The claim by Steve Jobs is that the RIAA wants a monoculture. It makes sense, as having one company control everything means that holes will be patched up quicker, and updates can be pushed out easier. Steve claims that this is the reason the RIAA is forcing them to not license their DRM. However, if you step outside of the Reality Distortion Field, you'll notice that you can get the same RIAA music with Play-for-sure DRM, which is a lot more open than Fairplay in the sense that Microsoft has licensed it to a number of hardware manufacturers and music stores (even Apple could license it if they wanted to)*. Quite simply, Steve Jobs' argument holds no water - if the RIAA didn't want their songs sold with DRM that was in the hands of a variety of companies, they wouldn't allow their songs to be sold with play-for-sure DRM.
Texas oil wells don't go dry, they just eventually reach the point where extracting the remaining oil is more trouble than its worth, and the well is capped. As prices have risen, some of these wells have been even been put back into production when it suddenly becomes profitable again. We will probably never use up all the oil - there will always be some in some hard to reach place that won't be worth the cost to extract.
There's a green light that goes on whenever the camera is active. AFAIK it's wired into the camera and not separately controlled from software, so unless you're blind you're safe.
Eh, not really. By the time you see the little green light, its too late.
I think he was referring to the Apple of ten years ago. Propriety closed computers, with propriety parts, propriety connectors, etc. There is a reason why Apple almost died back then. It looks like they learned their lesson, though they still aren't quite as flexible as the PC world.
Others have mentioned this, but I'll repeat: it is virtually guaranteed that the RIAA members required that all music sold through iTMS had to be covered by the DRM, regardless of the requirements of the smaller rights-holders. Without that, they would not have signed on with Apple. It is in the big producers' best interests to not permit the others to "undercut" them (selling unemcumbered tracks alongside their own DRM-infected tracks).
And if the labels are doing so, they are definently being anti-competitive, and its almost certainly illegal. Not that such actions by the RIAA would surprise me, but Apple should be able to challenge them on this and win.
The original iPod wasn't a great seller. Maybe it did well enough in Apple's eyes, but the iPod didn't take off until Apple made it compatible with the PC.
Will I angrily denounce Apple for not sharing its DRM? Not on your life. That's the RIAA's position, chowderheads.
Then how come the RIAA will share its music on Microsoft's play-for-sure DRM, which can be licensed by anyone for both music stores and music players? How come Apple is resistant to removing the DRM on files in its stores where the rights holders do not want the DRM on their music? Quite simply, the most simple explaination is that Apple likes their lock-in, and thinks that they can shift blame away from themselves to the RIAA.
Well, if you have iTunes installed on your PC, you have a service running that cannot be disabled that detects when an iPod is plugged in. I'm guessing that is the trouble. Given all the hooks, services, bloat, and other crap that iTunes/Quicktime installs on Windows, it really doesn't surprise me that it doesn't work right with Vista.
Well, what about non-RIAA music? A simple test would be to find some music sold by Apple that has DRM on it, but is available (legally) elsewhere without the DRM. Stuff like this exists, thus it stands that Apple would probably sell RIAA music with DRM on it, even if the RIAA didn't require the DRM, provided Apple thought they could get away with it.
I find it amazing that a group of people who make such a big stink about copyright (the RIAA members) would then turn around, and step on the ability of others to distribute their songs as they see fit, by forcing Apple to put DRM on their copyrighted material against their will. It would be like the MPAA forcing everyone who wants to distribute their films on DVD to use encryption and region coding. Of course, knowing the RIAA I guess it doesn't really surprises me. If I was in that position, I would tell Apple to go stuff it myself.
However, I still don't completely buy it. I'm pretty sure that Apple, now that people are overall fairly comfortable with their DRM scheme, isn't going to back away from it.
If the cause isn't that record labels, television networks, and movie studios demand it, then why aren't there other stores with similar content that don't have content protection?
Actually, there are. Some of the music offered on iTunes from smaller, independed labels is available elsewhere without DRM. Some of these labels have even asked Apple to remove the DRM from these files, but Apple refuses.
I said a consistent experience with the store, you blitering idiot. Why the hell would Jobs forcibly have iTunes DRM legitimately-ripped CDs? Hell, this is an argument in favor of Jobs' comments today, not against them. iTunes doesn't even offer the user the option of DRM'ing their rips, unlike Windows Media Player.
Even if what you say is true, that would still make Steve Jobs a liar when he says that the songs are DRM'd because the labels make him put the DRM on them, when in fact some labels are trying to get Apple to remove the DRM.
Really I don't think it's about a consistent experience with the iTunes music store (a stupid argument if I've ever heard one), but more about lock in, something Apple has been doing for years.
