This is why I'm agnostic. Until you can prove to me either way that everything we know today is all there is to know (there is nothing left unexplained), I'm going to continue to believe that I have no fucking idea what we are going to learn about in the future. What tidbit of information are we going to glean tomorrow that chips away at one of the infinite definitions for "God"?
My point is this: either until God manifests himself in whatever form happens to fit our definition, or until we can prove that we know all there is to know, I will remain curious, but nothing more.
"Apple is a hardware-company who makes an OS so that their customers can have something to run on their boxes"
"If Apple had been smart, they would have made a version of OSX that could run fine on last generation hardware, the one corporations are using right now,"
You answered your own question. Apple is a hardware company. If they completely shift their quality control and entire business to just software, they wouldn't be Apple anymore, and their entire appeal (OS and hardware created by the same entity, supported by the same entity, etc...) would be lost. No one, and I mean no one is going to beat MS at what MS does best, create businiess alliances that allow for greater control due to size. Apple's OK with simply being better, and their getting rich doing it. 5% is and always has been OK with them. Dont' get me wrong, they would kill for 90%, but they aren't going to sacrifice their entire business model on a hunch for it...
In other words, as soon as Apple stops simply wanting to be better (which is what has kept them afloat for so long), they lose their appeal. Apple just hast to convince people that the switch to a Mac is worth it. I obviously think it is (for the vast majority of computer users), but that's just my opinion.
And even then, the macro v won't harm you Mac. It will just allow you to send it off to your Windows friends who may get annoyed. I consider it a Windows issue, usually never clean them up, I eventually just trash them though I someone informs me of the problem.
Music Industry: We want DRM. We want a good, easy to use place to sell our music online! And it MUST have DRM...
Steve Jobs: You got it. Hey, it only works with iPods as well. Isn't product tying great! Fine, but it will also be needed for the hardware it plays on, we've been selling iPods like hotcakes for a while, and we aren't going to license it to anyone else. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.
Music Industry: Can we have more control over our product? Can we do whatever we want after we've made this deal?
Steve Jobs: Nope. They took the deal. It was too good to pass up really. They saw iTunes as a great tool for purchasing music. They were right.
Music Industry: Oh. Uhm... We'll leave. We would like to charge more for music now, even though our distribution for on-line sales is barely noticable compared to CD sales, and even though we are actually selling more music, legally, because of you...
Steve Jobs: No you won't. No you won't.
Music Industry: Oh. Ummm can you open up Fairplay. This will mean there's some competition and we can afford to ditch you. Can you open up fairplay? This way we can sell songs from other Music purchasing sites that will also work on the iPod giving us a bigger avenue for profit. Seems as if this on-line music stuff really works! Have you heard of the iPod? Apparently it's HUGE with the kids these days. I want to make sure that wherever they buy songs from, it will still play with your iPod...
Steve Jobs: Nope. Why would I ever do that? I would rather ditch the entire DRM "thing". Wouldn't that make everyone happy, especially the customers?
Music Industry: We'll make you look like the bad guy. We'll make you look like the bad guy.
Steve Jobs: You can try. I made downloadable music viable, produce the gadget all the cool kids want and I don't sue children and old ladies. Not only that, but I can plausibly (actually) blame all your troubles on you.
Can't believe you were modded up for false information... wait, yes I can...
"The upper-left corner of the menu bar is NOT an active location to click on the apple menu."
Fixed in Tiger, Apple's 2 year old OS.
"The Start Menu's major components are always in the same locations; the recent programs list is always so many entries long, the list of programs to run is so many entries long, etc"
You can't make them bigger? You can't have it contain more than some set amount? I would hate that. I've got 40 apps in my dock ready to launch with one click. Hasn't changed in months. If I need to add another app fine. I'll just make the dock a little smaller. Done. This muscle memory you speak of is so nit picky that it's nearly funny. If you can't see an icon in the dock and click on it, then there are other issues here...
"The Dock resizes and warps around so that you cannot utilize muscle memory to click on dock items."
