I agree with you, but in fact, it would harm their products. Their product isn't iTunes and the music with it its the iPod. Why do you think they are locking it in so bad? As soon as other people can syncronize songs over iTMS Apple is going to have serious competition because now they are actually going to have to stop putting out devices that not only look good but need to function for more than a year also.
Yes it is. You can't blame everything on the RIAA. There are two reasons it is that one, one is because of the DRM, and the other is so that Apple can sell their players. Some people seem to lose sight in the fact that Apple is a business, and not a religion. If the RIAA tomorrow said that the DRM could be stripped from their songs, Apple would not do it, simply because that would open up other players.
The other problem is that their Music Store is bundled inside of their Music Player software. Why is that a problem? Because I might want to syncronize my music with another player, but iTunes does not support other players. Do you not see this, or are has Steve Jobs blinded you with the "light." But seriously, Apple is not the only company doing this, but they need to be punished simply because they are the majority. Take down the big dog, and the others will follow.
If you don't see a problem here you have a bigger problem.
I don't believe that I spoke at all about playing music on different operating system platforms, but I am not using a Mac. Like the majority of the world, I am using Microsoft Windows, and you should expect the other 80 percent majority to be doing so as well. Stop being arrogant. You know exactly what I am talking about. If I want to be able to play this music on another mobile player (there, I said it) I am forced to go out of my way, burn music to a CD, and then rip it again.
This is not about switching between platforms. This is about switching between players. The fact that it is stated absoultely no where that you must own an iPod in order to run this music mobilely. I should not have to use a work-around in order to get my music on another player. I paid for it. Napser and Rhapsody do the same things, but Apple is the majority leader, and they are the ones who own the players that they are locking in. To me, that sounds like grounds for an Anti-trust lawsuit. Things need to get changed, going after the top-dog sounds like the way to do it.
I probably should have posted under this topic instead of arguing my point under several other child topics. Well, that's my fault, but at least I have enough time to make an argument on here. So here we go.
Something needs to be done about this. I do not believe that the iPod is the best player out there merely the best marketed one. After being an unhappy iPod owner I was looking forward to getting a new player as soon as Best Buy was ready to honor their replacement policy (still waiting on that one). Fortunately enough for me, I purchase all of my music at the store so I actually own the plastic format. Unfortunately for other people, though, any music bought through iTunes automatically ties you into using Apple players forever.
Why is this? If you enjoy your music, and you have enough money to spend, you are probably going to purchase a good amount of music from iTunes. Sure? Why not? It works well with your iPod. Well, there's the problem, somewhere down the line another company comes out with a great player that works better, sounds better, and looks better. Oh shit, you invested $500 into music on iTunes and can't transfer that to the new player (legally, or effortlessly).
You can't say that "You should have known this", or "It is your fault" because not everyone is as smart as us. People buy brands. They don't realize in a year that their toy is going to break, and their might be a better alternative out there. There are no warnings that people read about these potential problems. This is the problem; the forced tie-in to all future Apple products.
So you mean leveraging their "monopoly" (they haven't been convicted yet) to tie you into buying their future products is right? Say I have $500 worth of music on iTunes; I never really liked my iPod, and it dies a few months after I bought it. Now, instead of purchasing a different player out there, I am forced to buy an iPod unless I want to do one of a few things:
Rebuy all of that music. That is $500 worth of music, or go through obtrusively long or illegal processes in order to convert the music to the other format.
Let's put this example up in the air, because I am going to most likely be hitting this wall soon.
I have purchased music like a good little slave through iTunes because I was given an iPod last year as a late Christmas present. The iPod has been in the shop three times, and is most likely going to need to get replaced. Bar all design and hardware problems, here is the main problem. I am now forced to buy an iPod in order to play the music I legally bought from iTunes. Thereby eliminating the competition. People make buying mistakes and usually live with then until they can change that matter, but with Apple and iTunes, you must live with those mistakes unless you want to purchase the music all over again.
Yes, but I cannot play music bought on iTunes before my iPod broke on a Creative device. I cannot play music bought from iTunes through Winamp (without going through a process that should not be necessary). That is the point.
No, what is ironic is the fact that Apple was toting the G5 and some phantom benchmarks around for years and now the real truth comes out about Intel's processors.