Actually, it's going back up again. It used to be that single core CPUs were using 75-100W or more at peak back in the Socket A and P4 days. They've gotten that back down to 30W or so per core - the only problem is that they are putting 2 and 4 cores on a chip now! We're essentially working our way back to where we started, though hopefully the budget (single core) chips will end up being very low power chips.
On the other hand, if you are going to look at systems, I would guess that the power saved from going from a CRT monitor to a LCD monitor is greater than the extra power consumed by the rest of the system. I'm going to guess that the worst offender is going to be a system from about 2-3 years ago. Likely to still have a CRT monitor, and either a P4/Celeron or an Athlon XP under the hood.
Well, the only reason why I bought an nForce2 board new somewhat recently is that my Via KT333 board from 2002 died. However, the system is otherwise a Sempron 3000, 1.25GB of ram, and a ATI 9600Pro. Why shouldn't I be able to run Vista on this system? All Intel's P4 chipsets from the same era are well supported. Not that I really want to put Vista on this system, but nVidia cutting off support for their products so early will definently affect future purchases. Since the nForce chipsets are the only decent AMD chipsets (in my opinion), that is also hurting AMD.
Also, apparently the nForce3 isn't supported either? That's not old at all, I put together a nForce3 system out of all new components last summer for my sister.
The nForce2 is not that old. I have a system built around a nForce2 board right here. The board is less than 2 years old, and otherwise the computer is certainly up to running Vista. It's generally assumed that something this new would still be supported. I'm pretty sure that Intel is still supporting all of the P4 chipsets in Vista, and likely all or most of the P3 ones too.
Umm, in what way? If you compare Apple machines to comparable PCs, they are about the same ease of upgrading hardware. Now Apple sells more all-in-ones, laptops, and small form factor machines than average, so I suppose you could argue that Apple makes more machines that are harder to upgrade, but that is pretty, bloody weak.
Well, I guess you might have a point, as the closest "comparable PC" to a propriety Apple tower is some propriety Dell piece of junk. However, if you build a PC yourself, you can get something a bit more flexable and easier to upgrade compared to a Mac (or OEM PC too).
Also, that argument isn't exactly weak, as All-in-one, SFF, and laptops is all you can get from Apple, unless you want to spend $2500 on a Mac Pro.
Lastest versions of OSX does indeed cut out the older hardware. If you didn't have Firewire port on your motherboard the last time around, you didn't get 10.4. Likely, you will need atleast a G4 to get 10.5. Probably 10.6 or 10.7 will cut off the PPC machines entirely, etc.
Also, latest versions of OSX have been getting more bloated with things like spotlight and the dashboard. Older machines are starting to feel the crunch.
I installed Vista on a 2001 machine, a P4 1.5Ghz with 1GB of Ram (someone spent a small fortune in 2001 to put 1GB of rambus memory in this machine!), a 7200RPM drive, and a GeForce 2 video card. Vista ran fine. Of course you really have to beef up a machine to run all the fancy new Vista features, but cut out Aero and other eye candy and Vista is not nearly the hog many people make it out to be. Probably just about any machine made in the last 5 years can run Vista, with at most a memory upgrade if its less than 512MB.
OS X being faster on each new version isn't true anymore. It used to be, mainly because 10.0 was such a dog and there was lots of room for optomizations. But with things like Spotlight and the Dashboard, OSX has been getting more bloated and its slowing things down, especially on machines with less than 512MB. 10.3 is probably the fastest version of OSX out there.
Not true. Apple arbitrarly put the restriction on 10.4 that the computer had to have Firewire built into the machine (no PCI Firewire cards don't count), those old creaky iMacs got left out. And don't forget that the computers that came out just before them (Biege G3's) haven't been supported for several years now.
I would guess that Vista will install and run on any P3 that has enough ram. It won't be very fast, but neither is a G3 running 10.4.
Will this work now? Given that Apple is running pretty much "standard" PC hardware now, any manufacturer who wants to also sell to an Apple audience will need to create drivers that work on a Unix-like system. As long as Apple don't sign up to the same (or any) DRM-for-drivers type system, then it will still at the very least, be possible to reverse engineer these. Surely?
There hasn't been much luck reverse engineering the binary blob drivers we have on Linux right now (for example, ATI and nVidia's drivers). I don't think it would be any easier to reverse engineer OSX drivers to get hardware working on Linux.
Naw, it was more like all the iMac users had to go and buy a USB floppy drive while everyone else laughed at them for having to pay extra for something that was included as standard in every other computer at the time. Back in 1998, we didn't have USB keys, CD burners were expensive and there was no way to add one anyway, nor was broadband widespread. Without a USB Floppy drive, the typical home iMac user didn't have anyway to get a file off of their computer or to back it up except over the modem at a painful 33.6kbps max.