Wrong again. The Dock only "magnifies" if you tell if to, you can simply turn that off if you wish. And even if it magnifies, the dock will spread outward from your cursor entry point, not moving the icon. If you are telling me that you launch Windows apps with your eyes closed from the Start Menu, then you are FREAK! I love the dock.
"Windows will always leave my drive shortcuts in the same order on my desktop, and even in the same location if I don't use auto-arrange. On the mac, my "Macintosh HD" icon appears in a new location on my desktop on every boot."
This again was fixed in Tiger. But if you are using an older OS, just move the icons on your cluttered desktop (obviously) away from the HD icon. If you do this it will stay in place on reboot. Drive shortcuts? Oh right... Drive C: in My Computer is fantastic. You do need a shortcut for that don't you...
Ineresting... you have Adobe issues that you haven't fixed, and it's OS X's fault. Nice one...
And the one about consitency. You're kidding right? Are you suggesting we accept that Windows menus are more consistent than in OS X? Do you actually own a computer, or is someone typing these posts for you over the phone...
I assume you realize you represent less than 1% of the computer using public's needs/wants as a cross platform developer (most of them wouldn't even know what that means).
"At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception."
Like what? You may be right, but usually in a "discussion" thread you have to actually put up examples. My mom used to use Word, a browser and an E-mail app on her old Dell. With a Mac she now plugs in her digital camera to get photos as soon as I told her she didn't have to do a thing outside of plugging in the camera to the machine (no driver installs, no app installs), and she's been playing with iMovie, something she wouldn't have dreamed she could have done so easily on a Windows machine.
So, while you may be right, I think the majority of the computer using public couldn't care less about your statement, and more about what they want to do rather than what they can do. Remember, I may admit you are right (without examples that would be pertinent to the general public I can't argue anything), but for most people, OS X and their bundled apps are going to be far more rewarding, fun, stress free than anything similar on Vista. For games, BootCamp!
"despite our human influence"? Really? What does that mean? You seem to say that the human "act of defiance" to global warming isn't working, as if we are trying to stop the natural event of global warming when in fact if anything, we're helping this (ahem) *normal occurance* speed along, no doubt.
Despite? Strange word to use.
And if it's "despite" our actions, then what are all of the crazy "scientists" arguing about?
Seriously, in my book it would read "It is warming up DUE to our human influence", but this discussion is for another thread... and you wouldn't find a scientists in the entire world that wouldn't admit that the Earth was once warmer... my goodnes. The goal is to find out why it's happening now. Debate continues...
"So I can give a copy of gd1977-05-08 to my cousin when I see him on christmas break?"
Burn a CD (they're 20 cents a piece), put it on a thumb drive, do a 5 second search on Google to find out how to get the songs off the iPod, etc... remember, this is not something that Apple wanted, the RIAA stipulated it, end of story. This is also why the ability to transfer songs from the iPod to a computer is now part of iTunes 7, but only with iTMS purchased songs. There is no way to legally know for sure that the songs you are "sharing" are legal. Grateful Dead 1977... obscure enough to make my point.
"So I can transfer my mp3s to my work PC without always having to bring the ipod in with me?"
See above. Besides, bringing in your iPod is that much of a chore? My goodness... if you are armless or do not own any shirts or pants with pockets, I apologize. And just to add, you can find out how to do this (transfer songs to another computer), using your iPod right from Apple. You simply aren't aware of it apparently. (remember, your iPod is just an external HD waiting to be used for things just like this! Put your GD song on it before you leave to see your cousin. Takes 3 seconds to find the song Documents/Music/itunes/iTunes music... jeebus man)
"So I have a back-up in case something damages the original?"
You should always have a backup of your music. Using your iPod as "backup" is a horrible idea whether you can easily take the songs off of it or not (which as I have stated twice now, you can, it's just not built into iTunes. Ask the RIAA why you cannot, not Apple). They are stolen all the time, and the HD has a higher probability to fail as it's being transported constantly.
"So I can do what I want with hardware that I own?"
You can, period. Apple just ins't allowed to make moving unprotected songs to any device willy nilly with one click, that's it. Your gripe is quite nit-picky, especially with such easy work-arounds...
"Yeah, but can you get them off once they're on there?"