Many of the users of WoW have done all they can to reduce the lag on their end. It's time for Blizzard to step up to the plate and use the massive amounts of money we give them monthly to get some better servers. I'm not so good with math but 5,000,000 users paying 12 dollars a month is.... $60 million?
Finally someone that understands why the damn servers always lags. I am tired of hearing "Add more ram to your system" or "My game doesn't lag!" Which is total bullshit because unless you're inside their damn network you have lag. I totally agree with you though, you'd think all that money and they could upgrade some of their servers a bit.
Unfortunately this system is taking longer than expected to bring content up to par, but at least they didn't leave it in the wind, and we can expect some more coming. The real problem is the developers, not the system, which sans a few problems is a great piece of hardware. The real problem is the price of the system, it needs to come down a good $100 USD before its a viable mainstream platform for handheld gaming. Not to mention the vast edge that Nintendo has because of the exact reason that you explained: the DS has support to play GBA games.
But I agree though. I am primarily a PC gamer, and I see no reason to buy either system. My brother owns a PSP, loves the system because of all the different things it can do, but is waiting patiently for the games to hit the market. He uses it as an MP3 player, picture viewer, and portable web-browser while at school (thank god while I was there I convinced the high school to buy wireless hardware). He doesn't use it for movies, and I'm not sure if may people actually do.
Microsoft should also learn that having the most powerful parts does not make a system inherently better than another. At its core, the PSP is more powerful than the DS (dual MIPS 300 MHz processors (locked at 200 Mhz max), more powerful graphics engine), but the DS, at least in Japan, has sold more. Why? Even with a relatively weaker system, the games being developed for it are fun and appealing to more than just the 18-35 demographic. That's why games like the Brain Training games have been so successful and continue to stay on the charts.
But this is not totally Sony's fault. You also need to take in the factor that Nintendo's system supports a wide library of their previous games, so people are able to easily upgrade to the DS without worrying about losing all of their favorite titles from the GBA. Even though there are more developers currently on this system, that is the major reason why this system is selling more. Its the same boat in why the Playstation 2 outsold the Xbox and Gamecube combined worldwide. They had the games from Playstation, and the developers to back them. The PSP is a great system, and I believe the developers will start to flock there. But until original content starts to spring up (e.g. not the stuff from the PS2 because the systems are vastly similar) the DS is still going to sell.
Both Sony and MS has to realize though that the kinds of games that makes their console platforms popular (sports and multiplayer 3rd person shooters) don't make a handheld system popular. People that like Nintendo Gameboys like puzzle games, RPGs and platformers, as well as novelty games that feature touch screen or card readers, not sports or 3rd person shooters.
This is true, but Sony is not the only company making games for the PSP (even though it may seem like it). There have been a lot of companies simply porting games over from the PS2 because the hardware is similar, and that is precisely why you are seeing the vast majority of the above games. Its not because Sony is pushing for these games (even though SOCOM is on there) its because the developers haven't hit the system yet.
I don't understand why everyone is bashing the PSP; Nintendo has the leverage in this market, and they also have the installed userbase. If their system can play the old GB/GBA games than they already have hundreds of games ready to be played, and the people can safely upgrade their systems without worry. Sony doesn't have this, and they are fighting to get developers to move to their platform to create original content for the system. There is a reason that the DS is selling more, and its not because the games are better; Its because it has a bigger library of games, and more developers. This is the same reason why the Playstation 2 has sold the vast number of units worldwide, because it played a good portion of the original Playstation games.
I don't think Microsoft would target their "handheld" at gaming, at least, not at first. It would not make sense. What would make sense, though, is to go after the iPod market with a Windows Mobile device. It would not take much to redesign a PDA into a better media device, allow it to syncronize with the X360, Vista, and XPMCE. They are already launching the media service with MTV, which was a good play on their part.
The iPod is a brand not a good piece of hardware. My 4G iPod (less than 9 months old) is sitting here frozen right now and has been doing this for the past three months. The only thing Apple has going for them is the brand, and the fake veil of the iPod being the best player out there (which is not true, its merely a mediocre player). But that's brand loyalty for you.
Even though Microsoft has done some dumb things in the past, I believe we need someone to challenge Apple and force them to get their hardware up to par with everyone else. Creative may have some crappy UI and Software (where Apple really excels, and I am not disputing that) but their players are technically better in most ways than the iPod.
