The key to the iPods success is that it was not released with every feature under the sun but rather Apple encouraged third-parties to provide additional functionality and add-ons. Companies like VW and numerous other car companies now provide integration with the iPod. The Nike deal is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
No doubt that celebrity endorsements, cross platform compatiblity and advertising played a role but the main thrust of success was the add-on market.
1. No Ogg Vorbis
The average male does not know what that is let alone care about it.
2. DRM
The average male does not know what that is let alone care about it.
3. No FM Radio
The average male listens to radio on his stereo at home or in his car.
4. I'm heterosexual:)
See responses for the other questions. Most men who feel the need to point out that they are heterosexual in topics that have no relation to sexuality are usually gay.
Where are the checks and balances for all this power? Can anyone use with power without carrying any responsibility for the consequences of their actions? Are there no standards or ethics? I can just see this phenomenon being used to so much ill in the wrong hands. Mr. O'Grady gives real journalism a bad name quite frankly. If the press is the fifth estate and acts as the watchers of the government, who is watching the watchers and why should their power extend to the private sector?
If a case does not involve protections of the public interest or safety, how does this have anything to do with the intended function of journalists as watch dogs?
To me, allowing bloggers with no journalistic skills or ethics to shields themselves like this is someone akin to letting the fox guard the hen house. O'Grady is an unethical profiteer, not a journalist.
There is plenty of competition and Apple's entry into the market was late so are we to begrudge them for their success and forethought of supporting windows in addition to OS X? I'm a consumer and I'm happy that I have a music player that works on my platform of choice at home (os x) and on my platform at work (windows). People also have a choice to lock themselves into windows by using WMA based technology. You are also free to use eMusic and use those songs with any music player. Nobody is forcing you to use iTMS and the majority of the world still does not have an iTMS store and yet there are people in those countries with iPods.
I'm sorry but your argument does not wash. I bought an iPod years before they had an iTMS in the US let alone here in Canada and I used services like eMusic and purchased CD's to fill my iPod. I have also noticed that that all my co-workers that have an iPod rip from CD's they own rather than buying from iTMS. I'm the only one that buys form iTMS and I'm also the only mac user there with an iPod.
To me, platform lock-in for "music" is far worse than any lock-in for a portable music player. With a WMA device, you must have a computer with windows installed on it in order to manage your device. There is no choice for the consumer in this regard. How much does a computer cost to purchase and maintain versus a computer? How much space does it take? Let's say that you had an iPod, that you had purchased some songs on iTMS and you got tired of it and wanted to get something new and you were switching from OS X to windows for some crazy reason. All you would have to do is transfer that library to your windows machine and you would have access to all those songs on your new machine. If you really wanted to have those songs on your WMA player, you could just burn them to an AUDIO CD and rerip them in WMA.
Ok, try doing the reverse. in the reverse, you would have to keep a windows installation somewhere to manage your licenses and deal with all the hassles entailing that on top of having them imported into your mac. In that case, you have two computers and portable players but in this case, you cannot use your old player on your mac whereas in the reverse, you could still use your iPod if you decided to keep it on your windows machine.
Linux? There are services like eMusic, Magnatune and Mind Dawn which cater to linux. Quite frankly though, I tried the OS X client of Mind Dawn but I could not get it to render the pages as their servers seemed to be overloaded any time I tried to use it or it was just a poorly coded client.
There are two barriers to companies supporting linux with commercial software. The first one is the perception linux has with fanatics like RMS talking of how closed software is the spawn of satan. The second would be the lack of standardization of the desktop GUI toolkits and the lack of care these projects seem to have concerning backwards binary compatibility. For obvious reasons, many companies do not want to distribute their software as source but because of binary compatibility issues, they cannot reliably distribute one binary for all linux distros for the "end user". Open source is great and all but source is useless to the average consumer. They really don't give a flying rat's ass about source code but rather whether the software just works out of the box.
If anyone is wondering why Quicktime and iTunes is so popular, it is because it works out of the box (or download) without any fuss on 99% of windows and mac systems out there.
Yes you are totally right. Oh, wait.... Mac users like me cannot use WMA based devices because MSFT has never written software to support that format DRM'd on OS X. The same thing goes for Linux btw.
If Apple is proprietary, what does that make MSFT technology? Their software only works on windows and with devices certified by them with the "playsforsure" logo. Nice try there pal. You almost pulled the wool over their eyes.
With iTunes, you are not "locked" into one OS and you are not locked into using an iPod either. Burning to CD is always an option.