And why would I want to do this (pretend you are answering to an RIAA board)? I still have the CD's, I've made a backup of my ripped music (as all should), so I'm not sure why this would be wanted/needed? And just to add, there are a dozen free apps that will do so easily if you really wanted to share... erm, I mean move your music off your iPod.
"i.e., not forcing their product chain down our throats with restrictive DRM)"
As other have pointed out one billion times, Apple doesn't force restrictive DRM on anyone. You can use your iTunes and iPod without one illegal, low quality, DRM'd file. Not one. I can buy 1000 CD's from my local music store, RIP them, and have iTunes synch them to my iPod und DRM'd, legally (unlike the Zune's software counterpart).
If you wish to purchase songs legally for download via the internets, iTunes not only has a far more sane DRM scheme than almost all others, but I've never fealt restricted by it. Not one bit. I can burn CD's, copy them to other computers (5 a year... do you need to reasonably have them on more?), and can even RIP those burned CD's to produce non-DRM'd iTunes purchased songs.
Ease of use. My grandma could pick one up and intuitively figure out how to play her music. Nothing gets in the way of this even with all of the other features the iPod comes with (that the Sony MP3 does not). Plug it into you computer and the songs automatically get put on the iPod. You do all of your "work" in the completely intuitive iTunes, which coincidentally has a huge library of music to buy with one click. If you go into an Apple store and play with one, you quickly realize it's dominance in these areas.
And yes, it looks and feels much better, millions of accessories, etc... you basically answered your own question.
Um, while it's not built in using your iPod to move songs is quite easy as your iPod behaves as an external dive for you to fill up with whatever you wish. Move your Music folder on to the iPod, unplug, plug back into another machine, drag folder onto iTunes icon. Done, music transferred.
All done without any sort of application. It just mounts on your machine just as any other drive would.
"is meant to be anything more than a placeholder, a foot in the door."
No, no no no. Was Apple's first iPod a foot in the door? No, it was done right, and right from the beginning. "Marketplace (sp?) bugs" are supposed to be worked out by doing market research. If you fail in this, your product will fail. Using the public as "beta testers" is the first and final nail in their coffin if you are right (which I do not think you are). I think they merely did what they actually did, and was release a product they thought would be killer, and it's not. End of story.
I mean my goodness, when thousands of people say "the Zune sucks" and it gets around, you actually think MS is going to say "Awesome! The research is going along nicely... then step 3: PROFIT!
NO no no.
Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1
"Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages"
Not with anyone I talk to. Apple is most definitely a hardware company, if you measure this by income. Their software is merely the hitch, at least as far as consumer level offerings. You see this most clearly in OS serialization. Where MS has it calling home, wanting your first born child, and your left pinkie as collateral, the Apple OS has never been serialized. Legalities aside, you can install that single licensed OS X on a thousand machines without any issues whatsoever. Same with iLife, iWork, etc... all of the consumer level offerings are not serialized.
They are a hardware company. They sell Macs and iPods (soon to be phones). People buy Macs because of the software, not the other way around.
...which is why I listen to PRI/NPR. I would be overwhelmed with shock to see hour blocks devoted to true discussion of important topics by leaders in their field on both sides of a story on FOX, or CNN (don't get me started on the utter slop that is nightly local news). In between these discussions they report news via BBC WorldWide, which is one of the most respected, public driven news outlets on the planet.
I watch FOX on occasion for pure enjoyment in exercise. I can talk about all the things flashing on the screen for hours. It's quite fun. I love John Stewart's take on it...
How in the world was this modded insightful... funny maybe, for sheer absurdism, but not insightful. I do quit a bit of gaming on my Mac (too much according to my wife...), and have only been left wanting once (Half-Life/Counterstrike). Currently in my Dock - WoW, Doom III, Quake 4, Civ IV, Sims 2, Star Wars Lego, and Call of Duty 2.
And to add, my new Mac should be arriving in a few days: I will be installing windows on it to do nothing more than run games that I want to check out that never made it to the Mac side, and in the future will most likely just buy PC games and consider the boot to Windows like a gaming partition, and not much more. So, this "no games on the Mac" BS was killed when BootCamp was released, end of story.