Slashdot Mirror
The claim by Steve Jobs is that the RIAA wants a monoculture. It makes sense, as having one company control everything means that holes will be patched up quicker, and updates can be pushed out easier. Steve claims that this is the reason the RIAA is forcing them to not license their DRM. However, if you step outside of the Reality Distortion Field, you'll notice that you can get the same RIAA music with Play-for-sure DRM, which is a lot more open than Fairplay in the sense that Microsoft has licensed it to a number of hardware manufacturers and music stores (even Apple could license it if they wanted to)*. Quite simply, Steve Jobs' argument holds no water - if the RIAA didn't want their songs sold with DRM that was in the hands of a variety of companies, they wouldn't allow their songs to be sold with play-for-sure DRM.
Texas oil wells don't go dry, they just eventually reach the point where extracting the remaining oil is more trouble than its worth, and the well is capped. As prices have risen, some of these wells have been even been put back into production when it suddenly becomes profitable again. We will probably never use up all the oil - there will always be some in some hard to reach place that won't be worth the cost to extract.
There's a green light that goes on whenever the camera is active. AFAIK it's wired into the camera and not separately controlled from software, so unless you're blind you're safe.
Eh, not really. By the time you see the little green light, its too late.
I think he was referring to the Apple of ten years ago. Propriety closed computers, with propriety parts, propriety connectors, etc. There is a reason why Apple almost died back then. It looks like they learned their lesson, though they still aren't quite as flexible as the PC world.
Others have mentioned this, but I'll repeat: it is virtually guaranteed that the RIAA members required that all music sold through iTMS had to be covered by the DRM, regardless of the requirements of the smaller rights-holders. Without that, they would not have signed on with Apple. It is in the big producers' best interests to not permit the others to "undercut" them (selling unemcumbered tracks alongside their own DRM-infected tracks).
And if the labels are doing so, they are definently being anti-competitive, and its almost certainly illegal. Not that such actions by the RIAA would surprise me, but Apple should be able to challenge them on this and win.
The original iPod wasn't a great seller. Maybe it did well enough in Apple's eyes, but the iPod didn't take off until Apple made it compatible with the PC.
Will I angrily denounce Apple for not sharing its DRM? Not on your life. That's the RIAA's position, chowderheads.
Then how come the RIAA will share its music on Microsoft's play-for-sure DRM, which can be licensed by anyone for both music stores and music players? How come Apple is resistant to removing the DRM on files in its stores where the rights holders do not want the DRM on their music? Quite simply, the most simple explaination is that Apple likes their lock-in, and thinks that they can shift blame away from themselves to the RIAA.
Well, if you have iTunes installed on your PC, you have a service running that cannot be disabled that detects when an iPod is plugged in. I'm guessing that is the trouble. Given all the hooks, services, bloat, and other crap that iTunes/Quicktime installs on Windows, it really doesn't surprise me that it doesn't work right with Vista.
Why not challenge the RIAA on this? Who are they to say how music they do not have any rights over gets distributed?
Well, what about non-RIAA music? A simple test would be to find some music sold by Apple that has DRM on it, but is available (legally) elsewhere without the DRM. Stuff like this exists, thus it stands that Apple would probably sell RIAA music with DRM on it, even if the RIAA didn't require the DRM, provided Apple thought they could get away with it.
I find it amazing that a group of people who make such a big stink about copyright (the RIAA members) would then turn around, and step on the ability of others to distribute their songs as they see fit, by forcing Apple to put DRM on their copyrighted material against their will. It would be like the MPAA forcing everyone who wants to distribute their films on DVD to use encryption and region coding. Of course, knowing the RIAA I guess it doesn't really surprises me. If I was in that position, I would tell Apple to go stuff it myself.
However, I still don't completely buy it. I'm pretty sure that Apple, now that people are overall fairly comfortable with their DRM scheme, isn't going to back away from it.
If the cause isn't that record labels, television networks, and movie studios demand it, then why aren't there other stores with similar content that don't have content protection?
Actually, there are. Some of the music offered on iTunes from smaller, independed labels is available elsewhere without DRM. Some of these labels have even asked Apple to remove the DRM from these files, but Apple refuses.
I said a consistent experience with the store, you blitering idiot. Why the hell would Jobs forcibly have iTunes DRM legitimately-ripped CDs? Hell, this is an argument in favor of Jobs' comments today, not against them. iTunes doesn't even offer the user the option of DRM'ing their rips, unlike Windows Media Player.
Even if what you say is true, that would still make Steve Jobs a liar when he says that the songs are DRM'd because the labels make him put the DRM on them, when in fact some labels are trying to get Apple to remove the DRM.
Really I don't think it's about a consistent experience with the iTunes music store (a stupid argument if I've ever heard one), but more about lock in, something Apple has been doing for years.
