He bought the tracks. He owns the music Is it OK to make your consumers jump through any arbitrary series of hoops you like, as long as you can eventually circumvent the Apple format issues?
I don't think we "own" our music quite the way we'd all like to.
Case in point:
Buy your favorite song on vinyl. Whoops, new technology comes along...
...so you buy it on 8-track tape.
But then CDs become prolfiic, so you buy it again there.
But wait! Now there's Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio. Gee, buy it again!
The bottom line is that you buy music in a specific format. So if this guy bought the music in AAC format, perhaps it is more akin to a fellow buying music on 8-track and complaining that he can't use it in his CD player?
....I'm not sure this would be a particularly useful feature for the typical Mac user.. OS 9 is drying up... Yellow Dog Linux can actually co-exist at runtime with Mac OS X. With Fink, I can do an apt-get and pull whatever I need, Debian-style. So... I'm not sure running multiple OSes concurrently is all that big of a deal since I've already picked *one*.
Speeding up the multitasking of apps under that one OS would be a nice artifact, though!
elegant and sleek.
are these the criteria that make a computer good?
Have you looked at any of the themes for Mozilla, Windows XP, Gnome, or KDE?
A PC may come in a bland beige case, but every user interface (or "touch point") for the customer has progressively become more elegant and sleek, though not necessarily more user-friendly.
Is a Mac 'superior' at sending/recieving email? No.
Ever heard of an "Outlook Virus"?
Is a Mac 'superior' at performing standard office taks? (Make a spreadsheet, text document and so on.) Again, no.
Does the fact that Word macro viruses come into play here?
The fact of life is that, much like Linux, the Mac provides a platform that is just as good as Windows for those kinds of tasks.
If you think Apple hardware is too expensive, that's your perogative. Lots of people think Porsches and Ferraris are ridiculously priced, but for those that have the means and an appreciation for those products, they are a bargain.
The only point of concern in this whole matter is... why has this bug been lurking for five years?
I have every confidence the Mozilla team will address it, but this doesn't make open source appear any better than closed source (re: Microsoft's timetable for fixing IE flaws).
I agree with you in that the idea of Java was good, but the implementation of the language has absolutely no aspects of a beautiful/easy-to-use language.
I totally disagree that Java has absolutely no aspects of a beautiful/easy-to-use language. I think you're neglecting the fact that when Java burst on the scene in '95, it provided a simple means to write cross platform applications in a way C/C++ did not out of the box.
I worked on a satellite system for NASA written in C++ that was originally spec'd to work on five UNIX platforms. Keep in mind this is in the days before Linux became widely adopted... and this system was a major headache because:
Because of the lack of POSIX compliance between the platforms, we were in #ifdef PLATFORM_NAME hell. Heck, even when we tried to performance tune the application, we wound up with gobs and gobs of #pragma directives and custom code to either work around bugs in a target platform, or just improve performance (for example, by aligning data structures to specific address boundaries).
Byte endian issues had to be solved at a fine-grained level, requiring each developer to write their own serialization/de-serialization code. At least until we began using Rogue Wave's Tools.h++.
Helping folks manage deployment of their applications meant learning how each separate platform managed dynamically linked libraries. In fact, I recall silly bugs caused by circular dependencies in APIs we used that often required juggling the order of libraries during linking.
This is not to slam C++ in its current incarnation, but to point out that when Java first arrived on the scene, the restrictions and smaller set of APIs made it easy to ramp up developers who could then build cross-platform applications much quicker.
As for your specificpoints, let me explain where I disagree:
-primitive types and associated classes:
When I want to store a variable of one the primitve types like int (the ones you use in every class) you have to wrap them into a class (Integer) which has no way to change the Value later. So everytime I want to e.g. increment a counter stored this way, I have to convert it back to int, increment it und create a new Integer-Object to store the incremented value back into my container-class.
Primitive types are (IMHO) a bit of a hack in Java, but they behave much like primitive types in C++. Granted, lacking generics (pre-Java 1.5), Java cannot support arbitrary collections of primitives, but consider this: if you want to store and manage collections of primitive types, couldn't you write your own class to either "wrap" the primitive type? I'd also recommend wrapping the Collection you're using to simplify the mutators.