I buy movies/TV shows from iTunes quite often and have yet to watch them on my iPod. You can purchase ($19.95) the RCA audio/video cable from Apple and watch all of those show on your own 52" TV if you like. I never understood why people still do not realize this...
"Wow. You have a much lower opinion of the average person than I do."
I'm not sure what you mean. My opinion of the average person is that they are intelligent beings, capable of serious critical thought. I just don't think that people in this country have the tools to even know why they should use these tools with everything. The evidence to suggest this is overwhelming. My goodness, whenever I see a negative political add, watch network news, listen to a stump speech, the prez's weekly address, watch an infomercial, or stumble past a TV evangelist, I am reminded of this reality. And please also remember, without formal indoctrination into the use of critical thought (just like all else we perform), we don't realize we should be using it. Whenever I explain critical thought to someone new, I see the "dear in the headlights" effect faaaaaar to often.
"...so you would disallow certain groups (the govt) from having free speech, in order to protect the masses."
I would never suggest such a thing, it just looks bad and I don't like their reasoning, period. I don't like my government acting in this manner and wish it to stop. I think it's horrible.
Remember, the "government" in the USs case is simply supposed to be the body of humans we grant power to speak for us. They have this power by our grace alone. Since when are "they" a separate entity needing to "correct" the people's view? When a company wants to change its image to correct a wrong *cough*Exxon*cough* , or to instill a more powerful branding image, they hire a PR group. This helps the bottom line, stock holders get more money, the people that made these decisions keep their jobs and also take home a healthy paycheck. Now tell me, why would the government need to do this to correct the news with it's freedom of the press, and free speech protecting that very news. Some might suggest that many in power (greatest concentration of power this world has ever known) may have a reason, an extreme tendency to want to sway public thought through a process such as this. In other words, they would have great motive to skew ("correct) this "news" (in fact, the explicity state that this is it's sole purpose), especially if the news is bad.
"This sounds remarkably like Soviet Communism. Just substituting your guidance instead of the government's."
And the opposite sounds remarkably like facism. You see, the government shouldn't be "guiding" anything in this area. That's my point. This smacks of "they" when "they" are simply supposed to be our elected voice, not news "correctors". Freedome of speech is for we, the people. Critical thought is for us to use to keep our grants of leadership in check. They govern in our name, nothing more.
"We can still choose to research it, compare it to other sources, and accept or reject it. I didn't see anywhere in the article that every US citizen was being forced to watch these new media channels..."
Oh my. You just described what we "should" be doing. However, the vast majority of citizens do not "research" or "compare". That's critical thought, and most have no idea what that even means. Most eat the few bits they catch on their way out the door to work or before feeding the kids before bed. So, while your suggestions are correct, they are far from reality. If you are from another country, I apologize, but if you are from the US, you need to understand that most simply believe what they are told in the few minutes they have. Why do you think politicians hire the best in the business as far as marketing and PR? They know that a few choice comments, some scary words (mushroom cloud in my backyard?! holy shit!) and a nice tie is all they need to sway thought in this country. It's sad, and it's why things like this seem dangerous to people like me. I know for a fact that most do not do what you suggest, and therefore this new "program" can be considered dangerous. I know I know, you're from the "personal responsibility" party, but you have to understand, most don't even know that they are being lied to on all fronts. Just look around to see the proof...
In fact, I believe that the best thing we could do in public education would be to have logic/critical thought instilled into the curriculum. But... yeah...
"It is clear that the target of this design is the long-rumored, video-oriented product. Move the controls off the front of the device in order to allow the screen size to increase substantially. That's it."
A reason for the confusion may be that the actual patent filing shows it navigating songs, not movies.
Addicted: physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects
Some substances (such as cocaine, nicotine, heroine, etc...) actually cause chemical, physiological addiction. Marijuana does not. That's why marijuana is not considered addictive, generally.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I'm agnostic. Until you can prove to me either way that everything we know today is all there is to know (there is nothing left unexplained), I'm going to continue to believe that I have no fucking idea what we are going to learn about in the future. What tidbit of information are we going to glean tomorrow that chips away at one of the infinite definitions for "God"?
