"So, by one of my fans simply playing my content with WMP11, their DRM will be imposed on my copyrighted content without my knowledge or consent, my rights as a copyright holder, content creator/artist are trumped/destroyed, as well as my revenue stream from donations from people who've been given copies of my work is effectively terminated?"
Of course not. How the user goes about playing the CD that he obtained is up to him, not you. The CD itself has not been changed nor has the user distributed any DRM-encumbered files. By ripping the CD and putting the resulting content in the container of his choice using the tool of his choice, the user is simply exercising his fair use rights. Your license cannot restrict that.
Had you placed the requirement that the user only listen to the CD in entirety without interuption and he chose to listen to only one song, he wouldn't have damaged you in any way either. You don't own the listener.
Your revenue stream in this example is based on donations. Nothing the end user can do in regard to DRM-limiting his own copies can possibly effect that. Stop being absurd.
Yes, provided you don't mind vendor lockin and restricted device support.
Apple's scheme will support and PC that runs iTunes, any video iPod, and a TV with a computer/iPod/iTV hookup. Amazon's is similar with the exception of iTV (though Apple doesn't have iTV yet either). MS has iTV-like devices that Amazon may be able to use.
These services don't really exist in any mature form yet. Expect them to evolve significantly.
Of course, if you have a Tivo and a PC, you can use the bridge software to provide identical features but through different mechanisms. This combination provides all the capability of Apple's service but without DRM and support for all devices (but not OS X). The question is would you rather pay a flat monthly fee for Tivo (plus cable/sat) and get unlimited programming, high bandwidth, broad device support, but variable quality, or would you rather pay ala carte pricing (plus broadband fees) and get slow downloads, DRM and vendor lockin but with consistent quality. Frankly, I see uses for both but I'm not giving up broadcast TV just yet.
MS already does this with the XBox360. What it doesn't do is provide the equivalent of the iTunes Store. Apple doesn't download to the iTV, it downloads to iTunes. Likewise, MS wouldn't download to the XBox via Live, it would download to WMP. The XBox360 doesn't have sufficient local storage to be useful and it doesn't have a powerful enough HID to interact with a storefront (and neither does the iTV).
Of course, Apple was not the first to "Get It" in either case and prior to Apple "Getting It" it was not "To Be Gotten". mp3 players were not a product for the general public when Apple got involved but they were successful among earlier adopters (remember that the iPod was originally positioned as a mac-only accessory). Jobs himself poopoo-ed video on portable players while Apple was working internally on delivering the feature. Apple may well dominate both markets but it certainly wasn't the first to "Get It".
"...which is EXACTLY what Apples product is targeting, the huge portion of the population who think Tivo is a difficult thing to set up and who still 30+ years later can't program the timer on their damn VCRs."
iTV and iTunes is differentiated from Tivos and VCRs by far more than ease of use. Who Apple is targetting is not who you say though they will gladly take those customers as well.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make them "not comparable". For a cost-conscious buyer such a comparison might well be of interest, and performance is in the eye of the beholder. Apple's low cost machine is only available with a 13" screen and that may be "low performance" for someone who wants something smaller or larger. Apple isn't really about choice.
If you "wouldn't call it night and day" then how can you say CD wins "hands down"? I'd call the level of exaggeration to vary from extreme to absurd. My system has nearly $30K in amplification alone and I don't claim to hear differences between CDs and well-encoded mp3's. I don't listen to CDs anymore myself and I would consider myself an audiophile.
That's just it. Different buyers want different things so different comparisons may be of interest. A buyer on a budget may want to know what the benefit of paying more for a Macbook might be compared to the cheapest Dell. The point is that any machines can be compared (and are therefore comparable;-) ). I personally am not price-sensitive and I want a large, high resolution screen. My current machine is a MBP but I've owned plenty of Dell's in the past.
Anyone who thinks that vinyl offers superior low frequency response needs his eyes opened with a glaring example of the inferiority of the format. It doesn't matter that the lows were being produced by canon shots. I've heard the Telarc recording on CD using a system capable of playing it. I've never heard it off vinyl (even though I owned it back in the day) because there were precious few tables capable of tracking it.