I like the fact that I can use my music and devices in both OS X and windows if I so choose. With WMA technology, you can only use windows and MSFT approved devices.
How does this help mac users like me? I have an iPod because WMA based DRM devices do not work under OS X. This law would not force MSFT to write a version of WMP for OS X that supported DRM. All it would do is provide competitors access to iTMS.
You are trying to justify it legally but what you fail to see is that there is a difference between "copying" CD's in your possession and "distributing" copies of songs when you do not have distribution rights. Allofmp3 is "distributing" songs without permission of the "copyright" holders. Copyright, provides rights to distribute "copies" of a work for which you own the "copyright" or right to copy and sell. Purchasing a CD does not give you the right to distribute the music.
Your library argument is a straw man.
ROMS is irrelevant outside of Russia. Regardless, none of the piddle amount of money they receive ends up in the hands of either the artists or the labels. The latter have been assigned distribution rights of the songs and neither ROMS or allofmp3 entered into any distribution agreements with the artists or their labels.
As for the Canadian Copyright collective, artists are still waiting for their first royalties arrive and chances are that much of the money will be eaten up by administration costs. You are trying to justify legality but you have not spoken on the matter of whether what you are doing is fair, moral or ethical.
As other people have pointed out, allofmp3.com is quasi legal in Russia because of a loophole, run by the Russian Mafia and they provide 0 dollars and 0 cents to the artists and their labels. It would be exactly the same as if you setup a store like theirs by ripping CD's you had in some other country except that your service would be shut down right away.
You may be able to justify it to yourself that allofmp3 is legal but I'd like to see how you could justify it as being morally or ethically correct. You are basically paying a fence for stolen goods or paying a counterfeiter for counterfeit merchandise.
Dell laptops in the same price range with a similar form factor and feature set will have integrated gfx as well. What were you expecting? These are sub-notebooks.
Apple owns the copyright to the kernel and it is licensed under the Apple Public source License. Since you do not own the copyright, you do not have the right to relicense it under the GPL.
What would give you the impression that you should have the right to fork something you do not own and did not contribute anything to?
Given that nobody bothered to contribute to the XNU kernel when it was available, what makes you think someone would contribute to a fork? Technically, it might be possible to fork but in reality, you would have to publish any changes back to Apple anyway and assign them copyright under the APSL so your code branch would become a dead end quickly as they would release a kernel with any desirable changes you made as well as changes they made internally.
And let me introduce you to the reality that only a handful of people actually contribute to the linux kernel source while the majority of distro "developers" repackage their hard work and pass it off as something they did coding on.
Nobody contributed to XNU outside of Apple anyway so why all the whining? Are you guys complaining that this makes pirating their hard work more difficult? They are only closing the XNU kernel and leaving the rest of the drivers and other parts of the OS open for both X86 and PPC and the kernel is still open for PPC.
The pirates brought this on themselves. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at Maxxus.
First of all, Apple does not use GPL'ed code in their kernel. Second, any license be it the GPL or what have you cannot remove rights from the copyright holder which is Apple in this case.
Please, you are not a stock holder. You are just trolling and spreading FUD or you are just not technically knowledgable to know the difference between the kernel and other parts of the OS. At present, all the command line tools are open source and other projects like the Quicktime streaming server and Bonjour are still open.
The only things that are closed source are all the GUI and GUI related frameworks, some drivers and other frameworks only useful within OS X and now the kernel for the X86 branch of Darwin.
This move was motivated by the activity of pirates. If you really were a stockholder, you should be pleased that Apple is doing all they can to protect their bottom line and preserve the value of the company which you hold stocks for.
Yes, the PPC kernel source is still available. This is because of pirates. It has nothing to do with the RIAA or DRM. The DRM system in iTunes is a separate component and that source has never been available.
You do know you can customize that right? First off, I would recommend going back to the classic menu (I prefer this myself).
1. Right-Click the Start menu
2. Click Properties in the context menu
3. Select the Start Menu tab
4. Select the radio button for Classic Start Menu
5. If you feel so inclined check out the Customize options
6. Once you are done, click the OK button
Next, organize your program folders, so that they make sense to you. Click and drag stuff where you want it. To alphabetize a folder, right click in it and click Sort by Name.
But then, like the author of TFA, I guess you just don't want to spend time at it.
That seems like an awful lot of steps don't you think? Do you consider that intuitive?
OK, second time this "Open 'safe' files is a lie. WHY THE HELL IS THAT OPTION STILL THERE?" I never trusted that open from the moment I first saw the checkbox. I guess that's why they put "safe" in quotes.
