Small businesses, for one, often have such a diverse mix of PCs that one Windows image won't have all the drivers.
Who is talking about one image? They usually have one for each approved hardware model they buy, usually a variant of one another. It's pretty rare for small businesses even to order just one machine unless it is through a supplier.
Even in bigger businesses, the standard corporate install image has Flash Player on it because the company has to work with suppliers and clients whose web site uses SWF. So Flash Player is in and Chrome Frame is out.
i don't see that at all. How is Chrome Frame out? Those same businesses don't need to work with suppliers and clients that are starting to use HTML5, like major airlines and Google? I don't see that there is a large set of companies that have IT departments that will accept Flash and all the security and slacking risks associated with it, but will reject Chrome Frame. They're pretty comparable from an IT perspective excepting that the latter is less of a security risk and is needed for some real corporate tools such as those supplied by Google.
Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac.
Really? Who has pushed it as that? I've never heard such a thing. It's the cheapest way, but certainly not the easiest. an iMac or a laptop is the easiest because they don't require you to know as much or supply your own monitor and peripherals.
So rather than being a device to convince users to switch to the Mac platform, it's really an introduction to Apple's limited vision.
Yes just as Dell computers have a limited vision because they don't work with my XLR connector microphone. Clearly every computer should come with thousands of connectors for outdated technology.
I disagree. Flash Player comes preinstalled on a lot of PCs, so it's installed before IT has a chance to lock down further installations of software.
What IT departments do you know where they don't re-image all the Windows computers before installing them? I've worked at everything from startups with a dozen people to large corporations and government departments. As soon as IT starts handing out machines, they've always been machines with an image created by IT, configured to work with the network and resources and with the apps IT did not want there removed.
Apple wants Flash - and any other platform which can be used to create something resembling an application - to go away...
This argument would hold some weight if Apple were not pushing HTML5 applications as a viable and free way to host Web applications and if developers weren't using it. It would hold some weight if Apple was making significant money on application sales compared to how much they make on selling the hardware those apps run on. Neither is true. Your hypothesis holds no water.
It's not just because of Apple, but they are the primary driver as stated by several of the companies making the switch. Last I looked YouTube defaulted to HTML5 video only if you're using an iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. Virgin America ditched it because they said they wanted to reach iPhone users.
Next thing we'll be hearing about how Apple invented HTML5.
This is called a strawman argument. No one but you said Apple invented HTML5. They certainly were one of the creators of the spec and Dave Hyatt of Apple has been quite influential, but it was created jointly by many companies and organizations.
I don't expect HTML5 to crush Flash even for video. Unless a majority of users move over the HTML5 compatible browsers, it isn't going to work.
First, all the major browser vendors are making some support for HTML5 in their browsers. Second, for browsers that don't support enough HTML5 for a task, they need a plugin for Flash, or the Google Chrome plugin for HTML5 so they are on par.
...what makes you think that these companies would think the ability to see video on the web being a good enough reason to transfer their users to HTML5 compatible browsers?
I don't think anyone thinks that, but at the same time many of those companies also ban Flash already and those that don't probably won't ban Google Frame.
I understand that Flash is on its way out, but it is still widely used. Why doesn't the iPad support future AND current technologies (HTML5 and Flash).
There are many reasons, but one of the big ones is Apple is one of the driving forces making Flash on the way out. Without their refusal to support it, most all of the prominent sites in question would still be suing it.
As to why Apple wants it to go away, there are lots of reasons but the most important is probably, it is just good business. Apple doesn't want any one company to be able to roadblock their ability to move their platform forward with regard to performance, security, or features. Allowing Flash on their products allows Adobe to do just that for a large subset of Web applications Apple is counting on. Apple isn't supporting Flash for the same reason smart governments are moving away from.doc, they want control and choices and not to have one vendor with the ability to dictate terms to them.
the guy we caught was an Engineer with a graduate degree that had no idea of how to build a bomb or avoid detection at even the most basic level. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Okay so a guy with no real idea how to build a bomb builds a bomb that doesn't work. He has no idea how to avoid detection and is quickly identified and captured because he did not destroy the VIN number of the vehicle he used. I'm not sure I understand where you're seeing a disconnect that would lead you to think something is amiss with the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Red light cameras are a bit different - they've got a variable you can tweak.