Actually, it's going back up again. It used to be that single core CPUs were using 75-100W or more at peak back in the Socket A and P4 days. They've gotten that back down to 30W or so per core - the only problem is that they are putting 2 and 4 cores on a chip now! We're essentially working our way back to where we started, though hopefully the budget (single core) chips will end up being very low power chips.
On the other hand, if you are going to look at systems, I would guess that the power saved from going from a CRT monitor to a LCD monitor is greater than the extra power consumed by the rest of the system. I'm going to guess that the worst offender is going to be a system from about 2-3 years ago. Likely to still have a CRT monitor, and either a P4/Celeron or an Athlon XP under the hood.
IBM (Lenovo) will still sell you XP Pre-installed on a system if you customize it.
I don't think so. That would pretty much conflict with "Do No Evil", even if it is Viacom.
Well, the only reason why I bought an nForce2 board new somewhat recently is that my Via KT333 board from 2002 died. However, the system is otherwise a Sempron 3000, 1.25GB of ram, and a ATI 9600Pro. Why shouldn't I be able to run Vista on this system? All Intel's P4 chipsets from the same era are well supported. Not that I really want to put Vista on this system, but nVidia cutting off support for their products so early will definently affect future purchases. Since the nForce chipsets are the only decent AMD chipsets (in my opinion), that is also hurting AMD.
Also, apparently the nForce3 isn't supported either? That's not old at all, I put together a nForce3 system out of all new components last summer for my sister.
The nForce2 is not that old. I have a system built around a nForce2 board right here. The board is less than 2 years old, and otherwise the computer is certainly up to running Vista. It's generally assumed that something this new would still be supported. I'm pretty sure that Intel is still supporting all of the P4 chipsets in Vista, and likely all or most of the P3 ones too.
Umm, in what way? If you compare Apple machines to comparable PCs, they are about the same ease of upgrading hardware. Now Apple sells more all-in-ones, laptops, and small form factor machines than average, so I suppose you could argue that Apple makes more machines that are harder to upgrade, but that is pretty, bloody weak.
Well, I guess you might have a point, as the closest "comparable PC" to a propriety Apple tower is some propriety Dell piece of junk. However, if you build a PC yourself, you can get something a bit more flexable and easier to upgrade compared to a Mac (or OEM PC too).
Also, that argument isn't exactly weak, as All-in-one, SFF, and laptops is all you can get from Apple, unless you want to spend $2500 on a Mac Pro.
Lastest versions of OSX does indeed cut out the older hardware. If you didn't have Firewire port on your motherboard the last time around, you didn't get 10.4. Likely, you will need atleast a G4 to get 10.5. Probably 10.6 or 10.7 will cut off the PPC machines entirely, etc.
Also, latest versions of OSX have been getting more bloated with things like spotlight and the dashboard. Older machines are starting to feel the crunch.
I installed Vista on a 2001 machine, a P4 1.5Ghz with 1GB of Ram (someone spent a small fortune in 2001 to put 1GB of rambus memory in this machine!), a 7200RPM drive, and a GeForce 2 video card. Vista ran fine. Of course you really have to beef up a machine to run all the fancy new Vista features, but cut out Aero and other eye candy and Vista is not nearly the hog many people make it out to be. Probably just about any machine made in the last 5 years can run Vista, with at most a memory upgrade if its less than 512MB.
OS X being faster on each new version isn't true anymore. It used to be, mainly because 10.0 was such a dog and there was lots of room for optomizations. But with things like Spotlight and the Dashboard, OSX has been getting more bloated and its slowing things down, especially on machines with less than 512MB. 10.3 is probably the fastest version of OSX out there.
Not true. Apple arbitrarly put the restriction on 10.4 that the computer had to have Firewire built into the machine (no PCI Firewire cards don't count), those old creaky iMacs got left out. And don't forget that the computers that came out just before them (Biege G3's) haven't been supported for several years now.
I would guess that Vista will install and run on any P3 that has enough ram. It won't be very fast, but neither is a G3 running 10.4.
Will this work now? Given that Apple is running pretty much "standard" PC hardware now, any manufacturer who wants to also sell to an Apple audience will need to create drivers that work on a Unix-like system. As long as Apple don't sign up to the same (or any) DRM-for-drivers type system, then it will still at the very least, be possible to reverse engineer these. Surely?
There hasn't been much luck reverse engineering the binary blob drivers we have on Linux right now (for example, ATI and nVidia's drivers). I don't think it would be any easier to reverse engineer OSX drivers to get hardware working on Linux.
Naw, it was more like all the iMac users had to go and buy a USB floppy drive while everyone else laughed at them for having to pay extra for something that was included as standard in every other computer at the time. Back in 1998, we didn't have USB keys, CD burners were expensive and there was no way to add one anyway, nor was broadband widespread. Without a USB Floppy drive, the typical home iMac user didn't have anyway to get a file off of their computer or to back it up except over the modem at a painful 33.6kbps max.