Yes, it's true that the Telarc recording was done using digital. Of course it was since digital mastering is superior. If you insist on using inferior mastering equipment then I suppose it doesn't matter if you distribute on inferior media as well.
2) I know vinyl is poor quality. I was an adult when CDs were introduced and I owned a collection of vinyl. I also owned nice equipment to play them on. Loudness does NOT cause clipping. If your equalizer does then turn if off because it's a POS. Loudness is a function of the gain on the final amplification stage. Mismatched vinyl gain stages can also cause clipping. No difference there between digital and analog. What is different is that vinyl is sensitive to vibration and loud passages can cause skipping. With CD/mp3 that is impossible except with the very worst gear. 3) Vinyl deteriorates with play EVERY time with EVERY piece of equipment. You apparently have no experience with vinyl. If you have to lessen pressure to prolong lifecycle then you've admitted that vinyl deteriorates with play. 4) Quadraphonic was an abysmal failure. Stereo itself is poorly presented in vinyl as compared to digital (where stereo separation is nearly complete). Stereo separation at the cartridge level is 15-30dB and it degrades from there. In constrast, stereo separation on CD is infinite and is only reduced by crosstalk in the analog stages. There is no contest.
"Why take an analogue source (a music instrument) and convert it's signal (sound) down to a digital level which only approximates the source when you can record across a fully analogue platform and maintain quality?"
Because analog recording systems are also "only approximates the source" and digital recordings now do it better. Digital and analog techniques each introduce distortions. With digital those distortions can be rendered inaudible. With analog it is far more difficult.
"I play my records very loud with thumping base and the needle never skips because I know how to use a turntable. CD's naturally skip way more than vinyl, you just don't notice it because of the buffer."
Then you don't play it that loud then. As for CDs skipping, where is your proof of that? You claim that skipping occurs that now one can ever see. Is that like the tree that falls in the woods?
"What kind of music is very important in selecting a format."
No, it's not.
"If you're listening to some digital music that's recorded on digital devices you might as well use a digital format, the CD. If you are listening to some analogue-recorded music (i.e. a classical ensemble/grand piano) you're better off sticking to the original recording format."
Why is that?
"The frequency range on vinyl is wider, although many of the possible freqencies on vinyl are beyond the range of human hearing."
The frequency range of CD is beyond the range of human hearing as well. Vinyl's high end is destroyed quickly by repeated plays assuming you have a cartridge that can retrieve the information to begin with.
"Some people argue these frequencies can be "felt" as you listen to the music but I hold those claims to be bogus."
Yes, they are bogus.
"Both CD's and Vinyl have their uses. Given that you take care of your vinyl and it is of good (heavy) production quality your vinyl will last longer."
Vinyl is good for scratching (if you can consider that good). Otherwise it is useless. Vinyl will never last longer than CD unless you don't play it.
"There's no need to be insulting. But if you want to throw stones, answer this: Are you a musician? Do you own any vinyl?"
Yes, I was a semi-professional symphony violist BEFORE CD's even existed. I owned vinyl and good equipment to play it on. No, I don't own vinyl anymore. Why would I? I am also a trained electrical engineeer. My stereo system includes all Mark Levinson amplification, full custom loudspeakers designed by Joe D'Appolito himself, and a custom-made BagEnd subwoofer setup that consists of 3KW of amplification and 12 18" drivers. I know what I'm talking about.
Since we are comparing audio penis sizes now, let's hear your measurements.
Ever hear of the Telarc 1812 vinyl pressing? There is virtually no gear capable of playing it without the needle being thrown out of the groove. Why? Because the canon shots produce prodigous amounts of low bass. Funny that the C version of that plays just fine in the cheapest CD player.
You have a defective CD then and you should ask for replacement. Do you expect your vinyl record to be pristine after 10 years of use? Have you ever even had 10 year old vinyl?
"...but any compressed codec like mp3 will never be bit-for-bit perfect like a CD..."