My point is this: either until God manifests himself in whatever form happens to fit our definition, or until we can prove that we know all there is to know, I will remain curious, but nothing more.
"Apple is a hardware-company who makes an OS so that their customers can have something to run on their boxes"
"If Apple had been smart, they would have made a version of OSX that could run fine on last generation hardware, the one corporations are using right now,"
You answered your own question. Apple is a hardware company. If they completely shift their quality control and entire business to just software, they wouldn't be Apple anymore, and their entire appeal (OS and hardware created by the same entity, supported by the same entity, etc...) would be lost. No one, and I mean no one is going to beat MS at what MS does best, create businiess alliances that allow for greater control due to size. Apple's OK with simply being better, and their getting rich doing it. 5% is and always has been OK with them. Dont' get me wrong, they would kill for 90%, but they aren't going to sacrifice their entire business model on a hunch for it...
In other words, as soon as Apple stops simply wanting to be better (which is what has kept them afloat for so long), they lose their appeal. Apple just hast to convince people that the switch to a Mac is worth it. I obviously think it is (for the vast majority of computer users), but that's just my opinion.
"(as long as you don't use MS Office)"
And even then, the macro v won't harm you Mac. It will just allow you to send it off to your Windows friends who may get annoyed. I consider it a Windows issue, usually never clean them up, I eventually just trash them though I someone informs me of the problem.
You and your iPod would stop working at 35000 feet. I assume this is a plug in your iPod in the cockpit sort of thing, so...
Music Industry: We want DRM. We want a good, easy to use place to sell our music online! And it MUST have DRM...
Steve Jobs: You got it. Hey, it only works with iPods as well. Isn't product tying great! Fine, but it will also be needed for the hardware it plays on, we've been selling iPods like hotcakes for a while, and we aren't going to license it to anyone else. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.
Music Industry: Can we have more control over our product? Can we do whatever we want after we've made this deal?
Steve Jobs: Nope. They took the deal. It was too good to pass up really. They saw iTunes as a great tool for purchasing music. They were right.
Music Industry: Oh. Uhm... We'll leave. We would like to charge more for music now, even though our distribution for on-line sales is barely noticable compared to CD sales, and even though we are actually selling more music, legally, because of you...
Steve Jobs: No you won't. No you won't.
Music Industry: Oh. Ummm can you open up Fairplay. This will mean there's some competition and we can afford to ditch you. Can you open up fairplay? This way we can sell songs from other Music purchasing sites that will also work on the iPod giving us a bigger avenue for profit. Seems as if this on-line music stuff really works! Have you heard of the iPod? Apparently it's HUGE with the kids these days. I want to make sure that wherever they buy songs from, it will still play with your iPod...
Steve Jobs: Nope. Why would I ever do that? I would rather ditch the entire DRM "thing". Wouldn't that make everyone happy, especially the customers?
Music Industry: We'll make you look like the bad guy. We'll make you look like the bad guy.
Steve Jobs: You can try. I made downloadable music viable, produce the gadget all the cool kids want and I don't sue children and old ladies. Not only that, but I can plausibly (actually) blame all your troubles on you.
Can't believe you were modded up for false information... wait, yes I can...
"The upper-left corner of the menu bar is NOT an active location to click on the apple menu."
Fixed in Tiger, Apple's 2 year old OS.
"The Start Menu's major components are always in the same locations; the recent programs list is always so many entries long, the list of programs to run is so many entries long, etc"
You can't make them bigger? You can't have it contain more than some set amount? I would hate that. I've got 40 apps in my dock ready to launch with one click. Hasn't changed in months. If I need to add another app fine. I'll just make the dock a little smaller. Done. This muscle memory you speak of is so nit picky that it's nearly funny. If you can't see an icon in the dock and click on it, then there are other issues here...
"The Dock resizes and warps around so that you cannot utilize muscle memory to click on dock items."
Wrong again. The Dock only "magnifies" if you tell if to, you can simply turn that off if you wish. And even if it magnifies, the dock will spread outward from your cursor entry point, not moving the icon. If you are telling me that you launch Windows apps with your eyes closed from the Start Menu, then you are FREAK! I love the dock.