Except, of course, speed cameras have a variable too, the posted speed limit. Several times now we've seen speed limits intentionally lowered in ways to make conditions less safe, but provide greater revenue. We've also seen instances where speed limits change radically in areas where visibility of the sign is poor. The basic problem is, we can't trust the people placing the cameras and deciding the speed limits to act in the best interests of the people instead of the best interests of their department's budget. Until that problem is addressed (either by placing the decisions in the hands of a neutral party or establishing strict regulation and enforcement of how they are used), both red light cameras and speed cameras will likely create as much risk to the public as benefit.
Well, it looks like a subset of agnosticism, but I don't care to play semantic games.
And you don't see the implicit statement in such an oath that there exist a god? And not just a god, but a being referred to as "god" instead of a god, meaning all polytheists and atheists are asked to forswear their beliefs in making such a statement.
I see an implicit assumption, but you know what happens when you assume.
Please no empty rhetoric. It's an implicit statement, not an implicit assumption. There's a very real difference.
No one is asking anyone to forswear anything.
By asking people to swear to do their duty to a god, one may well be asking someone to violate their religious principals in implicitly acknowledging the existence of a god. That is certainly foreswearing themselves.
The BSA is chartered by Congress.
Yeah, so is Enron. Are you arguing that congress cannot have taken an unconstitutional action in this case and implying it has never taken any unconstitutional actions? The judicial branch might like a word.
You can make all kinds of declarative statements, and we'll continue to completely ignore them.
You mean to say you're defending actions that undermine fundamental parts of the constitution? How un-american and disgusting.
The fact is, the government gives all kinds of aid to all kinds of religious groups - or have you forgotten Bush and all his faith-based initiatives?
Which were equally unconstitutional and just as disgusting, some of which have been taken to court and ruled as such by the courts. Remember when Bush decided he could amend laws passed by congress simply by changing them after the fact with signing statements? Just because a president does something does not make it legal or right. If Obama writes a signing statement on the next bill that says all BSA members are to be shot on sight by the military does that means it is right and constitutional?
Well, it certainly isn't covered by the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law. It's a reasonable compromise for the RIAA, although with how broken our copyright system is I don't blame anyone for simply ignoring the law. I just wanted to make sure people are informed as to the fact that the data is there and Apple supplied files are not "clean" in all senses of the term.
Not really. Apple embeds customer specific info in the.mp4 files it sells, so you need to strip that out if you're planning on sharing them with the world at large.
I know you want to sound like the cool kids, but learn what terms like "embrace, extent, extinguish" and "FUD" mean before using them please. They are not synonyms for "something I don't like".
If you were comparing one compressed audio format to another, that'd be fair. Your friend with the 8-track isn't using a ubiquitous format anymore, either.
How about.WAV?
The use of AAC/M4A by Apple is form of vendor lock-in
Using the open.mp4 format in use by dozens of companies for both hardware and software players and encoders is Apple locking you in, while using the open.mp3 format in use by even more dozens of companies for both hardware and software players and encoders is not?
...albeit somewhat softer now that they sell some audio tracks without DRM (thank you, Amazon!).
Apple doesn't sell any DRM'd songs at all. They introduced DRMless music and started pushing the RIAA to release songs in that format four months before Amazon had a beta version of the Amazon Music Store. All Apple music was available in DRMless format four months before Amazon launched the non-beta version of their service. So Amazon such a great job of forcing Apple to get rid of DRM it was retroactive to before Amazon's store existed.
Apple has been one of the biggest opponents of DRM and has had more influence in getting rid of it than any other player in the music industry. This is not altruism, just good business since Apple makes squat from selling music and uses it to promote hardware sales. Anything that makes it less expensive or easier for end users sells more Apple branded hardware. Long before Amazon even thought of going into the music business Apple representatives had made strong statements about how DRM was a bad idea and they'd implement it if they had to, but it was unworkable. They published open letters calling for the RIAA to allow them to sell music without it, pissing off one of their most important business partners. The Amazon store was a reaction to Apple gaining too much leverage and actually pressuring the RIAA. They decided it would be best to have the sales market more fragmented so they gave Amazon preferential licensing agreements so it could sell cheaper to gain share and weaken Apple's power to influence the RIAA. You should really get your history straight if you want to understand how the industry works and how to get DRM removed from other areas.
How about MP3 CD's for my car? I still use AAC but prefer to get MP3s because I'm certain that they will work with virtually all music playing hardware.
Well if you're burning CD's full of MP3's to listen to in the car, what does it matter what the source format is? I suppose it could take a little longer to burn them.
To each his own.
