Ballmer may be a whackjob, but he's right about four things: "Developers, developers, developers, developers." Without those, your "smart" product looks pretty dumb.
Just because the current 3rd party solution ISN'T what you wanted doesn't mean it's bad.
For the record, if developers, developers, developers, developers were all that important to MS, they wouldn't charge ungodly amounts to of money to developer for their platform. Apple gives you development tools (Xcode) for OS X for FREE, and offers a standards-based option to write for the iPhone using Web 2.0 + AJAX. Yeah, developers, developers, developers, developers..
A closed box with fancy tricks is not worth $499. An open box with OSX running underneath it that can run a Skype client
Yeah, and I'm sure AT&T would be tickled about an app like that.. seriously, you do realize that cellular companies are still planning to make money, right?
If you don't feel it's worth $499, don't buy it -- that'll insure an extra one for someone that *WANTS* one.
Umm, you may have noticed how a certain Mr. Jobs has pulled the iPhone out of his non-cargo pant pocket.. So apparently carrying a bag or wearing cargo pants are NOT a requirement.
If Apple put half as much effort into what's going on under the hood as they put into making the OS shinier, maybe we'd have machines that are better at getting a job done rather than acting as a "my computer is prettier than yours" conversation piece. Dumb "innovations" like a transparent menubar aren't going to improve the efficiency or usefulness of the user interface.
Let's look at just a *few* of the things that have been added under the hood in just Leopard: 64-bit GUI APIs (and the ability for 32-bit and 64-bit apps to run side by side), Core Animation, Garbage Collection in ObjC, significant additions to ObjC language, major revamp of Xcode & Interface Builder, Multi-Threaded OpenGL, improved file watching, improved kernel scheduling, Ruby & Python integration, and lots more. There's one feature that is still under development and won't be user configurable in Leopard. Go back to Tiger and you'll get a slew of additional "under the hood" technologies that were added or improved upon.
So I would say they are putting in much more than "have as much effort" under the hood as they are on making the OS shiny. You'll see this as I think a number of developers (esp. smaller ones) are going to require 10.5 minimum for their newer products because there is such a huge change between 10.4 and 10.5.
I completely agree. The unified window look makes a huge difference. And it addresses a major complaint with end-users and developers (plain vs. metal vs. unified toolbar vs. HUD vs. other). So kudos to Apple for listening to its customers.
Wow.. do you absolute NOT know what you're talking about.
Copland failed because it was much too ambitious. They wanted 100% backward compatibility + protected memory and other modern OS goodies.
As for the menu bar reference point -- it is still fixed, as always and is still quite visible. There may be some bugs where certain images make it disappear, but I'd call that a bug at this point. It isn't a major feature (the feature is the improved desktop which focuses on removing clutter so you can see more of your digital images). Stacks is a big deal. Once you actually start using it, you'll realize it vastly improves the dock.
Why would iPhone be a nightmare? Sure, there's the Steve RDF, but it seems pretty clear that for the first time, an emphasis on usability has been placed on a smart phone. I'm sure that there will be issues, but they'll be solved with software updates and I think calls that this will be a flop are incredibly premature. I'm sure you want it to be a flop, that is clear from your statements.
Steve Jobs will not get ousted for 10.5 or iPhone.
I think Mac OS X 10.5 is going to be a very solid release. Perhaps it is not as end-user feature laden as some would like, but it has plenty of useful features that will make it worth the $129 upgrade. More importantly, the features and functionality added for developers means that there will be some very cool apps coming down the pipe.
The iPhone will do well. The secret is that much of the functionality is in software that can easily be updated via syncing with iTunes. Bugs can easily be addressed. Improvements can be made and sent out much in the same way Apple does for its standard applications. I'm sure there will be glitches (when several hundred thousand people start using something, there are bound to be edge cases that come up). And the 2nd generation will do even better.
I predict that Apple will have an iPhone battery replacement program (much like for the iPod, possibly better since you'll likely take it to a AT&T store) which, while not resolving the user replaceable battery, will relieve the anxiety of what to do after two years of battery use.
In the end, I'm sure there will be some limitations, as this is a 1.0 product, but those limitations will be worked out. There will be some very vocal nay sayers out there, but based on what I've seen thus far (and my own experience with previous phones), Apple is changing the game here. It is putting emphasis on the end user experience -- something that's apparently new to the industry -- and I think they will be successful because of it.
