It's not really true. I posted a comment nearby (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222358&cid=18 017846) which used the same interview to show that Gates wants more sophisticated DRM, not abolition.
There is no fair comparison between Gates and Jobs on DRM.
I suspect that the ISPs rely on users who get a huge bandwidth allowance, but use a fraction of that. My ISP has irritated me enough lately over the whole ADSL2+ fiasco that I now ensure I use my entire 30GB every single month. I have to download a lot of stuff I don't want (and delete) in the last few days of the month, but I'm committed now to ensuring that I get every single damned byte out of my ISP that I'm paying for.
If the day comes when all of an ISP's customers use all of their allotted bandwidth, then the ISP has to survive or perish. Good planning would ensure that they've actually got the ability to supply 100% of the bandwidth they sell, but I suspect few ISPs can. If they can't back their sales with the service we're paying for, then they deserve to go under should any 'bandwidth crisis' hit.
That's not correct. Gates spoke out about the current DRM not the concept.
From the TechCrunch article (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-o n-the-future-of-drm/) (emphasis mine) Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.
His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."
He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."
"No one has done it right, yet" and "DRM is not where it should be" can't be read as saying DRM has to go, but that it must be more sophisticated.
Gates wants DRM, make no mistake about it. His interview was just FUD attempting to harm the online music industry. He should know all about the issues of legality with online sales, so his quote about being legal is either a complete distortion of the truth or a gaping hole in his understanding.
If you hate fanboys, you'll have to admit you're wrong on this, or be labelled a Gates fanboy.
In terms of online sales, the traditional economy perspective has to be reviewed.
Specifically, in this case, cost to produce is zero. Apple do all the work and take all the risk, passing over 65% of the revenue (I think). The music companies probably maintain a couple of people to manage the relationship from their end, but the end result is that of 2 billion songs sold, about 1.3 billion dollars has been given to the music industry.
In this environment, selling one album for $18 provides $11.70 profit, while three albums for $10 provides $19.50 profit. Well, revenue really, but unless they've got costs I can't imagine, their side of this deal probably costs them a cent or two from an album, so I'm equating revenue and profit in this special case.
I would claim that the music industry is run by people who don't understand online sales, and are fearful of the potential. Not fools exactly, but their position isn't stemming from intelligent analysis either.
Brilliant post. If only life where like that, but I can't help imagining an extra paragraph:
Music company: "Well, you can just wait as long as you like. We've got your competitor contacting us and they're willing to toe our line. You can take your principles to the poor house when you go, because your competitors are going to beat you in the marketplace by getting their first. They'll have such a head start that you won't even be able to see their arses with a telescope. Thanks for your frankness, but be out of this building in five minutes."...
If people across the entire tech industry had the same principles and behaved the same, then your story might have happened. Sadly there are people who have no principles, people who have vastly different principles and people who are extremely principled. In such an environment, a music company can choose to deal with people whose principles align with their own.
Is this the "real world" where all their DRM and copy protection doesn't stop piracy for an instant? The one where I can buy a DRM-ed album at the iTunes Store or a completely unprotected CD in any one of hundreds of places in just about any city or town?
How does putting DRM on a tiny proportion of their music matter when the vast majority is completely open to piracy?
I think your executive friends need to visit the "real world" the rest of us live in. DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and even if an argument can be made that it's all about stopping piracy, it's clearly fundamentally failing in that goal.
A new and better solution is required, not just the old "well it's failed in every way imaginable but I'm sure if we keep doing the exact same thing something magical will happen" strategy currently in use.
As for the "Jobs inventing hating DRM" line - who actually said that? Sounds like Artie MacStrawman to me. He gets quoted here a *lot*.
How Can This Matter to the Trial?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So what if Pamela Jones is real or not? Since she's reporting and commenting on the trial, how can she be important to the outcome of it? Does SCO claim that Groklaw is biasing a judge?
Why not subpoena Reuters and AAP? Or anyone who's written an opinion piece about SCO?
SCO has fundamentally confused inputs with outputs. Groklaw is an output of the trial, not an input. Unless they can show Pamela Jones has some priveleged information, they're just wasting time here clutching at straws.