It is an option that if enabled, provides novice users with an easier to use interface. Do you have a problem with a company catering to all levels of users? If you do not trust anything on the net, then disable it and quit your whining.
The performance is copyright as are any reproductions of said performance. Had you recorded a live concert yourself, you would have a case perhaps but not in this case. A work of art does not have to be physical, in fact, written works are not copyright because they appear on paper. Rather, the content of said writings is what is copyright.
I'd like to ask you a question, do you expect other people to respect the copyright of anything you create? Do you mind people ripping you off and passing it off as their own? When you are "sharing" music on the net via P2P, you are doing exactly that. You are trying to pass off that recording as your own when it is not. Look at the word copyright. What does that tell you? It is about the "right" to "copy" and distribute. If you do not own the copyright, you do not have the right to distribute that work.
Listen, you can try to rationalize it all you want or try to use legal wording tricks to justify it to yourself but ultimately, what you do comes down to respect. You are showing a zero respect by distributing recordings that the artists made themselves via label recording studios.
*Sarcasm*That's right. Including a microphone or midi device access and a sound card is getting into the music business. *Sarcasm* Give me a break. You really should look up the history on this issue. Apple had been bullied in to the previous agreement before Jobs returned to the helm. The agreement never should have happened in the first place.
LOL. How can you not see the difference between storage media which the consumer fills themselves and distribution of music on physical media? Apple does not distribute music on physical media.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt that celebrity endorsements, cross platform compatiblity and advertising played a role but the main thrust of success was the add-on market.
1. No Ogg Vorbis :)
The average male does not know what that is let alone care about it.
2. DRM
The average male does not know what that is let alone care about it.
3. No FM Radio
The average male listens to radio on his stereo at home or in his car.
4. I'm heterosexual
See responses for the other questions. Most men who feel the need to point out that they are heterosexual in topics that have no relation to sexuality are usually gay.
If a case does not involve protections of the public interest or safety, how does this have anything to do with the intended function of journalists as watch dogs?
To me, allowing bloggers with no journalistic skills or ethics to shields themselves like this is someone akin to letting the fox guard the hen house. O'Grady is an unethical profiteer, not a journalist.
I'm sorry but your argument does not wash. I bought an iPod years before they had an iTMS in the US let alone here in Canada and I used services like eMusic and purchased CD's to fill my iPod. I have also noticed that that all my co-workers that have an iPod rip from CD's they own rather than buying from iTMS. I'm the only one that buys form iTMS and I'm also the only mac user there with an iPod.
To me, platform lock-in for "music" is far worse than any lock-in for a portable music player. With a WMA device, you must have a computer with windows installed on it in order to manage your device. There is no choice for the consumer in this regard. How much does a computer cost to purchase and maintain versus a computer? How much space does it take? Let's say that you had an iPod, that you had purchased some songs on iTMS and you got tired of it and wanted to get something new and you were switching from OS X to windows for some crazy reason. All you would have to do is transfer that library to your windows machine and you would have access to all those songs on your new machine. If you really wanted to have those songs on your WMA player, you could just burn them to an AUDIO CD and rerip them in WMA.
Ok, try doing the reverse. in the reverse, you would have to keep a windows installation somewhere to manage your licenses and deal with all the hassles entailing that on top of having them imported into your mac. In that case, you have two computers and portable players but in this case, you cannot use your old player on your mac whereas in the reverse, you could still use your iPod if you decided to keep it on your windows machine.
There are two barriers to companies supporting linux with commercial software. The first one is the perception linux has with fanatics like RMS talking of how closed software is the spawn of satan. The second would be the lack of standardization of the desktop GUI toolkits and the lack of care these projects seem to have concerning backwards binary compatibility. For obvious reasons, many companies do not want to distribute their software as source but because of binary compatibility issues, they cannot reliably distribute one binary for all linux distros for the "end user". Open source is great and all but source is useless to the average consumer. They really don't give a flying rat's ass about source code but rather whether the software just works out of the box.
If anyone is wondering why Quicktime and iTunes is so popular, it is because it works out of the box (or download) without any fuss on 99% of windows and mac systems out there.
Sorry but what does your rant have to do with MSFT providing support for non-windows platforms? This bill would do nothing to "force" them.
If Apple is proprietary, what does that make MSFT technology? Their software only works on windows and with devices certified by them with the "playsforsure" logo. Nice try there pal. You almost pulled the wool over their eyes.
With iTunes, you are not "locked" into one OS and you are not locked into using an iPod either. Burning to CD is always an option.
I like the fact that I can use my music and devices in both OS X and windows if I so choose. With WMA technology, you can only use windows and MSFT approved devices.