Repeat after me: competition is a good thing. If Firefox cannot handle any of the heat that Safari on Windows generates, it doesn't deserve to play as a browser alternative. The Mozilla comment smells more of fear than anything else.
I say relax and keep making Firefox better. Safari will get better and ultimately, the loser will be the worst browser (aka IE).
I'm not a big fan of Apple Mail, but Thunderbird is definitely not the answer. Firefox is OK, but doesn't give a natural experience. Camino is a much better experience than Firefox, although I personally like Safari as a browser. I haven't seen any concrete reasons why Safari sucks and my experience seems to be the opposite of others.
I think Lilly was definitely reading WAAAAAY to much into the simplified graph. What Steve was really saying is that hey hoped to eventually get something closer to 15% share.
Why is that important? Because it will force the retarded web developers to stop coding purely to IE. As Firefox has reached 10-15% share, web designers now test more regularly on the browser. Folks start using few ActiveX controls as a way to design web pages. That's good for everyone.
What would have been more confusing is if Steve would have put 3 sections up there. Folks would be arguing whether the Firefox piece was bigger or smaller than the Safari piece. Basically, no matter what Steve did, he was going to get grief, so he went with the simpler chart!
The browsers will be successful on their own merits. It's only taken 3 major releases for Firefox to finally support native Mac control. Safari is beta and has lots of bugs (many related to porting), so we'll have to see how that settles as well. The real loser will ultimately be IE, which is fine by me. IE 6 and 7 offer up the absolute worst user experience when browsing to pages that are CSS/HTML compliant, but not written to IE6 specifically.
I am glad you have several reasons not to buy an iPhone, leaves an open slot for someone who does want one.
1) I admit that AT&T is a risk (customer service wise), but remember Apple when to Verizon first and Verizon chose not to play.
2) the problem with ultra mobile device is that it is not a phone, it's an ultra mobile device
3) apparently texting on tiny little buttons of existing phones doesn't make your finger tips sore at all, making you a very unique person.
4) clearly Apple is in a lose-lose scenario with you: They do plastic and you'd probably freak about how everything gets scratched up. They do glass and you freak out how easily it will break. Do you avoid glass/ceramic objects at all costs because you are prone to dropping it?
5) yes, Apple charges a premium for delivering cutting edge software/design. If you've ever owned a BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes, you'll know that you often pay a premium for a brand. There is much more that goes with a brand than just component pricing.
But you don't have to pay, go get a Nokia or Motorola whatever and move on. Very strange how folks just love to bitch about how they won't be buying an item. If you're not planning to ever buy the item in question, then you're not even a *potential* customer and really offer little value to the argument.
Don't blame Apple for this. Apple tried to set up a deal with Verizon first and they said "No". They viewed it as too risky for them (probably because they are uncomfortable doing anything new).
AT&T took the risk, but required an exclusive contract to do so. So in order to play with the carriers, Apple had to do an exclusive. In order to get some of the "cool features" like random access voice mail, Apple needed a carrier that was willing to make changes to their system.
So I don't think it's Apple that can't play with others, but the others that make it difficult to play with everyone.
The real risk is that Apple is relying on AT&T's customer service. Given my past experience, that is the *ONE* thing that Apple cannot control and that could hurt the iPhone. Apple can write software patches to fix most iPhone issues that comes up, unfortunately they cannot patch the customer service representative you talk to when you have a problem with your bill. Mind you, this is not a problem exclusive to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile don't do well in these areas either.
FISA is based upon the very peculiar notion that they can first tap, and then ask for a warrant, and if a warrant is not issued, then they just "forget" about the tap and - somehow - everything is just peachy. But clearly, it isn't.
This argument is sadly based on the premise that FISA would actually not issue a warrant. I don't even think there is a case where this has happened, ever. FISA is a rubber stamp "court" that allows the illusion of legality in our Federal Gov't spying efforts. It is basically a loophole being used by this Gov't. King George, however, is so arrogant to not even consider this tiniest of tiny speed bumps in trashing American citizens' rights.
King George Bush (slightly paraphrasing): I'm trashing your rights to protect freedom and democracy in this country. Only someone not interested in freedom and democracy would question why they've lost their rights under the Constitution. Clearly you must be against this nation.