Absolutely and I'd extend that to companies as well in what they want to offer (unless they have monopoly influence on the market).
I'm hoping OpenGL support means better Wine performance.
Don't get your hopes up. SC1 was also running on OS X via OpenGL and the WINE performance was quite poor by most accounts. It would be nice if Blizzard supported Linux as a primary platform, but I don't think the business case is really there. Maybe Canonical will make them a deal to sell a version via the Ubuntu store when it is up and running and that will make the business case solid enough.
Okay, so some commercial players have jumped on the bandwagon (and I doubt mplayer's codecs are technically legal), but MP3 is still more compatible and more common.
And CDDA is more compatible and common yet. What's your point? My car stero plays CDDA exclusively, does that mean companies have a responsibility to sell CDDA forever, or can they drop that line and move to more advanced forms of audio? I have a friend with an 8-track player... you guys should get together and commiserate.
That's a good example, but it of course is a very limited player that only supports mp3 and WMA. It's kind of like cassette tapes.
Now I'm wondering why I now have to replace it by Apple fiat.
Umm, it's not Apple, it's the industry. Apple usually leads the charge to new tech, but Apple isn't focing you to use mp4 any more than they're forcing you to use USB mice. You can still use serial ports mice, cassette tapes, and mp3 files if you want... but they're obsolete technology and you have to expect less and less support for them as the industry moves on.
Moreover, I wonder why you're so hard to bring people into technology you've chosen as right for *you*.
What? I'm not. My buddy has a huge collection of reel-to-reel music and if he likes it I'm all for it. I just don't expect him to complain when they don't sell them at Best Buy anymore. I'm a geek and I always like to see the industry progress to better technologies and while I sympathize with people being left behind, I don't sympathize so much that I want companies to stop moving forward. You can always cash out your account and go to a shop that is still selling mp3... well at least till they move on.
All these arguments about JVM security are complete FUD.
That's either hyperbole or you don't know what FUD means.
Android happily supports and ecosystem where multiple apps run together and work just fine.
Android runs all it's apps inside a JVM and sandboxes them from one another within the JVM, because Android chose a java model for the whole application layer. Apple could certainly do this, but it would mean implementing two different sandboxes, one inside the other, and completely separate security architecture for Java and non-java apps.
They just don't want to because they are about lock-in, control and money for Apple first, openness and freedom second.
While I agree profit is their primary motivation. I disagree that their profit is best served by making it harder to make good apps, rather than making it harder to make apps that don't perform particularly well.
safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag as well. yet, youtube works just fine in it.
As someone else noted, Safari on OS X supports anything installed in Quicktime as I think Firefox should. I already had a Theora codec installed so when Apple updated Safari to do HTML5, Theora "just worked".
I understand the mindset at Mozilla. They are focused on being the same on every different computer a user has, regardless of that computer's capabilities. This is an understandable goal, but also what drives me away from Firefox. They don't take advantage of cool and very useful features of an OS, because other OS's don't have those abilities, or they implement their own version which is compatible between Firefox on Linux and Firefox on OS X... but not between all the other applications on a single OS. This is just that policy being extended to video and running into legal roadblocks because even though all the OS's can play H.264, mozilla can't integrate it into Firefox the same way on every platform, so they reject it entirely.
You can request a refund check for any unspent money in your account, but you still get an iTunes credit for the web-only songs you purchased... which doesn't help you much if you don't do iTunes.
Absolutely true, although I will say it is a better result than that music just going away, which is what has happened with several other music services with similarly failing business plans.
Seriously. Learn what that means before posting. It's not a synonym for people doing things you don't like. It has very specific meaning with regard to implementing a standard as a strategic method for breaking interoperability.
The whole reason I was using Lala was because my computers (Linux) don't seem to work with iTunes. Replacing my purchased web songs with an iTunes credit that I can't use doesn't really help me out.
It is absolutely an issue, although one I suspect will being going away. Since late last year Apple has had a Web interface that allows users to preview songs, but not actually purchase them. Quite likely this will become a full-fledged Web interface to the iTunes store, hopefully before the end of May. Most of the rumors going around from when the bought Lala assumed it would be integrated into this new Web version of iTunes
Slashdot Mirror
Small businesses, for one, often have such a diverse mix of PCs that one Windows image won't have all the drivers.
Who is talking about one image? They usually have one for each approved hardware model they buy, usually a variant of one another. It's pretty rare for small businesses even to order just one machine unless it is through a supplier.