If SCO is clutching at straws here, wasting time, they should be punished and punished hard. I'd like to see jail time for management here, and maybe for lawyers. Should intentionally wasting the court's time be considered contempt?
The reviews I've seen with feature comparisons have usually been in print magazines. Just type "Vista Tiger" into Google and you'll see a good number of comparison articles. I wouldn't expect OS X 10.4 to be better than Vista at every single thing, given the relative ages. That it stands up so well is a testament to Apple and is damning for Microsoft's five year Vista odyssey.
I agree that Vista is nothing special for Mac users, and only slightly special for Windows users, but my first point is that Microsoft see Leopard as a threat and are putting out some FUD in readiness.
I suspect that Microsoft are announcing shiny new software for some future date is that they're worried about Leopard.
Reviewers are already pitting Vista against OS X 10.4 and finding them neck-and-neck, with Vista coming out ahead on some features and OS X coming out ahead on others.
A lot of people are expecting the upcoming OS X 10.5 to blow Vista's features out of the water. Microsoft don't want Vista to look like a lame (but profitable) duck for a few years, so they're going to pump up the next big thing. To paraphrase their past vapourware strategies - "don't buy from them, stay with us and you'll get all their features anyway, soon, soon..."
"We put Longhorn on the back burner for awhile," Fathi said. "Then when we came back to it, we realized that there were incremental things that we wanted to do, and significant improvements that we wanted to make in Vista that we couldn't deliver in one release."
Is that just a complete lie, a total re-writing of history? I've never heard anything other than the story of years of painful work going nowhere, resetting to Win2K3, jettisoning features and finally making progress. I've never heard this bit about slacking off for a couple of years, not really trying and then picking things back up later on.
So what will be the coolest new feature in Vienna?
According to Fathi, that's still being worked out. "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is," he said. "Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers."
"It's too early for me to talk about it," he added. "But over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."
This comment reveals that Vienna is truly vapourware - they've not even reached the whiteboard to block out the big features.
How can Microsoft let executives like this go out and give an interview with no spiel? A quick elevator speech is all that's required. Just something about "new filesystem database to revolutionise files" or "rich media" or even "exceedingly wealthy media born with a silver spoon." Anything is better than this sort of "well, gee, I dunno, didn't think you'd ask me that, hmm... nope, nothing's come to mind."
Oddly enough, few analysts are multi-millionaires.
This is a critical point to remember when you read their commentary, as they're not smart enough to put their money on their words.
The best analyst of all would show a proven record of success, highlighted with comments like "I bought that stock at $n and sold at 15x$n which is what I knew would happen."
Surely he must have ralised that casting any sort of stereotyping imagery about was a bad thing.
Surely he can't be so naive as to think "this is a girl's game, that's a boy's game" ?
Surely not?
Sadly, it's increasingly obvious that Bill Gates has no real connection with popular culture or maybe even with culture at all. Comments like this really underline the whole point.
He could have said "this game appeals to so many people, from five to fifty, and it's got a fun, bright feeling to it," or maybe "this is a great game for younger players, but it's just quirky enough for anyone looking for something different," but no, he had to cast it as a young girl's game.
There's nothing wrong with games targeted at girls, boys or albino geriatrics, but stereotyping them denies the game to others. A lot of people are less likely to pick up and try something new if they've heard things outside their normal realm of comfort. There's a whole part of business dedicated to this sort of thing. It's called "Marketing" and it's all about making sure the image your products hold in the wider world maximises the sales. I'm sure Microsoft has a couple of people who specialise in this - Gates should speak with them some time.
It's a game. Girls play games. Boys play games. Men and women play games. I know of girls who can whip your arse in WoW, and boys who can do the same. Gender is irrelevant. Gates blunders again, speaking where wiser people would hold their damn fool tongues.
And that post is exactly why I have you on my 'friends' list on Slashdot. Well written, solid thought-out points there.
The last sentence - "Money is not happiness" - relates to why tomorrow I'm giving notice at my current workplace. Happiness has been replaced by constant stress and I'm at the point of no longer caring what I do. I love the people I work with, but have stopped liking my work, or finding it interesting. I'm ready to trade stress and money for happiness and less money. Or at least a better balance of work and life, and maybe reasonable money.