Agreed. Even developers were totally in the dark as to when the OS was set to ship. Developers were really shaking their head with the instability of the seed releases and the supposed release date of Mar, Apr, May, Jun 07. When a seed release is so bad that it stops a developer from doing ANY work, you know it's not coming out in 3-4 weeks.
I think there are a number of developers sighing in relief that reality hasn't become *too* distorted.
I double checked the specs and it says it supports EDTV and HDTV.
AppleTV is designed to create a new market, as such -- it will use the latest specs rather than the oldest specs. HDTV (like every other technology) has a chicken and egg dilemma. Currently there is very little that takes advantage of HDTV, thus the demand is not strong. If everyone were to "wait a few years until it became affordable", the demand would continue to linger.
Apple has done this in the past. USB wasn't nearly as prominent until Apple made it the default I/O on their Macs. It had been around for some time, but no one was using it. Then Apple stepped in and look at where we are now with regards to USB (now there's USB 2.0): keyboards, mice, cameras, hard drives, thumb drives, web cams, and lots more.
The folks that haven't purchased a TV in 10-15 years are not likely to jump onto the latest technology from Apple anyway. There are plenty of folks that do have HDTV sets out there (it's hard to find a new TV that ISN'T HDTV).
I don't believe their requirement for a more modern TV will be the deciding factor.
My guess is that a key delay is related to the movie studios. Apple hasn't signed up all the studios in the U.S. either. I think the movie studios are wanting more restrictions and/or money as part of the negotiations (it always seems to come down to money).
Perhaps you could direct some of that blame towards your Government representatives, or perhaps the RIAA, MPAA equivalents in your country.
I'm sure Apple would be thrilled to sell you AppleTV, Movies and more if they could. Like all companies, they are generally happy to take your money.:-)
Apple is known to not cling to old technology. They would rather ride/drive the HDTV wave than cling on to S-Video or composite past. See dropping the floppy on iMac, dropping ADB & SCSI in favor of USB and FireWire.
I have a feeling there will be more coming that takes advantage of the HDTV than exists in this 1.0 product.
> Patents are a necessary part of scientific development.
I'm not going to argue about patents in another field, but in the universe of computer software, I do think patents need to be abolished. Patents are now stifling progress in the computer industry.
The personal computer industry has been around for about 30 years. That represents less than TWO generations of patents (which are roughly 17 years). Consider how far we have come along in just the last 17 years. Things patented in 1990 are just now coming off patent. How far have we come along since 1990 in the software world? Just a bit. In fact, the same 17 years represents close to 8 generations of development (assuming an average 2-year development cycle).
The purpose of patents is to foster innovation by rewarding the inventor exclusivity for advancement. Today patents are used as weapons in some kind of corporate war. Companies have business models of buying up software patents, then suing. No innovation there. Large companies keep an arsenal of patents in their belt as a defense, but it leaves smaller companies at a huge disadvantage today.
I think software patents and business process patents are ridiculous. They stifle innovation, plain and simple. Look at all the software patent litigation in just the last few years. I believe we might actually be further along in the world of software if not for the software patents, as most new ideas are built on earlier successes.
This is the argument that RIAA wants us to have. The reality is that DRM treats all customers as likely criminals.
My collection of music is more than 13,000 songs bought legally (and mostly CDs over the past years). I've made a few mix CDs here and there, but I'm not a pirate and am sicking of being treated like one. My online music purchases are relatively low due to this fact alone.
I have more than 5 machines, so even FairPlay restricts my usage. MS's PlaysForSure/Zune DRM seems even more draconian.
Steve Jobs is on the right track by pointing out the idiocy of the recording industry (whether or not he has ulterior motives). I read that EMI is considering non-DRM tracks for sale online. RIAA has been asserting its rights at the expense of our rights (not unlike the Patriot Act). It is doing it under the guise of piracy, but ultimately it is about control and more importantly money. RIAA wants DRM so that it can control what you do with the music you bought.
DRM and interoperable DRM are interesting topics for things like subscription services (where for $10/mo you get access to the entire library of music), but for bought tracks, it is the wrong argument.
And finally, let me say Bravo to the open market. The more RIAA tries to tighten its grip, the more sales plummet for the music they hock. This, of course, only causes RIAA to stick its head farther up its ass and tighten more. The ultimate result will be the end of RIAA, it'll just take some time for everything to implode. Hopefully then, the artists will get their rights back (as a bonus).