Even in bigger businesses, the standard corporate install image has Flash Player on it because the company has to work with suppliers and clients whose web site uses SWF. So Flash Player is in and Chrome Frame is out.
i don't see that at all. How is Chrome Frame out? Those same businesses don't need to work with suppliers and clients that are starting to use HTML5, like major airlines and Google? I don't see that there is a large set of companies that have IT departments that will accept Flash and all the security and slacking risks associated with it, but will reject Chrome Frame. They're pretty comparable from an IT perspective excepting that the latter is less of a security risk and is needed for some real corporate tools such as those supplied by Google.
Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac.
Really? Who has pushed it as that? I've never heard such a thing. It's the cheapest way, but certainly not the easiest. an iMac or a laptop is the easiest because they don't require you to know as much or supply your own monitor and peripherals.
So rather than being a device to convince users to switch to the Mac platform, it's really an introduction to Apple's limited vision.
Yes just as Dell computers have a limited vision because they don't work with my XLR connector microphone. Clearly every computer should come with thousands of connectors for outdated technology.
I disagree. Flash Player comes preinstalled on a lot of PCs, so it's installed before IT has a chance to lock down further installations of software.
What IT departments do you know where they don't re-image all the Windows computers before installing them? I've worked at everything from startups with a dozen people to large corporations and government departments. As soon as IT starts handing out machines, they've always been machines with an image created by IT, configured to work with the network and resources and with the apps IT did not want there removed.
Apple wants Flash - and any other platform which can be used to create something resembling an application - to go away...
This argument would hold some weight if Apple were not pushing HTML5 applications as a viable and free way to host Web applications and if developers weren't using it. It would hold some weight if Apple was making significant money on application sales compared to how much they make on selling the hardware those apps run on. Neither is true. Your hypothesis holds no water.
Why do you assume that it's all because of Apple?
It's not just because of Apple, but they are the primary driver as stated by several of the companies making the switch. Last I looked YouTube defaulted to HTML5 video only if you're using an iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. Virgin America ditched it because they said they wanted to reach iPhone users.
Next thing we'll be hearing about how Apple invented HTML5.
This is called a strawman argument. No one but you said Apple invented HTML5. They certainly were one of the creators of the spec and Dave Hyatt of Apple has been quite influential, but it was created jointly by many companies and organizations.
I don't expect HTML5 to crush Flash even for video. Unless a majority of users move over the HTML5 compatible browsers, it isn't going to work.
First, all the major browser vendors are making some support for HTML5 in their browsers. Second, for browsers that don't support enough HTML5 for a task, they need a plugin for Flash, or the Google Chrome plugin for HTML5 so they are on par.
...what makes you think that these companies would think the ability to see video on the web being a good enough reason to transfer their users to HTML5 compatible browsers?
I don't think anyone thinks that, but at the same time many of those companies also ban Flash already and those that don't probably won't ban Google Frame.
I understand that Flash is on its way out, but it is still widely used. Why doesn't the iPad support future AND current technologies (HTML5 and Flash).
There are many reasons, but one of the big ones is Apple is one of the driving forces making Flash on the way out. Without their refusal to support it, most all of the prominent sites in question would still be suing it.
As to why Apple wants it to go away, there are lots of reasons but the most important is probably, it is just good business. Apple doesn't want any one company to be able to roadblock their ability to move their platform forward with regard to performance, security, or features. Allowing Flash on their products allows Adobe to do just that for a large subset of Web applications Apple is counting on. Apple isn't supporting Flash for the same reason smart governments are moving away from .doc, they want control and choices and not to have one vendor with the ability to dictate terms to them.
the guy we caught was an Engineer with a graduate degree that had no idea of how to build a bomb or avoid detection at even the most basic level. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Okay so a guy with no real idea how to build a bomb builds a bomb that doesn't work. He has no idea how to avoid detection and is quickly identified and captured because he did not destroy the VIN number of the vehicle he used. I'm not sure I understand where you're seeing a disconnect that would lead you to think something is amiss with the "he's stupid" hypothesis.
Red light cameras are a bit different - they've got a variable you can tweak.
Except, of course, speed cameras have a variable too, the posted speed limit. Several times now we've seen speed limits intentionally lowered in ways to make conditions less safe, but provide greater revenue. We've also seen instances where speed limits change radically in areas where visibility of the sign is poor. The basic problem is, we can't trust the people placing the cameras and deciding the speed limits to act in the best interests of the people instead of the best interests of their department's budget. Until that problem is addressed (either by placing the decisions in the hands of a neutral party or establishing strict regulation and enforcement of how they are used), both red light cameras and speed cameras will likely create as much risk to the public as benefit.