True (for a lossy compression scheme), but the question is whether it matters. The equipment used to play it is often substandard anyway. A lot of work goes into the perceived quality of various codecs and, given sufficient bitrates, many trained ears can have a hard time distiguishing. No doubt that lossless compression (or no compression) will always be best, but it's an exaggeration to say "the CD wins hands down".
If you think your lows are so much better with vinyl, go find yourself a copy of Telarc 1812 on vinyl and compare it to the same version on CD. Don't be too disappointed when your tonearm shoots up into the air on the first canon shot though.
Vinyl lovers who think lows are better with vinyl are truly deluded. Vinyl is old school crap. Perhaps you should invest in quality digital gear.
1) Then buy a CD then. 2) Wrong. Vinyl is poor quality. If you like to play music loud then don't use vinyl since the needle will skip out of the groove on loud base notes. Loudness doesn't cause clipping at the source level except with vinyl. 3) Wrong. Vinyl deteriorates with plays. CDs have a shelf life of 70+ years regardless of usage. 4) Wrong. Essentially no vinyl was recorded with 4 tracks, and quad-track vinyl performed poorly and had virtually no adoption. Digital is a far better medium for multitrack recording (even 2 channels).
"If you want quality, why go for a CD when vinyl boasts superior quality. The quality is especially noticable in the low range."
Because it doesn't ESPECIALLY in the low range. Vinyl doesn't have much bass response below 50Hz and bass reproduction is seriously difficult with vinyl at high volume levels. Bass response has always been where digital has stomped vinyl. Noise and distortion are others.
"If you're looking to do any DJ work you use vinyl. There's no ifs ands or butts about it. MP3's will sound like shit when you put them through kilowatt powered speakers. You CAN get some really high qual MP3's but for the most part, vinyl is a safer bet."
Spoken like someone who knows nothing of what he's talking about.
We all know what great sound a DJ gets out of his vinyl when he straps a potato to the tonearm to keep the forkprong he uses as a needle from jumping out of the groove. Scratching produces such great audio quality.
The warmth of that needle moving through the grooves is melting the vinyl underneath. Each play is worse than the one before it. No matter, they all suck anyway.
"Plus, analog media capture a much higher range of supertones and subtones beyond the human range of hearing, which nonetheless change and enhance those sounds that are within our range of hearing."
No, they don't and no, they don't. Digital sources vastly outperform vinyl at the low and high ends of the spectrum and no scientific study has ever proved that very high frequencies effect our hearing. Infrasonic frequencies definitely don't; they can't be reproduced by the loudspeakers and, if they could, they would cause us to vomit and crap our pants. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note
Nice try, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Vinyl is far more lossy than CD, especially after you've run that needle through the groove a few times. It isn't as though kids are buying high quality tables and cartridges to play their 7" singles on. Vinyl is susceptable to mechanical distortions (wow, flutter) and has serious noise issues with typical vinyl pressings. Are these new pressings being done with realtime mastering and virgin vinyl? I seriously doubt it. Vinyl sucks; it always did and people who love it today love it in spite of how terrible it is.
A well encoded mp3, on the other hand, can be difficult to distinguish from it's CD source. mp3's properly done are far superior to vinyl.
Only if you require prices to be similar in order to "compare".
"Compare" has two meanings. One is "to examine in order to note the similarities and differences of" and the other "to represent as similar". All laptops are sufficiently similar that they are comparable in the first sense if not in the second. When "comparing" two machines there is no reason to say they aren't "comparable"; that just sounds stupid. Simply explain the similarities and differences and let the reader decide.
All computers these days have nearly identical parts inside and run software capable of performing nearly identical tasks. If you think price (especially a premium price) and the appearance of the skin that contains them is what most matters in a computer, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. It is only an opinion, however.
I always find it interesting that when a comparision of a mac and a PC is made, it will inevitably be made using the mac as the definition of what hardware is desirable. It's as if it's assumed that only Apple can figure out what the customer wants.
"The CHEAP ones aren't comparable. Apple doesn't compete there."