"Windows will always leave my drive shortcuts in the same order on my desktop, and even in the same location if I don't use auto-arrange. On the mac, my "Macintosh HD" icon appears in a new location on my desktop on every boot."
This again was fixed in Tiger. But if you are using an older OS, just move the icons on your cluttered desktop (obviously) away from the HD icon. If you do this it will stay in place on reboot. Drive shortcuts? Oh right... Drive C: in My Computer is fantastic. You do need a shortcut for that don't you...
Ineresting... you have Adobe issues that you haven't fixed, and it's OS X's fault. Nice one...
And the one about consitency. You're kidding right? Are you suggesting we accept that Windows menus are more consistent than in OS X? Do you actually own a computer, or is someone typing these posts for you over the phone...
"As a cross-platform developer"
I assume you realize you represent less than 1% of the computer using public's needs/wants as a cross platform developer (most of them wouldn't even know what that means).
"At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception."
Like what? You may be right, but usually in a "discussion" thread you have to actually put up examples. My mom used to use Word, a browser and an E-mail app on her old Dell. With a Mac she now plugs in her digital camera to get photos as soon as I told her she didn't have to do a thing outside of plugging in the camera to the machine (no driver installs, no app installs), and she's been playing with iMovie, something she wouldn't have dreamed she could have done so easily on a Windows machine.
So, while you may be right, I think the majority of the computer using public couldn't care less about your statement, and more about what they want to do rather than what they can do. Remember, I may admit you are right (without examples that would be pertinent to the general public I can't argue anything), but for most people, OS X and their bundled apps are going to be far more rewarding, fun, stress free than anything similar on Vista. For games, BootCamp!
"despite our human influence"? Really? What does that mean? You seem to say that the human "act of defiance" to global warming isn't working, as if we are trying to stop the natural event of global warming when in fact if anything, we're helping this (ahem) *normal occurance* speed along, no doubt.
Despite? Strange word to use.
And if it's "despite" our actions, then what are all of the crazy "scientists" arguing about?
Seriously, in my book it would read "It is warming up DUE to our human influence", but this discussion is for another thread... and you wouldn't find a scientists in the entire world that wouldn't admit that the Earth was once warmer... my goodnes. The goal is to find out why it's happening now. Debate continues...
"So I can give a copy of gd1977-05-08 to my cousin when I see him on christmas break?"
Burn a CD (they're 20 cents a piece), put it on a thumb drive, do a 5 second search on Google to find out how to get the songs off the iPod, etc... remember, this is not something that Apple wanted, the RIAA stipulated it, end of story. This is also why the ability to transfer songs from the iPod to a computer is now part of iTunes 7, but only with iTMS purchased songs. There is no way to legally know for sure that the songs you are "sharing" are legal. Grateful Dead 1977... obscure enough to make my point.
"So I can transfer my mp3s to my work PC without always having to bring the ipod in with me?"
See above. Besides, bringing in your iPod is that much of a chore? My goodness... if you are armless or do not own any shirts or pants with pockets, I apologize. And just to add, you can find out how to do this (transfer songs to another computer), using your iPod right from Apple. You simply aren't aware of it apparently. (remember, your iPod is just an external HD waiting to be used for things just like this! Put your GD song on it before you leave to see your cousin. Takes 3 seconds to find the song Documents/Music/itunes/iTunes music... jeebus man)
"So I have a back-up in case something damages the original?"
You should always have a backup of your music. Using your iPod as "backup" is a horrible idea whether you can easily take the songs off of it or not (which as I have stated twice now, you can, it's just not built into iTunes. Ask the RIAA why you cannot, not Apple). They are stolen all the time, and the HD has a higher probability to fail as it's being transported constantly.
"So I can do what I want with hardware that I own?"
You can, period. Apple just ins't allowed to make moving unprotected songs to any device willy nilly with one click, that's it. Your gripe is quite nit-picky, especially with such easy work-arounds...
"Yeah, but can you get them off once they're on there?"