Typical slashdotter. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must automatically be an Mac apologist.
Of course all I did was point out that it's probably a bit more complicated that the "hour of work" claimed. But since most don't even RTFA, why should I expect them to RTFComment before actually responding to it.
As a business owner, I see the logic in an all or none option. Why should I invest in mixed approaches when I'm trying to kill DRM.
We also don't know any legal requirements set by the record labels on Apple. Remember, they want a tight reign on their distribution. I'm sure there are all kinds of releases that need to be filed and kept on hand.
And we also don't know what Apple will do in the future. Maybe as part of his argument, Apple will take the extra effort and start offering some songs DRM free. The response of a simple SQL statement is just silly, or conveys a lack of understanding of the the business world and the legal ramifications for a company as big as Apple. Even if it were just a simple SQL statement, I'm sure a dozen lawyers would have to sign off, policies would have to be written up, and lots of other goodies that are totally ignored.
So, rather than trying to read Steve Jobs' mind -- I'll take him at his word until he demonstrably shows something that is not beneficial to my point to view: that DRM should go away.
Statements like this make me fear the software you folks work on. Never mind potential legal issues. Never mind QA. Never mind maintenance. Never mind existing workflows. Never mind anything but a quick SQL statement. I pray you don't really work like this.
In typical Slashdot fashion, rather than joining Jobs in the fight to kill all DRM, you focus on this issue. It's no better than RIAA's take that Jobs should just license FairPlay. The argument has been completely wasted.
You preface something with "I can't imagine" and then claim it can be done in an hour. I'd hate to manage a project with that type of estimating.
And of course you ignore any possible legal obligations that might be included in all that. I'm sure RIAA would want regular auditing of their DRM'd music to insure it didn't slip through the cracks. There's more to coding than just coding.
I love how folks are attacking Jobs for not doing the extra work to split out the DRM and non-DRM as a response to his call for removing DRM all together. If the goal is to remove DRM, managing both DRM and non-DRM is wasted man-hours.
So Steve says "Get rid of DRM" and the response is "Damn you Steve, why don't you do extra work and manage both DRM and non-DRM. The logic is baffling at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer may be a whackjob, but he's right about four things: "Developers, developers, developers, developers." Without those, your "smart" product looks pretty dumb.
Just because the current 3rd party solution ISN'T what you wanted doesn't mean it's bad.
For the record, if developers, developers, developers, developers were all that important to MS, they wouldn't charge ungodly amounts to of money to developer for their platform. Apple gives you development tools (Xcode) for OS X for FREE, and offers a standards-based option to write for the iPhone using Web 2.0 + AJAX. Yeah, developers, developers, developers, developers..
A closed box with fancy tricks is not worth $499. An open box with OSX running underneath it that can run a Skype client
Yeah, and I'm sure AT&T would be tickled about an app like that.. seriously, you do realize that cellular companies are still planning to make money, right?
If you don't feel it's worth $499, don't buy it -- that'll insure an extra one for someone that *WANTS* one.
Umm, you may have noticed how a certain Mr. Jobs has pulled the iPhone out of his non-cargo pant pocket.. So apparently carrying a bag or wearing cargo pants are NOT a requirement.
If Apple put half as much effort into what's going on under the hood as they put into making the OS shinier, maybe we'd have machines that are better at getting a job done rather than acting as a "my computer is prettier than yours" conversation piece. Dumb "innovations" like a transparent menubar aren't going to improve the efficiency or usefulness of the user interface.
Let's look at just a *few* of the things that have been added under the hood in just Leopard: 64-bit GUI APIs (and the ability for 32-bit and 64-bit apps to run side by side), Core Animation, Garbage Collection in ObjC, significant additions to ObjC language, major revamp of Xcode & Interface Builder, Multi-Threaded OpenGL, improved file watching, improved kernel scheduling, Ruby & Python integration, and lots more. There's one feature that is still under development and won't be user configurable in Leopard. Go back to Tiger and you'll get a slew of additional "under the hood" technologies that were added or improved upon.
So I would say they are putting in much more than "have as much effort" under the hood as they are on making the OS shiny. You'll see this as I think a number of developers (esp. smaller ones) are going to require 10.5 minimum for their newer products because there is such a huge change between 10.4 and 10.5.