-If I want to compare two Classes I have to use the equals-Method instead of a simple operator-overloading which would enable me to use ==
I can't count how many times I ran into incompatibly defined flavors of operator overloading in "mediocre" C++ code where bugs in operator overloading introduced logic errors that were hard to find.
Inn the case of equals(Object) versus the == operator, consider this: in Java they have two completely different purposes. If you want to compare two object references to see if they refer to the same object, use ==. If you want to compare the contents of the objects they refer to, use equals(Object). Consider the ambiguity and potential for flaws when the operator's behavior could be changed to deviate from comparing references to Objects!
This is a case where I believe that removing a feature from a language makes it easier for developers to avoid dealing with obscure bugs while trying to get an application done.
-When I retrieve an Object from a Container it is a java.lang.Object instead of the type I stored which totally negates the advantages of static typing
Solved in Java 1.5 with Gener
....licensing costs and the infamous "OEM install disks" scared me off.
At the time I bought my first Powerbook (Fall '01), I was thinking of buying a Sony VAIO and dual-booting Linux and Windows. However, it became obvious from the way PC laptop vendors supported Windows that having support for a Unix-like platform that could also be a multimedia "workstation" wasn't likely.
Microsoft Windows licensing, for the home user with multiple PCs, is very expensive to maintain legitimately. I know I'm the exception, but I actually bought Windows for each machine I installed on, and with three PCs, the prospect of buying a fourth machine and paying that much for Windows licenses was a major deterrent.
In fact, when Apple started updating OS X on an annual basis (which they won't do after 10.4 "Tiger"), I was worried I had jumped from the frying pan into the fire, until I saw this and realized that growing the population of Macs in my home wouldn't be cost prohibitive.
Obviously, with Linux, it would be even cheaper.
That said, I can also add the following reasons why I haven't "switched" back:
the iLife applications. For $49, worth every penny, and while they don't offer features beyond what I had on my Windows boxen, they really do make working with multimedia simple and effective. I spend less time learning the tools than I do getting things done.
Java. As a former Sun employee, the first thing I did when I was checking out my first Powerbook was type "java -version". Having a contemporary flavor of Java on a non-x86 platform was interesting, and having used Apple's Java for almost three years, I can say that while the releases are not as frequent as Sun's reference implementations (for obvious reasons), the platform is fun, and I have been able to run Weblogic 5.x, 6.x, 7.x, and 8.x on it with no major headaches.
Halo and Unreal Tournament 2004. I can play the two best FPSers (IMHO) out there, and in the case of UT2004, it only required waiting three weeks after the PC release to get the Mac version. Given the glacial timetable for UT2003's port to the Mac, I was a bit concerned... but UT2004 more than makes up for that.
Viruses. Honestly, every platform has holes in it... and without some "biodiversity" in the ranks of the computing platforms we use, when nasty viruses circulate, the odds of getting nailed on Windows are just that much higher.
Overall, the question now is... having invested now in two Powerbooks and a dual G5... why would I want to switch back to Windows?
However, a clever hacker might handcraft in bytecode, thus bypassing the type system entirely. The runtime system of the language (which you may consider as the operating system in a board sense) still needs to perform dynamic security policy checking.
Java does this. The bytecode verifier is invoked on classes as they are loaded. Some JVMs offer the option to disable bytecode verification for code loaded from the bootclasspath and/or the local disk, but by default, bytecode verification is on.
Everyone is focusing on the fact that Jobs made disparaging comments about Real being #2.
Consider this: When Real was rolling out product for the past few years, which user base got the fruits of their efforts last?
Mac users, that's who.
So Real has been flinging poo at Mac users for a long time, then when Apple is suddenly the in-crowd, Real wants to jump on the bandwagon.
Simply put, there may be more to Apple & Real's relationship than we know. Perhaps in the past, Glaser has dissed Apple? We don't know... but Jobs may be a bit vindictive, and this is a nice way to kick Real while they're down, 'cause I do recall RealPlayer being slow to support MacOS with updates and features.