I spoke correctly the first time.
Well, it looks like a subset of agnosticism, but I don't care to play semantic games.
And you don't see the implicit statement in such an oath that there exist a god? And not just a god, but a being referred to as "god" instead of a god, meaning all polytheists and atheists are asked to forswear their beliefs in making such a statement.
I see an implicit assumption, but you know what happens when you assume.
Please no empty rhetoric. It's an implicit statement, not an implicit assumption. There's a very real difference.
No one is asking anyone to forswear anything.
By asking people to swear to do their duty to a god, one may well be asking someone to violate their religious principals in implicitly acknowledging the existence of a god. That is certainly foreswearing themselves.
The BSA is chartered by Congress.
Yeah, so is Enron. Are you arguing that congress cannot have taken an unconstitutional action in this case and implying it has never taken any unconstitutional actions? The judicial branch might like a word.
You can make all kinds of declarative statements, and we'll continue to completely ignore them.
You mean to say you're defending actions that undermine fundamental parts of the constitution? How un-american and disgusting.
The fact is, the government gives all kinds of aid to all kinds of religious groups - or have you forgotten Bush and all his faith-based initiatives?
Which were equally unconstitutional and just as disgusting, some of which have been taken to court and ruled as such by the courts. Remember when Bush decided he could amend laws passed by congress simply by changing them after the fact with signing statements? Just because a president does something does not make it legal or right. If Obama writes a signing statement on the next bill that says all BSA members are to be shot on sight by the military does that means it is right and constitutional?
Right, which is very much not "fair use".
Well, it certainly isn't covered by the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law. It's a reasonable compromise for the RIAA, although with how broken our copyright system is I don't blame anyone for simply ignoring the law. I just wanted to make sure people are informed as to the fact that the data is there and Apple supplied files are not "clean" in all senses of the term.
iTunes files are "clean" too - just not free.
Not really. Apple embeds customer specific info in the .mp4 files it sells, so you need to strip that out if you're planning on sharing them with the world at large.
I know you want to sound like the cool kids, but learn what terms like "embrace, extent, extinguish" and "FUD" mean before using them please. They are not synonyms for "something I don't like".
If you were comparing one compressed audio format to another, that'd be fair. Your friend with the 8-track isn't using a ubiquitous format anymore, either.
How about .WAV?
The use of AAC/M4A by Apple is form of vendor lock-in
Using the open .mp4 format in use by dozens of companies for both hardware and software players and encoders is Apple locking you in, while using the open .mp3 format in use by even more dozens of companies for both hardware and software players and encoders is not?
...albeit somewhat softer now that they sell some audio tracks without DRM (thank you, Amazon!).
Apple doesn't sell any DRM'd songs at all. They introduced DRMless music and started pushing the RIAA to release songs in that format four months before Amazon had a beta version of the Amazon Music Store. All Apple music was available in DRMless format four months before Amazon launched the non-beta version of their service. So Amazon such a great job of forcing Apple to get rid of DRM it was retroactive to before Amazon's store existed.
Apple has been one of the biggest opponents of DRM and has had more influence in getting rid of it than any other player in the music industry. This is not altruism, just good business since Apple makes squat from selling music and uses it to promote hardware sales. Anything that makes it less expensive or easier for end users sells more Apple branded hardware. Long before Amazon even thought of going into the music business Apple representatives had made strong statements about how DRM was a bad idea and they'd implement it if they had to, but it was unworkable. They published open letters calling for the RIAA to allow them to sell music without it, pissing off one of their most important business partners. The Amazon store was a reaction to Apple gaining too much leverage and actually pressuring the RIAA. They decided it would be best to have the sales market more fragmented so they gave Amazon preferential licensing agreements so it could sell cheaper to gain share and weaken Apple's power to influence the RIAA. You should really get your history straight if you want to understand how the industry works and how to get DRM removed from other areas.
How about MP3 CD's for my car? I still use AAC but prefer to get MP3s because I'm certain that they will work with virtually all music playing hardware.
Well if you're burning CD's full of MP3's to listen to in the car, what does it matter what the source format is? I suppose it could take a little longer to burn them.
To each his own.
Absolutely and I'd extend that to companies as well in what they want to offer (unless they have monopoly influence on the market).
I'm hoping OpenGL support means better Wine performance.