I'd definitely pick me up a 24-inch multitouch iMac. That would rock!!
I completely agree. The unified window look makes a huge difference. And it addresses a major complaint with end-users and developers (plain vs. metal vs. unified toolbar vs. HUD vs. other). So kudos to Apple for listening to its customers.
Wow.. do you absolute NOT know what you're talking about.
Copland failed because it was much too ambitious. They wanted 100% backward compatibility + protected memory and other modern OS goodies.
As for the menu bar reference point -- it is still fixed, as always and is still quite visible. There may be some bugs where certain images make it disappear, but I'd call that a bug at this point. It isn't a major feature (the feature is the improved desktop which focuses on removing clutter so you can see more of your digital images). Stacks is a big deal. Once you actually start using it, you'll realize it vastly improves the dock.
Why would iPhone be a nightmare? Sure, there's the Steve RDF, but it seems pretty clear that for the first time, an emphasis on usability has been placed on a smart phone. I'm sure that there will be issues, but they'll be solved with software updates and I think calls that this will be a flop are incredibly premature. I'm sure you want it to be a flop, that is clear from your statements.
Steve Jobs will not get ousted for 10.5 or iPhone.
I think Mac OS X 10.5 is going to be a very solid release. Perhaps it is not as end-user feature laden as some would like, but it has plenty of useful features that will make it worth the $129 upgrade. More importantly, the features and functionality added for developers means that there will be some very cool apps coming down the pipe.
The iPhone will do well. The secret is that much of the functionality is in software that can easily be updated via syncing with iTunes. Bugs can easily be addressed. Improvements can be made and sent out much in the same way Apple does for its standard applications. I'm sure there will be glitches (when several hundred thousand people start using something, there are bound to be edge cases that come up). And the 2nd generation will do even better.
I predict that Apple will have an iPhone battery replacement program (much like for the iPod, possibly better since you'll likely take it to a AT&T store) which, while not resolving the user replaceable battery, will relieve the anxiety of what to do after two years of battery use.
In the end, I'm sure there will be some limitations, as this is a 1.0 product, but those limitations will be worked out. There will be some very vocal nay sayers out there, but based on what I've seen thus far (and my own experience with previous phones), Apple is changing the game here. It is putting emphasis on the end user experience -- something that's apparently new to the industry -- and I think they will be successful because of it.
Repeat after me: competition is a good thing. If Firefox cannot handle any of the heat that Safari on Windows generates, it doesn't deserve to play as a browser alternative. The Mozilla comment smells more of fear than anything else.
I say relax and keep making Firefox better. Safari will get better and ultimately, the loser will be the worst browser (aka IE).
I'm not a big fan of Apple Mail, but Thunderbird is definitely not the answer. Firefox is OK, but doesn't give a natural experience. Camino is a much better experience than Firefox, although I personally like Safari as a browser. I haven't seen any concrete reasons why Safari sucks and my experience seems to be the opposite of others.
This "issue" is so overblown.
I think Lilly was definitely reading WAAAAAY to much into the simplified graph. What Steve was really saying is that hey hoped to eventually get something closer to 15% share.
Why is that important? Because it will force the retarded web developers to stop coding purely to IE. As Firefox has reached 10-15% share, web designers now test more regularly on the browser. Folks start using few ActiveX controls as a way to design web pages. That's good for everyone.
What would have been more confusing is if Steve would have put 3 sections up there. Folks would be arguing whether the Firefox piece was bigger or smaller than the Safari piece. Basically, no matter what Steve did, he was going to get grief, so he went with the simpler chart!
The browsers will be successful on their own merits. It's only taken 3 major releases for Firefox to finally support native Mac control. Safari is beta and has lots of bugs (many related to porting), so we'll have to see how that settles as well. The real loser will ultimately be IE, which is fine by me. IE 6 and 7 offer up the absolute worst user experience when browsing to pages that are CSS/HTML compliant, but not written to IE6 specifically.
I am glad you have several reasons not to buy an iPhone, leaves an open slot for someone who does want one.
1) I admit that AT&T is a risk (customer service wise), but remember Apple when to Verizon first and Verizon chose not to play.
2) the problem with ultra mobile device is that it is not a phone, it's an ultra mobile device
3) apparently texting on tiny little buttons of existing phones doesn't make your finger tips sore at all, making you a very unique person.