And why would I want to do this (pretend you are answering to an RIAA board)? I still have the CD's, I've made a backup of my ripped music (as all should), so I'm not sure why this would be wanted/needed? And just to add, there are a dozen free apps that will do so easily if you really wanted to share... erm, I mean move your music off your iPod.
"i.e., not forcing their product chain down our throats with restrictive DRM)"
As other have pointed out one billion times, Apple doesn't force restrictive DRM on anyone. You can use your iTunes and iPod without one illegal, low quality, DRM'd file.
Not one. I can buy 1000 CD's from my local music store, RIP them, and have iTunes synch them to my iPod und DRM'd, legally (unlike the Zune's software counterpart).
If you wish to purchase songs legally for download via the internets, iTunes not only has a far more sane DRM scheme than almost all others, but I've never fealt restricted by it. Not one bit. I can burn CD's, copy them to other computers (5 a year... do you need to reasonably have them on more?), and can even RIP those burned CD's to produce non-DRM'd iTunes purchased songs.
I have no idea why people still claim this.
Ease of use. My grandma could pick one up and intuitively figure out how to play her music. Nothing gets in the way of this even with all of the other features the iPod comes with (that the Sony MP3 does not). Plug it into you computer and the songs automatically get put on the iPod. You do all of your "work" in the completely intuitive iTunes, which coincidentally has a huge library of music to buy with one click. If you go into an Apple store and play with one, you quickly realize it's dominance in these areas.
And yes, it looks and feels much better, millions of accessories, etc... you basically answered your own question.
Um, while it's not built in using your iPod to move songs is quite easy as your iPod behaves as an external dive for you to fill up with whatever you wish. Move your Music folder on to the iPod, unplug, plug back into another machine, drag folder onto iTunes icon. Done, music transferred.
All done without any sort of application. It just mounts on your machine just as any other drive would.
"is meant to be anything more than a placeholder, a foot in the door."
No, no no no. Was Apple's first iPod a foot in the door? No, it was done right, and right from the beginning. "Marketplace (sp?) bugs" are supposed to be worked out by doing market research. If you fail in this, your product will fail. Using the public as "beta testers" is the first and final nail in their coffin if you are right (which I do not think you are). I think they merely did what they actually did, and was release a product they thought would be killer, and it's not. End of story.
I mean my goodness, when thousands of people say "the Zune sucks" and it gets around, you actually think MS is going to say "Awesome! The research is going along nicely... then step 3: PROFIT!
NO no no.
"Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages"
Not with anyone I talk to. Apple is most definitely a hardware company, if you measure this by income. Their software is merely the hitch, at least as far as consumer level offerings. You see this most clearly in OS serialization. Where MS has it calling home, wanting your first born child, and your left pinkie as collateral, the Apple OS has never been serialized. Legalities aside, you can install that single licensed OS X on a thousand machines without any issues whatsoever. Same with iLife, iWork, etc... all of the consumer level offerings are not serialized.
They are a hardware company. They sell Macs and iPods (soon to be phones). People buy Macs because of the software, not the other way around.
...which is why I listen to PRI/NPR. I would be overwhelmed with shock to see hour blocks devoted to true discussion of important topics by leaders in their field on both sides of a story on FOX, or CNN (don't get me started on the utter slop that is nightly local news). In between these discussions they report news via BBC WorldWide, which is one of the most respected, public driven news outlets on the planet.
I watch FOX on occasion for pure enjoyment in exercise. I can talk about all the things flashing on the screen for hours. It's quite fun. I love John Stewart's take on it...
How in the world was this modded insightful... funny maybe, for sheer absurdism, but not insightful. I do quit a bit of gaming on my Mac (too much according to my wife...), and have only been left wanting once (Half-Life/Counterstrike). Currently in my Dock - WoW, Doom III, Quake 4, Civ IV, Sims 2, Star Wars Lego, and Call of Duty 2.
And to add, my new Mac should be arriving in a few days: I will be installing windows on it to do nothing more than run games that I want to check out that never made it to the Mac side, and in the future will most likely just buy PC games and consider the boot to Windows like a gaming partition, and not much more. So, this "no games on the Mac" BS was killed when BootCamp was released, end of story.
asdf
"Radio? Please."