Anyway, an interesting coincidence between your post and my own work life right now.
Really? Seems like you're telling a fib here. There's never been a comment by Gates that he wants DRM gone. I may be wrong, but since the burden is on you to back up your claim, I'll leave you to it.
Flaw 1 - his exact wording is "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full." which must be the source of your claim that "his estimate requires that every iPod sold is still in use." Jobs' calculations would require about 90M iPods in use, but let's suppose it was 45M iPods still in use. The average songs per iPod rises to 44. Does that materially affect the argument? Especially when you consider that the newer iPods have much higher capacity than 1000 songs.
Flaw 2 - his exact wording is "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs..." You claim "his estimate requires that every iPod sold hold about 1,000, which is obvious nonsense" but fail to provide any link to your own point. The point made by Jobs is that the average songs per iPod are about 3%. Since many iPods hold much more information, the average proportion of iTMS songs on an iPod is probably lower than Jobs' estimate. This 'flaw' seems to strengthen Jobs' point, which he was probably trying to understate - if it's only a few percent of your total collection, where's the lock-in? (That's how I see Jobs' point here, at any rate)
Flaw 3 - No-one has an average iPod? So you claim that there is no iPod anywhere on the face of the planet that has 1000 songs of which 22 were bought at the iTMS. I can set one up in pretty short order, just to prove your point wrong if you like. I'm pretty certain that this combination doesn't cause black holes to form or the tidal forces of the planets to align and rip the iPod apart. Your point is meaningless here, as it doesn't affect your argument in any way other than to fail in your claim that Jobs' stats are wrong.
Now, if I were to use your argument style, I'd go out and claim you're *lying* over statistics, therefore your own statement is to be disregarded. I could even ignore the real point you made in your second paragraph, just like you ignored the rest of Jobs' comments.
Of course, I wouldn't go quite that far. I think you're arguing a point badly (and arguing the wrong point anyway) but I wouldn't necessarily claim you're a liar.
Your final point is a good one - why don't we have DRM and non-DRM tracks on the iTMS? I'd be very happy to see that, and I've criticised Microsoft in the past for adding DRM to every Zune song, even if artists didn't want it. I wasn't aware that Apple were doing this, and I agree with you - it's wrong to do it. I suspect the reason is because of the costs in maintaining two systems in the iTMS, which is run not for its own profit, but to provide an entire ecosystem for the iPods, helping sell them.
Apple shouldn't go against the wishes of the copyright holders. It should try to come to terms with the copyright holders (for example, keeping prices down) but DRM controls should be at the behest of the song's owners.
That's a bit of a coincidence - I tried that beer just last night! I liked it a lot and so did my wife. I'll be keeping an eye out for Budvar in future.
In contrast, I can't get the hang of most US beers, and if I'm going for imported beer, I'll always look to Europe first.
Jobs and his team went to PARC and did gain a lot of useful concepts, which they licenced from Xerox. They extended those well past the GUI at PARC into a useful and working interface. Have a look at the interface of the old Xerox machines. The Lisa and the Mac were light years ahead, but they built on the same foundation. Xerox had the basic ideas, but no ability to complete the picture.
The Macintosh project started in 1979, under Jef Raskin. While Raskin would have likely gone in a different direction with the Mac (if Jobs hadn't taken control from him), his ideas about a graphical interface shows that the direction would have been a GUI of some form.
I don't know if there *was* a virus on OS X, but...
I challenge all those virus-writing bozos to write one! Clearly they haven't got the faintest idea how to create something truly malicious when they don't have a bunch of pretty scripts already written for them. Not a single virus? That shows these bain-dead hacks can't write real code for peanuts. They're hopeless jokes and OS X users laugh about them all the time. And their mothers are too fat.
There. I said it.
Someone had to.
"Never challenge an attacker" ?
In the case of security, I *want* OS X to be the subject of intense scrutiny. I want people combing the OS for hooks they can hang malware on. This will force Apple to respond and make the OS more secure. If this doesn't happen, the OS will stay as it is (and that's not a bad level of security right now).