Same in quality? Break after 6 months of use, batteries dying, and bad firmware? Thanks, but no thanks. I can keep my iPod seperate from my cell phone, so when it dies a third time and has to be sent back to get fixed I can still talk to people.
Unfortunately you have dealt with one of the worst possible situations on any Internet community. The only other thing worse than the such would be some sort of sexual predator. Such communities were meant as a social extention of the already existing inter-personal social groups that exist in high school, college, and life. I am not trying to discredit your anger, but it is not MySpace's fault that your son was buying drugs off that website. He most likely met, or was introduced to the so-called buyer out of the website's network. This website is being used as an alternative to cell phones. What I am trying to say; your son would probably have got into the same click and social groups with or without this website.
Actually, I have been using the Internet since long before Burst was founded. It was an obvious engineering solution even 20 years ago. Well, except perhaps to technical know-nothings like you.
Then why didn't you invent the technology? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft, or Real invent the technology before Burst did? There's a difference in saying that the so called 'engineering solution' was obvious after the fact, and three or four companies coming up with the solution roughly around the same time period. I am not a fan of the patent system, but they are the law, and Apple must follow the law.
Technical know-nothings? Did they teach you that at college?
Okay, seeing how Burst was founded probably years before you got the Internet spells out great for "and one that has been used for on-line multimedia distribution since before burst.com was even founded." Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass. The funny part here, if it was Microsoft attempting this, it would be a totally opposite argument on your end.
The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. It might be a "obvious engineering solution" now, but it wasn't an "obvious engineering solution" ten years ago.
So this is how it works now? When Apple doesn't get their way (an attempt to license software from Burst) they go at their throats and attempt to take them out of business? Burst didn't start this litigation, Apple did, because they wouldn't negotiate a cheap license. I'm sorry, but I would stick it in Steve Jobs face as well if he came to me:
"I'm Steve Jobs, you know, from Apple. Give me a license!"
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, but in fact, it would harm their products. Their product isn't iTunes and the music with it its the iPod. Why do you think they are locking it in so bad? As soon as other people can syncronize songs over iTMS Apple is going to have serious competition because now they are actually going to have to stop putting out devices that not only look good but need to function for more than a year also.
Great. If I had mod points, you would be getting them. Heh.
Yes it is. You can't blame everything on the RIAA. There are two reasons it is that one, one is because of the DRM, and the other is so that Apple can sell their players. Some people seem to lose sight in the fact that Apple is a business, and not a religion. If the RIAA tomorrow said that the DRM could be stripped from their songs, Apple would not do it, simply because that would open up other players.
The other problem is that their Music Store is bundled inside of their Music Player software. Why is that a problem? Because I might want to syncronize my music with another player, but iTunes does not support other players. Do you not see this, or are has Steve Jobs blinded you with the "light." But seriously, Apple is not the only company doing this, but they need to be punished simply because they are the majority. Take down the big dog, and the others will follow.
If you don't see a problem here you have a bigger problem.
I don't believe that I spoke at all about playing music on different operating system platforms, but I am not using a Mac. Like the majority of the world, I am using Microsoft Windows, and you should expect the other 80 percent majority to be doing so as well. Stop being arrogant. You know exactly what I am talking about. If I want to be able to play this music on another mobile player (there, I said it) I am forced to go out of my way, burn music to a CD, and then rip it again.
This is not about switching between platforms. This is about switching between players. The fact that it is stated absoultely no where that you must own an iPod in order to run this music mobilely. I should not have to use a work-around in order to get my music on another player. I paid for it. Napser and Rhapsody do the same things, but Apple is the majority leader, and they are the ones who own the players that they are locking in. To me, that sounds like grounds for an Anti-trust lawsuit. Things need to get changed, going after the top-dog sounds like the way to do it.
I probably should have posted under this topic instead of arguing my point under several other child topics. Well, that's my fault, but at least I have enough time to make an argument on here. So here we go.
Something needs to be done about this. I do not believe that the iPod is the best player out there merely the best marketed one. After being an unhappy iPod owner I was looking forward to getting a new player as soon as Best Buy was ready to honor their replacement policy (still waiting on that one). Fortunately enough for me, I purchase all of my music at the store so I actually own the plastic format. Unfortunately for other people, though, any music bought through iTunes automatically ties you into using Apple players forever.