Yes, Jobs could have been more political in his comments, but I think this is all to make a point to prospective partners: Apple wants partners who bring something to the table (see: Hewlett-Packard) that doesn't dilute the value of an Apple brand. Real would dilute the iTunes brand, and bring competition that may, in the short term, give choice, but in the end, weaken the "franchise" making it easier for a loss-leading M$ effort to take over in the long run.
We all know the pattern...
1. Come up with a cool idea...
2. Dominate the market... ...
7. Watch Microsoft crush you into oblivion with a freebie included in Windows!
This sounds like the clones argument all over again. Agreed, while Steve Jobs is at the helm it will never happen.
Well, since Steve has been in charge,Apple has:
Allowed the iPod to work with Windows.
Ported iTunes to Windows.
Jumped into a cozy partnership with HP to allow them to brand iPods. Not clone them, but rebadge them at the very least.
Of all the things I think are likely to happen, I think opening up the DRM they use on AAC to allow other music stores to come online and sell songs for use with an iPod sounds like a great idea. After all... Apple claims they make money from iPods, not from selling the music. If that's truly the case, what's the harm in letting someone else incur the costs of selling the songs for those wonderfully expensive iPods?
Apple make way too expensive computers that usually are more hype than anything else.. Their software is very expensive, ugly and buggy.. They too take their customers for a ride [ipodsdirtysecret.com], and can be just as obnoxious a company as their lost brethren over at M$..
I agree that hating everything that is born out of Microsoft is "player hating", but as the owner of a couple of Apple and PC boxes (Powerbook, G5, and two self-made PCs), I can honestly say that until you really use a Mac day in and day out, you may not find the value in the bundled software and the (overall) quality of the hardware.
Also, Apple has one major advantage over Microsoft in my eyes -- they aren't a monopoly. I do worry about having the media and the operating system that organizes & plays it under the same company's control.
That is one of the things that stuck out to me... Given the longstanding bugs in Windows, and the lack of support to end-users when bugs do occur, I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the stainless steel pan black.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply a problem with SWT per se, only that SWT competes with AWT/Swing, and creates a situation where some Java (desktop) applications can't "run everywhere".
That said, my only issue with SWT (personally) was that I was unable to get Eclipse on Mac OS X until it was ported... whereas NetBeans and IntelliJ ran fine because they used the "standard" AWT/Swing framework.
I am not talking open source, I am talking support..NET is built into Windows, Java is a hassle to add to it. Which do you think people will be more likely to use?
So what you're saying is that, because Microsoft is flexing the muscle it has, as a monopoly, to push.NET as a standard on Windows, you'll just roll over and accept it because you're unable to surf to The Java Website and download J2SE?
Tell me, have you ever loaded up Visual Studio.NET on a Windows 2000 box? It takes longer to do the Component Update and install the IDE than it does to download NetBeans or Eclipse and a J2SE implementation.
Of course, if you really knew what you were doing, I guess you wouldn't have reacted so personally to my comment, eh?:-)
magine Java + QT or Java + GTK. I'm a Python partisan and frankly pretty much hate Java, but you know, stick a decent, time-test GUI toolkit on it and I might consider developing with it in the future, especially in light of the other improvements being made to it.
That sounds like a reason Sun wouldn't want to open source it. Consider the issues brewing with IBM and their alternative windowing toolkit, SWT (bundled with the Eclipse IDE). If we have a ton of differing GUI frameworks, what the odds that anyone will still be able to "write once and run everywhere" after the APIs fragment?
The way Java is being lead will result in further C# acceptance, because Java is an annoyance.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
How does supporting C# possibly make sense from an open source standpoint? And is C# really open? Are the libraries
Microsoft supplies available under the open source implementations?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we "own" our music quite the way we'd all like to.
Case in point:
The bottom line is that you buy music in a specific format. So if this guy bought the music in AAC format, perhaps it is more akin to a fellow buying music on 8-track and complaining that he can't use it in his CD player?
Isn't Apple's business plan to make money off the iPod and not off the songs? If so, their business model is working...
I'm sorry, but... what the heck is "native mode" Java?
Sounds like an oxymoron.