There you go. No one should make this comparison because it's not to Apple's strengths. We should only compare product catagories that are perfectly aligned on what Apple offers.
Why shouldn't a Dell $600 laptop be compared to a Macbook? For the extra money, don't you think that the Macbook would compare favorably? Is it simply a fear that the price will be the deciding factor? Shouldn't it be?
The fact is that Dell is a company that is optimized to compete on price and Apple definitely is not. Why should Dell have to be compared to Apple in Apple's market while Apple not be compared in Dell's? Are you afraid of a truly objective comparison?
Infamous means "having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious." You really think Dell's discounts are "infamous"? I think most buyers think discounts are a good thing.
DRM doesn't prevent music from being copied; it prevents the copies from being played in unauthorized devices. You are free to copy DRMed files to your heart's content. The Sony rootkit disables capabilities of the computer (among other things). Just because the two might be means to a similar end does not make them identical.
"...and instead only play the "enhanced CD" music files which -- guess what -- were most likely DRM'd WMA files!"
I'm not surprised that you would make a claim without knowing the facts just because it would somehow support your point of view. Why DRMed WMA files? Could be anything, including simply playing the red book audio tracks themselves. The fact is that you've just admitted that you don't know.
I'm sure you'll go on believing, regardless of facts to the contrary, that a rootkit is DRM so that you can rant and rave about how Zune is somehow "infecting" every music file with DRM as though those two were somehow related.
Those are not examples of DRMed content, they are examples of clandestine copy protection schemes employed on audio CDs. They are dispicable but aren't related to the topic at hand. The Sony rootkit and DRM are entirely different things.
While the article you linked to makes mention of DRM and attibutes it to the EFF, the EFF itself does not make that mistake. See here: http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/
Slashdot Mirror
"So, by one of my fans simply playing my content with WMP11, their DRM will be imposed on my copyrighted content without my knowledge or consent, my rights as a copyright holder, content creator/artist are trumped/destroyed, as well as my revenue stream from donations from people who've been given copies of my work is effectively terminated?"
Of course not. How the user goes about playing the CD that he obtained is up to him, not you. The CD itself has not been changed nor has the user distributed any DRM-encumbered files. By ripping the CD and putting the resulting content in the container of his choice using the tool of his choice, the user is simply exercising his fair use rights. Your license cannot restrict that.
Had you placed the requirement that the user only listen to the CD in entirety without interuption and he chose to listen to only one song, he wouldn't have damaged you in any way either. You don't own the listener.
Your revenue stream in this example is based on donations. Nothing the end user can do in regard to DRM-limiting his own copies can possibly effect that. Stop being absurd.
...and, in fairness, neither is any other player or jukebox, including Zune and WMP.
The only device intentionally crippled (I mean rather than by stupidity) was the 1G iPod. Apple didn't support Windows with that device.
Zune's 3 days/3 plays model is better than iPod's 0 days/0 plays offering of the same feature.
Yes, provided you don't mind vendor lockin and restricted device support.
Apple's scheme will support and PC that runs iTunes, any video iPod, and a TV with a computer/iPod/iTV hookup. Amazon's is similar with the exception of iTV (though Apple doesn't have iTV yet either). MS has iTV-like devices that Amazon may be able to use.
These services don't really exist in any mature form yet. Expect them to evolve significantly.
Of course, if you have a Tivo and a PC, you can use the bridge software to provide identical features but through different mechanisms. This combination provides all the capability of Apple's service but without DRM and support for all devices (but not OS X). The question is would you rather pay a flat monthly fee for Tivo (plus cable/sat) and get unlimited programming, high bandwidth, broad device support, but variable quality, or would you rather pay ala carte pricing (plus broadband fees) and get slow downloads, DRM and vendor lockin but with consistent quality. Frankly, I see uses for both but I'm not giving up broadcast TV just yet.
MS already does this with the XBox360. What it doesn't do is provide the equivalent of the iTunes Store. Apple doesn't download to the iTV, it downloads to iTunes. Likewise, MS wouldn't download to the XBox via Live, it would download to WMP. The XBox360 doesn't have sufficient local storage to be useful and it doesn't have a powerful enough HID to interact with a storefront (and neither does the iTV).
