeed, one of his business rivals so underestimated him that he referred to Branson as "The grinning pullover".
Not that Jobs has that image, it's just the close association each man has with their companies product which is where I'm making the comparison. Branson is still pretty much Virgin, while Jobs is definitely Apple. He's the one who appears to have the vision and drive which is taking the company forward.
Apple without Jobs would definitely be perceived differently by consumers.
Out of curiosity, why WOULDN'T you want a subscription model?
;o)
Wouldn't I or wouldn't one? (As in, was it a rhetorical question?)
I don't want it for the same reason that you don't want it - as soon as you/one stop(s) subscribing, you/one loose(s) the right to download anything new and you/one also can't play what you've/one's already downloaded.
I wish you would stop SHOUTING too. I'm on the wrong side of a couple of beers now
if iTunes (and, again, other online downloading services) makes less money, the record companies make less money. If that happens enough, they will be more likely to get rid of DRM.
The record companies will never get rid of DRM while it allows them a measure of control over a distribution channel which they can't otherwise control. If enough people walk away, they'll just refuse to distribute music through that channel and we'll be back to 1995 when CDs were king, every distribution channel was controlled, prices could be dictated to artists and consumers and the middleman made lots of money at eveyone elses expense - and make no mistake, that's where the record companies want to be. Apple is a distributor. They don't own the content that they distribute. As a condition of distribution, they must add "copy protection" to the media they're distributing. You may not care about why they do it, but to ignore the reason they do it while castigating them for "supporting" DRM is just silly.
If individual recording companies overcame their paranoia of distributing copy DRM free, Apple would be free of that restriction the minute the recording companies decide to do that.
It won't happen in a hurry, because the record companies want to control every channel of distribution - which they did before the original Napster came along. They want to return to something like those days which is why they're leaning towards Microsoft and the shedload of DRM that's built into Vista.
Glad to hear you are supporting people you will never meet telling you what you can and can't do with something that you legally purchase, download, and own
I'm a pragmatist. I recognise that if Apple didn't do what they do, we'd all have to be "renting" music under a subscription model. Thankfully, Apple got to market with iTunes before Microsoft or any of the other more natural RIAA bedfellows and have, so far, refused to support a music "subscription" model and to insist that every track costs the same regardless of when it was recorded and who recorded it. More power to them, I say.
Amen.
All these fucks out there..."iPod is awesome!" "I want a PowerBook!" "OOO SHINY NEW APPLE PHONE!!! GIMME" Congrats on supporting a company that backs the very reason so many people are pissed off.
Oh wake up and get a clue! Apples DRM is easily circumvented and exists because the Association representing the copyright holders of the material Apple distributes demands that their content be "copy protected".
Also, iPods being awesome - yeah they are. Awesome in their simplicity, their relentless focus on their core function and the ability to get out of the way of the person who is using that function. That's why they're so popular. If you wish to telnet into the Kremlin from your music player, then obviously, you'll be disappointed with Apples offering.
And thanks for making me take a fan boy position.
What's interesting is that the companies that "get it" and have dropped the DRM restrictions have been doing better than those who have clung to it
Just for the record, Apple can't drop the DRM restrictions because they don't own the content they're distributing. The companies that need to "get it" are, as you rightfully point out, the record companies. Wish everyone else in this discussion understood that too.
Natalie Portman can be a great actress
...and H is for Hot Grits!!
Sorry, I'm in a silly mood and haven't trolled for some time
I'm not even going to RTFM. Apple sells 2 billion DRM'd songs, ergo, Apple must be the biggest road block to removing DRM from electronically distributed goods? That's nonsense. It wouldn't be nonsense if Apple owned rights to what they're selling, but they don't - they're just the distributors. The DRM is a condition of being able to distribute. Take Apple out of the equation and you'll see what the RIAA really want - which is price differentiation (latest pop "hits" cost more than old stuff), music "rentals" (you never own what you buy) and a big slice of the revenue from every device sold for use to play or perform the digital content.
So far as I know, the DRM stops casual copying but is easily circumvented. It seems like a pragmatic solution to me and if people want to see real DRM, bring on the Microsofts, and Napsters of this world!
In this thread I want to give you the opportunity to state whether your earlier trolling against cellphones with mp3 playback functionality was 100%-Apple-fanboyism or if you stand by it and think the iPhone should never have happened.
I'm late on this one, but I definitely think that mobile phones which play MP3s are a waste of time. I've never used the MP3 playback facility on the various phones I've had, because mp3 playback hasn't been core to the device - it's always been an ill thought out added extra, and the phone has been just that - a phone. With a mp3 player. With a crap cut down internet browser. With woeful email capability.
My position has always been, I don't want a phone that plays mp3s, I want an mp3 player that can make phone calls - and no they're not the same thing.
That's what Apple has delivered here - a device that is built from the ground up to elegantly and easily play and handle music, handle voice and data communications. It's a truly convergant device.
Haven't three just started an "unlimted" data service in the UK? They call it X-series
Seems there's some level of Yahoo, Google and Skype integration in there too. In fact, when iPhone launches in the UK, I rather hope it'll be available on x-series.
How could Microsoft develop Windows applications without using the Windows API?
Well, AFAIK, Microsofts own apps do use the windows API, but the published Windows API (available and recommended for use by third party devs) is only a subset of all that's available.
People are crying foul because some of the hidden stuff is quicker/easier to use/more reliable than the published stuff thereby giving MS an advantage when developing its own apps over a 3rd party doing the same (1-2-3 vs Excel for instance) AND making it much more difficult to produce an API call conversion layer (like WINE) on a non-windows platform which will acurately and completely run MS windows apps.
The only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't publish the full API is that the hidden parts are unstable and subject to frequent change - which can't be true when they're using those hidden features in major business applications.
(Although that might explain the trainwreck called Lotus Notes.)
No it wouldn't.
That comment reminds me of a piece I heard on a radio show about a man who had been jailed for a crime he hadn't committed. After 16 years, he was freed and they asked him what being free was like. He said, "Being out of prison is like being in a big prison. There are cameras everywhere, watching you..."
:)
Just a thought from the left field...
I hope he doesn't leave microsoft - especially not for US President.He has a bit of a wet fish personality - he's a bit too much of a geek for me to support. Ballmer, on the other hand, would be great. Imagine the pre election debates - Ballmer dances in shouting, "Developers, America, Developers, America". Then when his opponent (Hilary) makes a point that he doesn't like, he just throws a chair at her...