Just kidding. I get kidded by friends about owning a computer that comes standard with less than three buttons. :-)
Speeding up the multitasking of apps under that one OS would be a nice artifact, though!
I've been running a D-Link DI-624 for over a year with an AirPort equipped Powerbook G4. I don't think I lack a variety of options. :-)
Have you looked at any of the themes for Mozilla, Windows XP, Gnome, or KDE?
A PC may come in a bland beige case, but every user interface (or "touch point") for the customer has progressively become more elegant and sleek, though not necessarily more user-friendly.
Ever heard of an "Outlook Virus"?
Is a Mac 'superior' at performing standard office taks? (Make a spreadsheet, text document and so on.) Again, no.
Does the fact that Word macro viruses come into play here?
The fact of life is that, much like Linux, the Mac provides a platform that is just as good as Windows for those kinds of tasks.
If you think Apple hardware is too expensive, that's your perogative. Lots of people think Porsches and Ferraris are ridiculously priced, but for those that have the means and an appreciation for those products, they are a bargain.
I have every confidence the Mozilla team will address it, but this doesn't make open source appear any better than closed source (re: Microsoft's timetable for fixing IE flaws).
I totally disagree that Java has absolutely no aspects of a beautiful/easy-to-use language. I think you're neglecting the fact that when Java burst on the scene in '95, it provided a simple means to write cross platform applications in a way C/C++ did not out of the box.
I worked on a satellite system for NASA written in C++ that was originally spec'd to work on five UNIX platforms. Keep in mind this is in the days before Linux became widely adopted... and this system was a major headache because:
This is not to slam C++ in its current incarnation, but to point out that when Java first arrived on the scene, the restrictions and smaller set of APIs made it easy to ramp up developers who could then build cross-platform applications much quicker.
As for your specificpoints, let me explain where I disagree:
-primitive types and associated classes: When I want to store a variable of one the primitve types like int (the ones you use in every class) you have to wrap them into a class (Integer) which has no way to change the Value later. So everytime I want to e.g. increment a counter stored this way, I have to convert it back to int, increment it und create a new Integer-Object to store the incremented value back into my container-class.
Primitive types are (IMHO) a bit of a hack in Java, but they behave much like primitive types in C++. Granted, lacking generics (pre-Java 1.5), Java cannot support arbitrary collections of primitives, but consider this: if you want to store and manage collections of primitive types, couldn't you write your own class to either "wrap" the primitive type? I'd also recommend wrapping the Collection you're using to simplify the mutators.
-If I want to compare two Classes I have to use the equals-Method instead of a simple operator-overloading which would enable me to use ==
I can't count how many times I ran into incompatibly defined flavors of operator overloading in "mediocre" C++ code where bugs in operator overloading introduced logic errors that were hard to find.
Inn the case of equals(Object) versus the == operator, consider this: in Java they have two completely different purposes. If you want to compare two object references to see if they refer to the same object, use ==. If you want to compare the contents of the objects they refer to, use equals(Object). Consider the ambiguity and potential for flaws when the operator's behavior could be changed to deviate from comparing references to Objects!
This is a case where I believe that removing a feature from a language makes it easier for developers to avoid dealing with obscure bugs while trying to get an application done.
-When I retrieve an Object from a Container it is a java.lang.Object instead of the type I stored which totally negates the advantages of static typing Solved in Java 1.5 with Gener
At the time I bought my first Powerbook (Fall '01), I was thinking of buying a Sony VAIO and dual-booting Linux and Windows. However, it became obvious from the way PC laptop vendors supported Windows that having support for a Unix-like platform that could also be a multimedia "workstation" wasn't likely.
Microsoft Windows licensing, for the home user with multiple PCs, is very expensive to maintain legitimately. I know I'm the exception, but I actually bought Windows for each machine I installed on, and with three PCs, the prospect of buying a fourth machine and paying that much for Windows licenses was a major deterrent.
In fact, when Apple started updating OS X on an annual basis (which they won't do after 10.4 "Tiger"), I was worried I had jumped from the frying pan into the fire, until I saw this and realized that growing the population of Macs in my home wouldn't be cost prohibitive.