Of course, Apple was not the first to "Get It" in either case and prior to Apple "Getting It" it was not "To Be Gotten". mp3 players were not a product for the general public when Apple got involved but they were successful among earlier adopters (remember that the iPod was originally positioned as a mac-only accessory). Jobs himself poopoo-ed video on portable players while Apple was working internally on delivering the feature. Apple may well dominate both markets but it certainly wasn't the first to "Get It".
"...which is EXACTLY what Apples product is targeting, the huge portion of the population who think Tivo is a difficult thing to set up and who still 30+ years later can't program the timer on their damn VCRs."
iTV and iTunes is differentiated from Tivos and VCRs by far more than ease of use. Who Apple is targetting is not who you say though they will gladly take those customers as well.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make them "not comparable". For a cost-conscious buyer such a comparison might well be of interest, and performance is in the eye of the beholder. Apple's low cost machine is only available with a 13" screen and that may be "low performance" for someone who wants something smaller or larger. Apple isn't really about choice.
If you "wouldn't call it night and day" then how can you say CD wins "hands down"? I'd call the level of exaggeration to vary from extreme to absurd. My system has nearly $30K in amplification alone and I don't claim to hear differences between CDs and well-encoded mp3's. I don't listen to CDs anymore myself and I would consider myself an audiophile.
That is not correct. The cannon shots were real. They were called "digital cannons" because they were recorded digitally.
That's just it. Different buyers want different things so different comparisons may be of interest. A buyer on a budget may want to know what the benefit of paying more for a Macbook might be compared to the cheapest Dell. The point is that any machines can be compared (and are therefore comparable ;-) ). I personally am not price-sensitive and I want a large, high resolution screen. My current machine is a MBP but I've owned plenty of Dell's in the past.
Anyone who thinks that vinyl offers superior low frequency response needs his eyes opened with a glaring example of the inferiority of the format. It doesn't matter that the lows were being produced by canon shots. I've heard the Telarc recording on CD using a system capable of playing it. I've never heard it off vinyl (even though I owned it back in the day) because there were precious few tables capable of tracking it.
Yes, it's true that the Telarc recording was done using digital. Of course it was since digital mastering is superior. If you insist on using inferior mastering equipment then I suppose it doesn't matter if you distribute on inferior media as well.
2) I know vinyl is poor quality. I was an adult when CDs were introduced and I owned a collection of vinyl. I also owned nice equipment to play them on.
Loudness does NOT cause clipping. If your equalizer does then turn if off because it's a POS. Loudness is a function of the gain on the final amplification stage.
Mismatched vinyl gain stages can also cause clipping. No difference there between digital and analog.
What is different is that vinyl is sensitive to vibration and loud passages can cause skipping. With CD/mp3 that is impossible except with the very worst gear.
3) Vinyl deteriorates with play EVERY time with EVERY piece of equipment. You apparently have no experience with vinyl. If you have to lessen pressure to prolong lifecycle then you've admitted that vinyl deteriorates with play.
4) Quadraphonic was an abysmal failure. Stereo itself is poorly presented in vinyl as compared to digital (where stereo separation is nearly complete). Stereo separation at the cartridge level is 15-30dB and it degrades from there. In constrast, stereo separation on CD is infinite and is only reduced by crosstalk in the analog stages. There is no contest.
"Why take an analogue source (a music instrument) and convert it's signal (sound) down to a digital level which only approximates the source when you can record across a fully analogue platform and maintain quality?"
Because analog recording systems are also "only approximates the source" and digital recordings now do it better. Digital and analog techniques each introduce distortions. With digital those distortions can be rendered inaudible. With analog it is far more difficult.
"I play my records very loud with thumping base and the needle never skips because I know how to use a turntable. CD's naturally skip way more than vinyl, you just don't notice it because of the buffer."
Then you don't play it that loud then. As for CDs skipping, where is your proof of that? You claim that skipping occurs that now one can ever see. Is that like the tree that falls in the woods?