The MOAB fizzled out to a few third-party issues (most fixed by now) a few categories of Apple issues and a *lot* of invective from those bozos. They were useless hacks unfit to call themselves researchers. They failed comprehensively to find that "smoking gun" which would have catapulted them to the notoriety they sought.
So, who's next? Any wanna-be virus writers looking for a challenge? Or are you all too chicken? Are you all incapable?
Microsoft can't fire back, and it'd be terrible marketing to try.
It's one thing for an underdog to make fun of the market leader, but when the market leader makes fun of the underdog, that massively strengthens the underdog's position. People would wonder why Microsoft are so rattled, they'd hear the Apple name and maybe look into these computers.
On the reverse side, Apple's trying to gain marketshare in a world that already knows all about Windows, so mentioning it won't hurt Apple.
Ignoring the slings and arrows of Apple's marketing team is a much better position.
I like that Gates fails to answer the question. An elevator speech (or pitch) is meant to be a snappy, thirty second spiel that hits the big points. It's certainly not a sit down and chat for a few minutes.
If he can't say "Security, new look, security, better games, security, better resource management, security" in under thirty seconds, it's a good thing he's not in charge any longer.
I'm a Mac user mainly, and even *I* can make an elevator pitch about Vista!
If protecting the environment costs money, then that money must flow from one company to another.
The new companies that spring up to fill this niche will create jobs to produce the items that reduce emissions.
The 'source' companies will lose money to the 'cleaning' companies, but the net effect will be money moving about and jobs being created. Those jobs may or may not offset any jobs lost due to lower profits in the 'source' companies.
Cost is only an issue for the 'source' companies. It's an opportunity for the 'cleaning' companies, and not a reason to disallow the whole 'clean up the environment' movement.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really true. I posted a comment nearby (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222358&cid=18 017846) which used the same interview to show that Gates wants more sophisticated DRM, not abolition.
There is no fair comparison between Gates and Jobs on DRM.
I suspect that the ISPs rely on users who get a huge bandwidth allowance, but use a fraction of that. My ISP has irritated me enough lately over the whole ADSL2+ fiasco that I now ensure I use my entire 30GB every single month. I have to download a lot of stuff I don't want (and delete) in the last few days of the month, but I'm committed now to ensuring that I get every single damned byte out of my ISP that I'm paying for.
If the day comes when all of an ISP's customers use all of their allotted bandwidth, then the ISP has to survive or perish. Good planning would ensure that they've actually got the ability to supply 100% of the bandwidth they sell, but I suspect few ISPs can. If they can't back their sales with the service we're paying for, then they deserve to go under should any 'bandwidth crisis' hit.
That's not correct. Gates spoke out about the current DRM not the concept.
o n-the-future-of-drm/) (emphasis mine)
From the TechCrunch article (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-
Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.
His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."
He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."
"No one has done it right, yet" and "DRM is not where it should be" can't be read as saying DRM has to go, but that it must be more sophisticated.
Gates wants DRM, make no mistake about it. His interview was just FUD attempting to harm the online music industry. He should know all about the issues of legality with online sales, so his quote about being legal is either a complete distortion of the truth or a gaping hole in his understanding.
If you hate fanboys, you'll have to admit you're wrong on this, or be labelled a Gates fanboy.
In terms of online sales, the traditional economy perspective has to be reviewed.
Specifically, in this case, cost to produce is zero. Apple do all the work and take all the risk, passing over 65% of the revenue (I think). The music companies probably maintain a couple of people to manage the relationship from their end, but the end result is that of 2 billion songs sold, about 1.3 billion dollars has been given to the music industry.
In this environment, selling one album for $18 provides $11.70 profit, while three albums for $10 provides $19.50 profit. Well, revenue really, but unless they've got costs I can't imagine, their side of this deal probably costs them a cent or two from an album, so I'm equating revenue and profit in this special case.
I would claim that the music industry is run by people who don't understand online sales, and are fearful of the potential. Not fools exactly, but their position isn't stemming from intelligent analysis either.
Brilliant post. If only life where like that, but I can't help imagining an extra paragraph:
...
Music company: "Well, you can just wait as long as you like. We've got your competitor contacting us and they're willing to toe our line. You can take your principles to the poor house when you go, because your competitors are going to beat you in the marketplace by getting their first. They'll have such a head start that you won't even be able to see their arses with a telescope. Thanks for your frankness, but be out of this building in five minutes."