How does this help mac users like me? I have an iPod because WMA based DRM devices do not work under OS X. This law would not force MSFT to write a version of WMP for OS X that supported DRM. All it would do is provide competitors access to iTMS.
Your library argument is a straw man.
ROMS is irrelevant outside of Russia. Regardless, none of the piddle amount of money they receive ends up in the hands of either the artists or the labels. The latter have been assigned distribution rights of the songs and neither ROMS or allofmp3 entered into any distribution agreements with the artists or their labels.
As for the Canadian Copyright collective, artists are still waiting for their first royalties arrive and chances are that much of the money will be eaten up by administration costs. You are trying to justify legality but you have not spoken on the matter of whether what you are doing is fair, moral or ethical.
You may be able to justify it to yourself that allofmp3 is legal but I'd like to see how you could justify it as being morally or ethically correct. You are basically paying a fence for stolen goods or paying a counterfeiter for counterfeit merchandise.
Dell laptops in the same price range with a similar form factor and feature set will have integrated gfx as well. What were you expecting? These are sub-notebooks.
What would give you the impression that you should have the right to fork something you do not own and did not contribute anything to?
Given that nobody bothered to contribute to the XNU kernel when it was available, what makes you think someone would contribute to a fork? Technically, it might be possible to fork but in reality, you would have to publish any changes back to Apple anyway and assign them copyright under the APSL so your code branch would become a dead end quickly as they would release a kernel with any desirable changes you made as well as changes they made internally.
And let me introduce you to the reality that only a handful of people actually contribute to the linux kernel source while the majority of distro "developers" repackage their hard work and pass it off as something they did coding on.
The pirates brought this on themselves. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at Maxxus.
First of all, Apple does not use GPL'ed code in their kernel. Second, any license be it the GPL or what have you cannot remove rights from the copyright holder which is Apple in this case.
The only things that are closed source are all the GUI and GUI related frameworks, some drivers and other frameworks only useful within OS X and now the kernel for the X86 branch of Darwin.
This move was motivated by the activity of pirates. If you really were a stockholder, you should be pleased that Apple is doing all they can to protect their bottom line and preserve the value of the company which you hold stocks for.
Yes, the PPC kernel source is still available. This is because of pirates. It has nothing to do with the RIAA or DRM. The DRM system in iTunes is a separate component and that source has never been available.
With an expresscard, any 15.4" MBP will give you even faster transfer rates.
1. Right-Click the Start menu
2. Click Properties in the context menu
3. Select the Start Menu tab
4. Select the radio button for Classic Start Menu
5. If you feel so inclined check out the Customize options
6. Once you are done, click the OK button
Next, organize your program folders, so that they make sense to you. Click and drag stuff where you want it. To alphabetize a folder, right click in it and click Sort by Name.
But then, like the author of TFA, I guess you just don't want to spend time at it.
That seems like an awful lot of steps don't you think? Do you consider that intuitive?
OK, second time this "Open 'safe' files is a lie. WHY THE HELL IS THAT OPTION STILL THERE?" I never trusted that open from the moment I first saw the checkbox. I guess that's why they put "safe" in quotes. It is an option that if enabled, provides novice users with an easier to use interface. Do you have a problem with a company catering to all levels of users? If you do not trust anything on the net, then disable it and quit your whining.
Yes, and so are record stores like Sam the Record Man, Best Buy, Walmart but are any of them in the record business or in the retail business?
I'd like to ask you a question, do you expect other people to respect the copyright of anything you create? Do you mind people ripping you off and passing it off as their own? When you are "sharing" music on the net via P2P, you are doing exactly that. You are trying to pass off that recording as your own when it is not. Look at the word copyright. What does that tell you? It is about the "right" to "copy" and distribute. If you do not own the copyright, you do not have the right to distribute that work.
Listen, you can try to rationalize it all you want or try to use legal wording tricks to justify it to yourself but ultimately, what you do comes down to respect. You are showing a zero respect by distributing recordings that the artists made themselves via label recording studios.
*Sarcasm*That's right. Including a microphone or midi device access and a sound card is getting into the music business. *Sarcasm* Give me a break. You really should look up the history on this issue. Apple had been bullied in to the previous agreement before Jobs returned to the helm. The agreement never should have happened in the first place.
LOL. How can you not see the difference between storage media which the consumer fills themselves and distribution of music on physical media? Apple does not distribute music on physical media.
Yeah I see that but they sold their rights to Michael Jackson who recently sold them to his label as he was strappped for cash.