"What kind of music is very important in selecting a format."
No, it's not.
"If you're listening to some digital music that's recorded on digital devices you might as well use a digital format, the CD. If you are listening to some analogue-recorded music (i.e. a classical ensemble/grand piano) you're better off sticking to the original recording format."
Why is that?
"The frequency range on vinyl is wider, although many of the possible freqencies on vinyl are beyond the range of human hearing."
The frequency range of CD is beyond the range of human hearing as well. Vinyl's high end is destroyed quickly by repeated plays assuming you have a cartridge that can retrieve the information to begin with.
"Some people argue these frequencies can be "felt" as you listen to the music but I hold those claims to be bogus."
Yes, they are bogus.
"Both CD's and Vinyl have their uses. Given that you take care of your vinyl and it is of good (heavy) production quality your vinyl will last longer."
Vinyl is good for scratching (if you can consider that good). Otherwise it is useless. Vinyl will never last longer than CD unless you don't play it.
"There's no need to be insulting. But if you want to throw stones, answer this:
Are you a musician?
Do you own any vinyl?"
Yes, I was a semi-professional symphony violist BEFORE CD's even existed. I owned vinyl and good equipment to play it on. No, I don't own vinyl anymore. Why would I? I am also a trained electrical engineeer. My stereo system includes all Mark Levinson amplification, full custom loudspeakers designed by Joe D'Appolito himself, and a custom-made BagEnd subwoofer setup that consists of 3KW of amplification and 12 18" drivers. I know what I'm talking about.
Since we are comparing audio penis sizes now, let's hear your measurements.
Ever hear of the Telarc 1812 vinyl pressing? There is virtually no gear capable of playing it without the needle being thrown out of the groove. Why? Because the canon shots produce prodigous amounts of low bass. Funny that the C version of that plays just fine in the cheapest CD player.
You have a defective CD then and you should ask for replacement. Do you expect your vinyl record to be pristine after 10 years of use? Have you ever even had 10 year old vinyl?
"...but any compressed codec like mp3 will never be bit-for-bit perfect like a CD..."
True (for a lossy compression scheme), but the question is whether it matters. The equipment used to play it is often substandard anyway. A lot of work goes into the perceived quality of various codecs and, given sufficient bitrates, many trained ears can have a hard time distiguishing. No doubt that lossless compression (or no compression) will always be best, but it's an exaggeration to say "the CD wins hands down".
If you think your lows are so much better with vinyl, go find yourself a copy of Telarc 1812 on vinyl and compare it to the same version on CD. Don't be too disappointed when your tonearm shoots up into the air on the first canon shot though.
Vinyl lovers who think lows are better with vinyl are truly deluded. Vinyl is old school crap. Perhaps you should invest in quality digital gear.
1) Then buy a CD then.
2) Wrong. Vinyl is poor quality. If you like to play music loud then don't use vinyl since the needle will skip out of the groove on loud base notes. Loudness doesn't cause clipping at the source level except with vinyl.
3) Wrong. Vinyl deteriorates with plays. CDs have a shelf life of 70+ years regardless of usage.
4) Wrong. Essentially no vinyl was recorded with 4 tracks, and quad-track vinyl performed poorly and had virtually no adoption. Digital is a far better medium for multitrack recording (even 2 channels).
"If you want quality, why go for a CD when vinyl boasts superior quality. The quality is especially noticable in the low range."
Because it doesn't ESPECIALLY in the low range. Vinyl doesn't have much bass response below 50Hz and bass reproduction is seriously difficult with vinyl at high volume levels. Bass response has always been where digital has stomped vinyl. Noise and distortion are others.
"If you're looking to do any DJ work you use vinyl. There's no ifs ands or butts about it. MP3's will sound like shit when you put them through kilowatt powered speakers. You CAN get some really high qual MP3's but for the most part, vinyl is a safer bet."
Spoken like someone who knows nothing of what he's talking about.