If people across the entire tech industry had the same principles and behaved the same, then your story might have happened. Sadly there are people who have no principles, people who have vastly different principles and people who are extremely principled. In such an environment, a music company can choose to deal with people whose principles align with their own.
Is this the "real world" where all their DRM and copy protection doesn't stop piracy for an instant? The one where I can buy a DRM-ed album at the iTunes Store or a completely unprotected CD in any one of hundreds of places in just about any city or town?
How does putting DRM on a tiny proportion of their music matter when the vast majority is completely open to piracy?
I think your executive friends need to visit the "real world" the rest of us live in. DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and even if an argument can be made that it's all about stopping piracy, it's clearly fundamentally failing in that goal.
A new and better solution is required, not just the old "well it's failed in every way imaginable but I'm sure if we keep doing the exact same thing something magical will happen" strategy currently in use.
As for the "Jobs inventing hating DRM" line - who actually said that? Sounds like Artie MacStrawman to me. He gets quoted here a *lot*.
So what if Pamela Jones is real or not? Since she's reporting and commenting on the trial, how can she be important to the outcome of it? Does SCO claim that Groklaw is biasing a judge?
Why not subpoena Reuters and AAP? Or anyone who's written an opinion piece about SCO?
SCO has fundamentally confused inputs with outputs. Groklaw is an output of the trial, not an input. Unless they can show Pamela Jones has some priveleged information, they're just wasting time here clutching at straws.
If SCO is clutching at straws here, wasting time, they should be punished and punished hard. I'd like to see jail time for management here, and maybe for lawyers. Should intentionally wasting the court's time be considered contempt?
Beagle sounds very nice. Nothing whatsoever to do with Spotlight, and doesn't run on OS X, but still nice.
So... you're hoping to be modded 'offtopic' I guess.
The reviews I've seen with feature comparisons have usually been in print magazines. Just type "Vista Tiger" into Google and you'll see a good number of comparison articles. I wouldn't expect OS X 10.4 to be better than Vista at every single thing, given the relative ages. That it stands up so well is a testament to Apple and is damning for Microsoft's five year Vista odyssey.
I agree that Vista is nothing special for Mac users, and only slightly special for Windows users, but my first point is that Microsoft see Leopard as a threat and are putting out some FUD in readiness.
I suspect that Microsoft are announcing shiny new software for some future date is that they're worried about Leopard.
Reviewers are already pitting Vista against OS X 10.4 and finding them neck-and-neck, with Vista coming out ahead on some features and OS X coming out ahead on others.
A lot of people are expecting the upcoming OS X 10.5 to blow Vista's features out of the water. Microsoft don't want Vista to look like a lame (but profitable) duck for a few years, so they're going to pump up the next big thing. To paraphrase their past vapourware strategies - "don't buy from them, stay with us and you'll get all their features anyway, soon, soon..."
"We put Longhorn on the back burner for awhile," Fathi said. "Then when we came back to it, we realized that there were incremental things that we wanted to do, and significant improvements that we wanted to make in Vista that we couldn't deliver in one release."
Is that just a complete lie, a total re-writing of history? I've never heard anything other than the story of years of painful work going nowhere, resetting to Win2K3, jettisoning features and finally making progress. I've never heard this bit about slacking off for a couple of years, not really trying and then picking things back up later on.
So what will be the coolest new feature in Vienna?
According to Fathi, that's still being worked out. "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is," he said. "Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers."
"It's too early for me to talk about it," he added. "But over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."
This comment reveals that Vienna is truly vapourware - they've not even reached the whiteboard to block out the big features.
How can Microsoft let executives like this go out and give an interview with no spiel? A quick elevator speech is all that's required. Just something about "new filesystem database to revolutionise files" or "rich media" or even "exceedingly wealthy media born with a silver spoon." Anything is better than this sort of "well, gee, I dunno, didn't think you'd ask me that, hmm... nope, nothing's come to mind."
Put it in your Dock!
That's where my terminal is and it's just "click".
As an admin, you really should have your Dock full of useful things.
Oddly enough, few analysts are multi-millionaires.