Obviously, with Linux, it would be even cheaper.
That said, I can also add the following reasons why I haven't "switched" back:
Overall, the question now is... having invested now in two Powerbooks and a dual G5... why would I want to switch back to Windows?
The earlier posting was referring to FM transmitters, not wi-fi. And believe me, you wouldn't want ten of those!
Java does this. The bytecode verifier is invoked on classes as they are loaded. Some JVMs offer the option to disable bytecode verification for code loaded from the bootclasspath and/or the local disk, but by default, bytecode verification is on.
Consider this: When Real was rolling out product for the past few years, which user base got the fruits of their efforts last?
Mac users, that's who.
So Real has been flinging poo at Mac users for a long time, then when Apple is suddenly the in-crowd, Real wants to jump on the bandwagon.
Simply put, there may be more to Apple & Real's relationship than we know. Perhaps in the past, Glaser has dissed Apple? We don't know... but Jobs may be a bit vindictive, and this is a nice way to kick Real while they're down, 'cause I do recall RealPlayer being slow to support MacOS with updates and features.
Yes, Jobs could have been more political in his comments, but I think this is all to make a point to prospective partners: Apple wants partners who bring something to the table (see: Hewlett-Packard) that doesn't dilute the value of an Apple brand. Real would dilute the iTunes brand, and bring competition that may, in the short term, give choice, but in the end, weaken the "franchise" making it easier for a loss-leading M$ effort to take over in the long run.
We all know the pattern...
1. Come up with a cool idea...
...
2. Dominate the market...
7. Watch Microsoft crush you into oblivion with a freebie included in Windows!
For me... when I switched to iTunes (and Mac) completely about a year ago, it was about three things:
ROTFLMAO! This is the funniest posting I've seen on slashdot in ages! Somone, mod this guy up as funny!
Well, since Steve has been in charge,Apple has:
Of all the things I think are likely to happen, I think opening up the DRM they use on AAC to allow other music stores to come online and sell songs for use with an iPod sounds like a great idea. After all... Apple claims they make money from iPods, not from selling the music. If that's truly the case, what's the harm in letting someone else incur the costs of selling the songs for those wonderfully expensive iPods?
I agree that hating everything that is born out of Microsoft is "player hating", but as the owner of a couple of Apple and PC boxes (Powerbook, G5, and two self-made PCs), I can honestly say that until you really use a Mac day in and day out, you may not find the value in the bundled software and the (overall) quality of the hardware.
Also, Apple has one major advantage over Microsoft in my eyes -- they aren't a monopoly. I do worry about having the media and the operating system that organizes & plays it under the same company's control.
That is one of the things that stuck out to me... Given the longstanding bugs in Windows, and the lack of support to end-users when bugs do occur, I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the stainless steel pan black.
Granted, I don't spend a lot of time there...
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply a problem with SWT per se, only that SWT competes with AWT/Swing, and creates a situation where some Java (desktop) applications can't "run everywhere".
That said, my only issue with SWT (personally) was that I was unable to get Eclipse on Mac OS X until it was ported... whereas NetBeans and IntelliJ ran fine because they used the "standard" AWT/Swing framework.
So what you're saying is that, because Microsoft is flexing the muscle it has, as a monopoly, to push .NET as a standard on Windows, you'll just roll over and accept it because you're unable to surf to The Java Website and download J2SE?
Tell me, have you ever loaded up Visual Studio.NET on a Windows 2000 box? It takes longer to do the Component Update and install the IDE than it does to download NetBeans or Eclipse and a J2SE implementation.
Of course, if you really knew what you were doing, I guess you wouldn't have reacted so personally to my comment, eh? :-)
That sounds like a reason Sun wouldn't want to open source it. Consider the issues brewing with IBM and their alternative windowing toolkit, SWT (bundled with the Eclipse IDE). If we have a ton of differing GUI frameworks, what the odds that anyone will still be able to "write once and run everywhere" after the APIs fragment?
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
How does supporting C# possibly make sense from an open source standpoint? And is C# really open? Are the libraries Microsoft supplies available under the open source implementations?