Why is this? If you enjoy your music, and you have enough money to spend, you are probably going to purchase a good amount of music from iTunes. Sure? Why not? It works well with your iPod. Well, there's the problem, somewhere down the line another company comes out with a great player that works better, sounds better, and looks better. Oh shit, you invested $500 into music on iTunes and can't transfer that to the new player (legally, or effortlessly).
You can't say that "You should have known this", or "It is your fault" because not everyone is as smart as us. People buy brands. They don't realize in a year that their toy is going to break, and their might be a better alternative out there. There are no warnings that people read about these potential problems. This is the problem; the forced tie-in to all future Apple products.
So you mean leveraging their "monopoly" (they haven't been convicted yet) to tie you into buying their future products is right? Say I have $500 worth of music on iTunes; I never really liked my iPod, and it dies a few months after I bought it. Now, instead of purchasing a different player out there, I am forced to buy an iPod unless I want to do one of a few things:
Rebuy all of that music. That is $500 worth of music, or go through obtrusively long or illegal processes in order to convert the music to the other format.
You tell me.
Let's put this example up in the air, because I am going to most likely be hitting this wall soon.
I have purchased music like a good little slave through iTunes because I was given an iPod last year as a late Christmas present. The iPod has been in the shop three times, and is most likely going to need to get replaced. Bar all design and hardware problems, here is the main problem. I am now forced to buy an iPod in order to play the music I legally bought from iTunes. Thereby eliminating the competition. People make buying mistakes and usually live with then until they can change that matter, but with Apple and iTunes, you must live with those mistakes unless you want to purchase the music all over again.
Yes, but I cannot play music bought on iTunes before my iPod broke on a Creative device. I cannot play music bought from iTunes through Winamp (without going through a process that should not be necessary). That is the point.
Apple is just as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft. They just haven't been convicted yet.
I was talking about Firefox. ;)
No, what is ironic is the fact that Apple was toting the G5 and some phantom benchmarks around for years and now the real truth comes out about Intel's processors.
There's a word for that: Propaganda. It seems you believe those bullshit TV commericals that Apple is running.
Ouch. That's why the Pentium is now inside a Mac. Did you get the memo?
Many of the users of WoW have done all they can to reduce the lag on their end. It's time for Blizzard to step up to the plate and use the massive amounts of money we give them monthly to get some better servers. I'm not so good with math but 5,000,000 users paying 12 dollars a month is .... $60 million?
Finally someone that understands why the damn servers always lags. I am tired of hearing "Add more ram to your system" or "My game doesn't lag!" Which is total bullshit because unless you're inside their damn network you have lag. I totally agree with you though, you'd think all that money and they could upgrade some of their servers a bit.
Unfortunately this system is taking longer than expected to bring content up to par, but at least they didn't leave it in the wind, and we can expect some more coming. The real problem is the developers, not the system, which sans a few problems is a great piece of hardware. The real problem is the price of the system, it needs to come down a good $100 USD before its a viable mainstream platform for handheld gaming. Not to mention the vast edge that Nintendo has because of the exact reason that you explained: the DS has support to play GBA games.
But I agree though. I am primarily a PC gamer, and I see no reason to buy either system. My brother owns a PSP, loves the system because of all the different things it can do, but is waiting patiently for the games to hit the market. He uses it as an MP3 player, picture viewer, and portable web-browser while at school (thank god while I was there I convinced the high school to buy wireless hardware). He doesn't use it for movies, and I'm not sure if may people actually do.
Microsoft should also learn that having the most powerful parts does not make a system inherently better than another. At its core, the PSP is more powerful than the DS (dual MIPS 300 MHz processors (locked at 200 Mhz max), more powerful graphics engine), but the DS, at least in Japan, has sold more. Why? Even with a relatively weaker system, the games being developed for it are fun and appealing to more than just the 18-35 demographic. That's why games like the Brain Training games have been so successful and continue to stay on the charts.
But this is not totally Sony's fault. You also need to take in the factor that Nintendo's system supports a wide library of their previous games, so people are able to easily upgrade to the DS without worrying about losing all of their favorite titles from the GBA. Even though there are more developers currently on this system, that is the major reason why this system is selling more. Its the same boat in why the Playstation 2 outsold the Xbox and Gamecube combined worldwide. They had the games from Playstation, and the developers to back them. The PSP is a great system, and I believe the developers will start to flock there. But until original content starts to spring up (e.g. not the stuff from the PS2 because the systems are vastly similar) the DS is still going to sell.