This is a critical point to remember when you read their commentary, as they're not smart enough to put their money on their words.
The best analyst of all would show a proven record of success, highlighted with comments like "I bought that stock at $n and sold at 15x$n which is what I knew would happen."
Hmm... few of those about.
Surely he must have ralised that casting any sort of stereotyping imagery about was a bad thing.
Surely he can't be so naive as to think "this is a girl's game, that's a boy's game" ?
Surely not?
Sadly, it's increasingly obvious that Bill Gates has no real connection with popular culture or maybe even with culture at all. Comments like this really underline the whole point.
He could have said "this game appeals to so many people, from five to fifty, and it's got a fun, bright feeling to it," or maybe "this is a great game for younger players, but it's just quirky enough for anyone looking for something different," but no, he had to cast it as a young girl's game.
There's nothing wrong with games targeted at girls, boys or albino geriatrics, but stereotyping them denies the game to others. A lot of people are less likely to pick up and try something new if they've heard things outside their normal realm of comfort. There's a whole part of business dedicated to this sort of thing. It's called "Marketing" and it's all about making sure the image your products hold in the wider world maximises the sales. I'm sure Microsoft has a couple of people who specialise in this - Gates should speak with them some time.
It's a game. Girls play games. Boys play games. Men and women play games. I know of girls who can whip your arse in WoW, and boys who can do the same. Gender is irrelevant. Gates blunders again, speaking where wiser people would hold their damn fool tongues.
And that post is exactly why I have you on my 'friends' list on Slashdot. Well written, solid thought-out points there.
The last sentence - "Money is not happiness" - relates to why tomorrow I'm giving notice at my current workplace. Happiness has been replaced by constant stress and I'm at the point of no longer caring what I do. I love the people I work with, but have stopped liking my work, or finding it interesting. I'm ready to trade stress and money for happiness and less money. Or at least a better balance of work and life, and maybe reasonable money.
Anyway, an interesting coincidence between your post and my own work life right now.
"Jobs repeats comments Made by Gates"
Really? Seems like you're telling a fib here. There's never been a comment by Gates that he wants DRM gone. I may be wrong, but since the burden is on you to back up your claim, I'll leave you to it.
Your countering points are flawed as well.
Flaw 1 - his exact wording is "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full." which must be the source of your claim that "his estimate requires that every iPod sold is still in use." Jobs' calculations would require about 90M iPods in use, but let's suppose it was 45M iPods still in use. The average songs per iPod rises to 44. Does that materially affect the argument? Especially when you consider that the newer iPods have much higher capacity than 1000 songs.
Flaw 2 - his exact wording is "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs..." You claim "his estimate requires that every iPod sold hold about 1,000, which is obvious nonsense" but fail to provide any link to your own point. The point made by Jobs is that the average songs per iPod are about 3%. Since many iPods hold much more information, the average proportion of iTMS songs on an iPod is probably lower than Jobs' estimate. This 'flaw' seems to strengthen Jobs' point, which he was probably trying to understate - if it's only a few percent of your total collection, where's the lock-in? (That's how I see Jobs' point here, at any rate)
Flaw 3 - No-one has an average iPod? So you claim that there is no iPod anywhere on the face of the planet that has 1000 songs of which 22 were bought at the iTMS. I can set one up in pretty short order, just to prove your point wrong if you like. I'm pretty certain that this combination doesn't cause black holes to form or the tidal forces of the planets to align and rip the iPod apart. Your point is meaningless here, as it doesn't affect your argument in any way other than to fail in your claim that Jobs' stats are wrong.
Now, if I were to use your argument style, I'd go out and claim you're *lying* over statistics, therefore your own statement is to be disregarded. I could even ignore the real point you made in your second paragraph, just like you ignored the rest of Jobs' comments.
Of course, I wouldn't go quite that far. I think you're arguing a point badly (and arguing the wrong point anyway) but I wouldn't necessarily claim you're a liar.
Your final point is a good one - why don't we have DRM and non-DRM tracks on the iTMS? I'd be very happy to see that, and I've criticised Microsoft in the past for adding DRM to every Zune song, even if artists didn't want it. I wasn't aware that Apple were doing this, and I agree with you - it's wrong to do it. I suspect the reason is because of the costs in maintaining two systems in the iTMS, which is run not for its own profit, but to provide an entire ecosystem for the iPods, helping sell them.