Don't get your hopes up. SC1 was also running on OS X via OpenGL and the WINE performance was quite poor by most accounts. It would be nice if Blizzard supported Linux as a primary platform, but I don't think the business case is really there. Maybe Canonical will make them a deal to sell a version via the Ubuntu store when it is up and running and that will make the business case solid enough.
Now apple needs a better desktop system to play it.
People still buy desktops? How retro!
I'd much rather Apple came out with a homer server that I could use to run intensive applications remotely.
Fourth: contracts; did Lala have any agreements with anyone that Apple wasn't able to get for themselves?
A note on this. Lala does have an agreement with Google where Lala is one of the links when people search for song lyrics, and band and album names.
Okay, so some commercial players have jumped on the bandwagon (and I doubt mplayer's codecs are technically legal), but MP3 is still more compatible and more common.
And CDDA is more compatible and common yet. What's your point? My car stero plays CDDA exclusively, does that mean companies have a responsibility to sell CDDA forever, or can they drop that line and move to more advanced forms of audio? I have a friend with an 8-track player... you guys should get together and commiserate.
The Creative MuVo in my pocket comes to mind.
That's a good example, but it of course is a very limited player that only supports mp3 and WMA. It's kind of like cassette tapes.
Now I'm wondering why I now have to replace it by Apple fiat.
Umm, it's not Apple, it's the industry. Apple usually leads the charge to new tech, but Apple isn't focing you to use mp4 any more than they're forcing you to use USB mice. You can still use serial ports mice, cassette tapes, and mp3 files if you want... but they're obsolete technology and you have to expect less and less support for them as the industry moves on.
Moreover, I wonder why you're so hard to bring people into technology you've chosen as right for *you*.
What? I'm not. My buddy has a huge collection of reel-to-reel music and if he likes it I'm all for it. I just don't expect him to complain when they don't sell them at Best Buy anymore. I'm a geek and I always like to see the industry progress to better technologies and while I sympathize with people being left behind, I don't sympathize so much that I want companies to stop moving forward. You can always cash out your account and go to a shop that is still selling mp3... well at least till they move on.
All these arguments about JVM security are complete FUD.
That's either hyperbole or you don't know what FUD means.
Android happily supports and ecosystem where multiple apps run together and work just fine.
Android runs all it's apps inside a JVM and sandboxes them from one another within the JVM, because Android chose a java model for the whole application layer. Apple could certainly do this, but it would mean implementing two different sandboxes, one inside the other, and completely separate security architecture for Java and non-java apps.
They just don't want to because they are about lock-in, control and money for Apple first, openness and freedom second.
While I agree profit is their primary motivation. I disagree that their profit is best served by making it harder to make good apps, rather than making it harder to make apps that don't perform particularly well.
safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag as well. yet, youtube works just fine in it.
As someone else noted, Safari on OS X supports anything installed in Quicktime as I think Firefox should. I already had a Theora codec installed so when Apple updated Safari to do HTML5, Theora "just worked".
I understand the mindset at Mozilla. They are focused on being the same on every different computer a user has, regardless of that computer's capabilities. This is an understandable goal, but also what drives me away from Firefox. They don't take advantage of cool and very useful features of an OS, because other OS's don't have those abilities, or they implement their own version which is compatible between Firefox on Linux and Firefox on OS X... but not between all the other applications on a single OS. This is just that policy being extended to video and running into legal roadblocks because even though all the OS's can play H.264, mozilla can't integrate it into Firefox the same way on every platform, so they reject it entirely.
You can request a refund check for any unspent money in your account, but you still get an iTunes credit for the web-only songs you purchased... which doesn't help you much if you don't do iTunes.
Absolutely true, although I will say it is a better result than that music just going away, which is what has happened with several other music services with similarly failing business plans.
Seriously. Learn what that means before posting. It's not a synonym for people doing things you don't like. It has very specific meaning with regard to implementing a standard as a strategic method for breaking interoperability.
The whole reason I was using Lala was because my computers (Linux) don't seem to work with iTunes. Replacing my purchased web songs with an iTunes credit that I can't use doesn't really help me out.
It is absolutely an issue, although one I suspect will being going away. Since late last year Apple has had a Web interface that allows users to preview songs, but not actually purchase them. Quite likely this will become a full-fledged Web interface to the iTunes store, hopefully before the end of May. Most of the rumors going around from when the bought Lala assumed it would be integrated into this new Web version of iTunes