We all know what great sound a DJ gets out of his vinyl when he straps a potato to the tonearm to keep the forkprong he uses as a needle from jumping out of the groove. Scratching produces such great audio quality.
The warmth of that needle moving through the grooves is melting the vinyl underneath. Each play is worse than the one before it. No matter, they all suck anyway.
"Plus, analog media capture a much higher range of supertones and subtones beyond the human range of hearing, which nonetheless change and enhance those sounds that are within our range of hearing."
No, they don't and no, they don't. Digital sources vastly outperform vinyl at the low and high ends of the spectrum and no scientific study has ever proved that very high frequencies effect our hearing. Infrasonic frequencies definitely don't; they can't be reproduced by the loudspeakers and, if they could, they would cause us to vomit and crap our pants. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note
Nice try, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Vinyl is far more lossy than CD, especially after you've run that needle through the groove a few times. It isn't as though kids are buying high quality tables and cartridges to play their 7" singles on. Vinyl is susceptable to mechanical distortions (wow, flutter) and has serious noise issues with typical vinyl pressings. Are these new pressings being done with realtime mastering and virgin vinyl? I seriously doubt it. Vinyl sucks; it always did and people who love it today love it in spite of how terrible it is.
A well encoded mp3, on the other hand, can be difficult to distinguish from it's CD source. mp3's properly done are far superior to vinyl.
Cassettes sounded like shit when new and wore out simply by playing them. Cassettes were far more easily damaged.
Only if you require prices to be similar in order to "compare".
"Compare" has two meanings. One is "to examine in order to note the similarities and differences of" and the other "to represent as similar". All laptops are sufficiently similar that they are comparable in the first sense if not in the second. When "comparing" two machines there is no reason to say they aren't "comparable"; that just sounds stupid. Simply explain the similarities and differences and let the reader decide.
All computers these days have nearly identical parts inside and run software capable of performing nearly identical tasks. If you think price (especially a premium price) and the appearance of the skin that contains them is what most matters in a computer, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. It is only an opinion, however.
I always find it interesting that when a comparision of a mac and a PC is made, it will inevitably be made using the mac as the definition of what hardware is desirable. It's as if it's assumed that only Apple can figure out what the customer wants.
"The CHEAP ones aren't comparable. Apple doesn't compete there."
There you go. No one should make this comparison because it's not to Apple's strengths. We should only compare product catagories that are perfectly aligned on what Apple offers.
Why shouldn't a Dell $600 laptop be compared to a Macbook? For the extra money, don't you think that the Macbook would compare favorably? Is it simply a fear that the price will be the deciding factor? Shouldn't it be?
The fact is that Dell is a company that is optimized to compete on price and Apple definitely is not. Why should Dell have to be compared to Apple in Apple's market while Apple not be compared in Dell's? Are you afraid of a truly objective comparison?
Infamous means "having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious." You really think Dell's discounts are "infamous"? I think most buyers think discounts are a good thing.
Didn't you just compare them? Doesn't that make them comparable? They are just computers with largely identical parts inside.
DRM doesn't prevent music from being copied; it prevents the copies from being played in unauthorized devices. You are free to copy DRMed files to your heart's content. The Sony rootkit disables capabilities of the computer (among other things). Just because the two might be means to a similar end does not make them identical.
"...and instead only play the "enhanced CD" music files which -- guess what -- were most likely DRM'd WMA files!"
I'm not surprised that you would make a claim without knowing the facts just because it would somehow support your point of view. Why DRMed WMA files? Could be anything, including simply playing the red book audio tracks themselves. The fact is that you've just admitted that you don't know.
I'm sure you'll go on believing, regardless of facts to the contrary, that a rootkit is DRM so that you can rant and rave about how Zune is somehow "infecting" every music file with DRM as though those two were somehow related.
Those are not examples of DRMed content, they are examples of clandestine copy protection schemes employed on audio CDs. They are dispicable but aren't related to the topic at hand. The Sony rootkit and DRM are entirely different things.
While the article you linked to makes mention of DRM and attibutes it to the EFF, the EFF itself does not make that mistake. See here: http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/