Apple shouldn't go against the wishes of the copyright holders. It should try to come to terms with the copyright holders (for example, keeping prices down) but DRM controls should be at the behest of the song's owners.
That's a bit of a coincidence - I tried that beer just last night! I liked it a lot and so did my wife. I'll be keeping an eye out for Budvar in future.
In contrast, I can't get the hang of most US beers, and if I'm going for imported beer, I'll always look to Europe first.
(I'm in Australia by the way)
You're intentionally misrepresenting my post.
Jobs and his team went to PARC and did gain a lot of useful concepts, which they licenced from Xerox. They extended those well past the GUI at PARC into a useful and working interface. Have a look at the interface of the old Xerox machines. The Lisa and the Mac were light years ahead, but they built on the same foundation. Xerox had the basic ideas, but no ability to complete the picture.
The Macintosh project started in 1979, under Jef Raskin. While Raskin would have likely gone in a different direction with the Mac (if Jobs hadn't taken control from him), his ideas about a graphical interface shows that the direction would have been a GUI of some form.
Consider the humble webcam:
Apple called it the iSight.
Microsoft called it the LifeCam NX-6000.
The names alone highlight a difference between the two companies.
Well, my post was meant to be a bit over-the-top and a bit silly, but the basic point remains.
Where did those concepts come from?
Apple's Lisa.
That's where they first saw the light of day in any form.
Xerox didn't invent everything - Apple greatly extended the original GUI concept, adding pull-down menus, full system icons and much more.
A bit of history can be found at ArsTechnica...
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/3
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/4
I don't know if there *was* a virus on OS X, but...
I challenge all those virus-writing bozos to write one! Clearly they haven't got the faintest idea how to create something truly malicious when they don't have a bunch of pretty scripts already written for them. Not a single virus? That shows these bain-dead hacks can't write real code for peanuts. They're hopeless jokes and OS X users laugh about them all the time. And their mothers are too fat.
There. I said it.
Someone had to.
"Never challenge an attacker" ?
In the case of security, I *want* OS X to be the subject of intense scrutiny. I want people combing the OS for hooks they can hang malware on. This will force Apple to respond and make the OS more secure. If this doesn't happen, the OS will stay as it is (and that's not a bad level of security right now).
The MOAB fizzled out to a few third-party issues (most fixed by now) a few categories of Apple issues and a *lot* of invective from those bozos. They were useless hacks unfit to call themselves researchers. They failed comprehensively to find that "smoking gun" which would have catapulted them to the notoriety they sought.
So, who's next? Any wanna-be virus writers looking for a challenge? Or are you all too chicken? Are you all incapable?
I double-dog dare you!
Microsoft can't fire back, and it'd be terrible marketing to try.
It's one thing for an underdog to make fun of the market leader, but when the market leader makes fun of the underdog, that massively strengthens the underdog's position. People would wonder why Microsoft are so rattled, they'd hear the Apple name and maybe look into these computers.
On the reverse side, Apple's trying to gain marketshare in a world that already knows all about Windows, so mentioning it won't hurt Apple.
Ignoring the slings and arrows of Apple's marketing team is a much better position.
I like that Gates fails to answer the question. An elevator speech (or pitch) is meant to be a snappy, thirty second spiel that hits the big points. It's certainly not a sit down and chat for a few minutes.
If he can't say "Security, new look, security, better games, security, better resource management, security" in under thirty seconds, it's a good thing he's not in charge any longer.
I'm a Mac user mainly, and even *I* can make an elevator pitch about Vista!
If protecting the environment costs money, then that money must flow from one company to another.
The new companies that spring up to fill this niche will create jobs to produce the items that reduce emissions.
The 'source' companies will lose money to the 'cleaning' companies, but the net effect will be money moving about and jobs being created. Those jobs may or may not offset any jobs lost due to lower profits in the 'source' companies.
Cost is only an issue for the 'source' companies. It's an opportunity for the 'cleaning' companies, and not a reason to disallow the whole 'clean up the environment' movement.