And, if you wanted to, you could purchase the FM tuner, made by Apple to get radio on your iPod. Works good too.
"I will run my iPod until it won't run any more."
And when that happens, you can return it to an Apple store for 10% off of a new one, in any condition. Just an FYI...
I buy movies/TV shows from iTunes quite often and have yet to watch them on my iPod. You can purchase ($19.95) the RCA audio/video cable from Apple and watch all of those show on your own 52" TV if you like. I never understood why people still do not realize this...
"Wow. You have a much lower opinion of the average person than I do."
I'm not sure what you mean. My opinion of the average person is that they are intelligent beings, capable of serious critical thought. I just don't think that people in this country have the tools to even know why they should use these tools with everything. The evidence to suggest this is overwhelming. My goodness, whenever I see a negative political add, watch network news, listen to a stump speech, the prez's weekly address, watch an infomercial, or stumble past a TV evangelist, I am reminded of this reality. And please also remember, without formal indoctrination into the use of critical thought (just like all else we perform), we don't realize we should be using it. Whenever I explain critical thought to someone new, I see the "dear in the headlights" effect faaaaaar to often.
"...so you would disallow certain groups (the govt) from having free speech, in order to protect the masses."
I would never suggest such a thing, it just looks bad and I don't like their reasoning, period. I don't like my government acting in this manner and wish it to stop. I think it's horrible.
Remember, the "government" in the USs case is simply supposed to be the body of humans we grant power to speak for us. They have this power by our grace alone. Since when are "they" a separate entity needing to "correct" the people's view? When a company wants to change its image to correct a wrong *cough*Exxon*cough* , or to instill a more powerful branding image, they hire a PR group. This helps the bottom line, stock holders get more money, the people that made these decisions keep their jobs and also take home a healthy paycheck. Now tell me, why would the government need to do this to correct the news with it's freedom of the press, and free speech protecting that very news. Some might suggest that many in power (greatest concentration of power this world has ever known) may have a reason, an extreme tendency to want to sway public thought through a process such as this. In other words, they would have great motive to skew ("correct) this "news" (in fact, the explicity state that this is it's sole purpose), especially if the news is bad.
"This sounds remarkably like Soviet Communism. Just substituting your guidance instead of the government's."
And the opposite sounds remarkably like facism. You see, the government shouldn't be "guiding" anything in this area. That's my point. This smacks of "they" when "they" are simply supposed to be our elected voice, not news "correctors". Freedome of speech is for we, the people. Critical thought is for us to use to keep our grants of leadership in check. They govern in our name, nothing more.
"We can still choose to research it, compare it to other sources, and accept or reject it. I didn't see anywhere in the article that every US citizen was being forced to watch these new media channels..."
Oh my. You just described what we "should" be doing. However, the vast majority of citizens do not "research" or "compare". That's critical thought, and most have no idea what that even means. Most eat the few bits they catch on their way out the door to work or before feeding the kids before bed. So, while your suggestions are correct, they are far from reality. If you are from another country, I apologize, but if you are from the US, you need to understand that most simply believe what they are told in the few minutes they have. Why do you think politicians hire the best in the business as far as marketing and PR? They know that a few choice comments, some scary words (mushroom cloud in my backyard?! holy shit!) and a nice tie is all they need to sway thought in this country. It's sad, and it's why things like this seem dangerous to people like me. I know for a fact that most do not do what you suggest, and therefore this new "program" can be considered dangerous. I know I know, you're from the "personal responsibility" party, but you have to understand, most don't even know that they are being lied to on all fronts. Just look around to see the proof...
In fact, I believe that the best thing we could do in public education would be to have logic/critical thought instilled into the curriculum. But... yeah...
"It is clear that the target of this design is the long-rumored, video-oriented product. Move the controls off the front of the device in order to allow the screen size to increase substantially. That's it."
A reason for the confusion may be that the actual patent filing shows it navigating songs, not movies.
Addicted: physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects
Some substances (such as cocaine, nicotine, heroine, etc...) actually cause chemical, physiological addiction. Marijuana does not.
That's why marijuana is not considered addictive, generally.