Both Sony and MS has to realize though that the kinds of games that makes their console platforms popular (sports and multiplayer 3rd person shooters) don't make a handheld system popular. People that like Nintendo Gameboys like puzzle games, RPGs and platformers, as well as novelty games that feature touch screen or card readers, not sports or 3rd person shooters.
This is true, but Sony is not the only company making games for the PSP (even though it may seem like it). There have been a lot of companies simply porting games over from the PS2 because the hardware is similar, and that is precisely why you are seeing the vast majority of the above games. Its not because Sony is pushing for these games (even though SOCOM is on there) its because the developers haven't hit the system yet.
I don't understand why everyone is bashing the PSP; Nintendo has the leverage in this market, and they also have the installed userbase. If their system can play the old GB/GBA games than they already have hundreds of games ready to be played, and the people can safely upgrade their systems without worry. Sony doesn't have this, and they are fighting to get developers to move to their platform to create original content for the system. There is a reason that the DS is selling more, and its not because the games are better; Its because it has a bigger library of games, and more developers. This is the same reason why the Playstation 2 has sold the vast number of units worldwide, because it played a good portion of the original Playstation games.
I don't think Microsoft would target their "handheld" at gaming, at least, not at first. It would not make sense. What would make sense, though, is to go after the iPod market with a Windows Mobile device. It would not take much to redesign a PDA into a better media device, allow it to syncronize with the X360, Vista, and XPMCE. They are already launching the media service with MTV, which was a good play on their part.
The iPod is a brand not a good piece of hardware. My 4G iPod (less than 9 months old) is sitting here frozen right now and has been doing this for the past three months. The only thing Apple has going for them is the brand, and the fake veil of the iPod being the best player out there (which is not true, its merely a mediocre player). But that's brand loyalty for you.
Even though Microsoft has done some dumb things in the past, I believe we need someone to challenge Apple and force them to get their hardware up to par with everyone else. Creative may have some crappy UI and Software (where Apple really excels, and I am not disputing that) but their players are technically better in most ways than the iPod.
Same in quality? Break after 6 months of use, batteries dying, and bad firmware? Thanks, but no thanks. I can keep my iPod seperate from my cell phone, so when it dies a third time and has to be sent back to get fixed I can still talk to people.
Unfortunately you have dealt with one of the worst possible situations on any Internet community. The only other thing worse than the such would be some sort of sexual predator. Such communities were meant as a social extention of the already existing inter-personal social groups that exist in high school, college, and life. I am not trying to discredit your anger, but it is not MySpace's fault that your son was buying drugs off that website. He most likely met, or was introduced to the so-called buyer out of the website's network. This website is being used as an alternative to cell phones. What I am trying to say; your son would probably have got into the same click and social groups with or without this website.
Actually, I have been using the Internet since long before Burst was founded. It was an obvious engineering solution even 20 years ago. Well, except perhaps to technical know-nothings like you.
Then why didn't you invent the technology? Why didn't Apple, Microsoft, or Real invent the technology before Burst did? There's a difference in saying that the so called 'engineering solution' was obvious after the fact, and three or four companies coming up with the solution roughly around the same time period. I am not a fan of the patent system, but they are the law, and Apple must follow the law.
Technical know-nothings? Did they teach you that at college?
Okay, seeing how Burst was founded probably years before you got the Internet spells out great for "and one that has been used for on-line multimedia distribution since before burst.com was even founded." Turn off OSX and get Steve Job's dick out of your ass. The funny part here, if it was Microsoft attempting this, it would be a totally opposite argument on your end.
The fact is, Apple wanted to license the technology, and when they didn't like the agreement instead of working at something they decided to sue. It might be a "obvious engineering solution" now, but it wasn't an "obvious engineering solution" ten years ago.
Asshole.
So this is how it works now? When Apple doesn't get their way (an attempt to license software from Burst) they go at their throats and attempt to take them out of business? Burst didn't start this litigation, Apple did, because they wouldn't negotiate a cheap license. I'm sorry, but I would stick it in Steve Jobs face as well if he came to me:
"I'm Steve Jobs, you know, from Apple. Give me a license!"
Yes, but we're talking about Desktop operating systems here. You can't buy Apache at Best Buy.