4) clearly Apple is in a lose-lose scenario with you: They do plastic and you'd probably freak about how everything gets scratched up. They do glass and you freak out how easily it will break. Do you avoid glass/ceramic objects at all costs because you are prone to dropping it?
5) yes, Apple charges a premium for delivering cutting edge software/design. If you've ever owned a BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes, you'll know that you often pay a premium for a brand. There is much more that goes with a brand than just component pricing.
But you don't have to pay, go get a Nokia or Motorola whatever and move on. Very strange how folks just love to bitch about how they won't be buying an item. If you're not planning to ever buy the item in question, then you're not even a *potential* customer and really offer little value to the argument.
Don't blame Apple for this. Apple tried to set up a deal with Verizon first and they said "No". They viewed it as too risky for them (probably because they are uncomfortable doing anything new).
AT&T took the risk, but required an exclusive contract to do so. So in order to play with the carriers, Apple had to do an exclusive. In order to get some of the "cool features" like random access voice mail, Apple needed a carrier that was willing to make changes to their system.
So I don't think it's Apple that can't play with others, but the others that make it difficult to play with everyone.
The real risk is that Apple is relying on AT&T's customer service. Given my past experience, that is the *ONE* thing that Apple cannot control and that could hurt the iPhone. Apple can write software patches to fix most iPhone issues that comes up, unfortunately they cannot patch the customer service representative you talk to when you have a problem with your bill. Mind you, this is not a problem exclusive to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile don't do well in these areas either.
FISA is based upon the very peculiar notion that they can first tap, and then ask for a warrant, and if a warrant is not issued, then they just "forget" about the tap and - somehow - everything is just peachy. But clearly, it isn't.
This argument is sadly based on the premise that FISA would actually not issue a warrant. I don't even think there is a case where this has happened, ever. FISA is a rubber stamp "court" that allows the illusion of legality in our Federal Gov't spying efforts. It is basically a loophole being used by this Gov't. King George, however, is so arrogant to not even consider this tiniest of tiny speed bumps in trashing American citizens' rights.
King George Bush (slightly paraphrasing): I'm trashing your rights to protect freedom and democracy in this country. Only someone not interested in freedom and democracy would question why they've lost their rights under the Constitution. Clearly you must be against this nation.
Sadly, our governments view as nothing more than money cattle. A source of funding, nothing more.
Agreed. Even developers were totally in the dark as to when the OS was set to ship. Developers were really shaking their head with the instability of the seed releases and the supposed release date of Mar, Apr, May, Jun 07. When a seed release is so bad that it stops a developer from doing ANY work, you know it's not coming out in 3-4 weeks.
I think there are a number of developers sighing in relief that reality hasn't become *too* distorted.
I double checked the specs and it says it supports EDTV and HDTV.
AppleTV is designed to create a new market, as such -- it will use the latest specs rather than the oldest specs. HDTV (like every other technology) has a chicken and egg dilemma. Currently there is very little that takes advantage of HDTV, thus the demand is not strong. If everyone were to "wait a few years until it became affordable", the demand would continue to linger.
Apple has done this in the past. USB wasn't nearly as prominent until Apple made it the default I/O on their Macs. It had been around for some time, but no one was using it. Then Apple stepped in and look at where we are now with regards to USB (now there's USB 2.0): keyboards, mice, cameras, hard drives, thumb drives, web cams, and lots more.
The folks that haven't purchased a TV in 10-15 years are not likely to jump onto the latest technology from Apple anyway. There are plenty of folks that do have HDTV sets out there (it's hard to find a new TV that ISN'T HDTV).
I don't believe their requirement for a more modern TV will be the deciding factor.
My guess is that a key delay is related to the movie studios. Apple hasn't signed up all the studios in the U.S. either. I think the movie studios are wanting more restrictions and/or money as part of the negotiations (it always seems to come down to money).
Perhaps you could direct some of that blame towards your Government representatives, or perhaps the RIAA, MPAA equivalents in your country.
:-)
I'm sure Apple would be thrilled to sell you AppleTV, Movies and more if they could. Like all companies, they are generally happy to take your money.
Apple is known to not cling to old technology. They would rather ride/drive the HDTV wave than cling on to S-Video or composite past.
See dropping the floppy on iMac, dropping ADB & SCSI in favor of USB and FireWire.
I have a feeling there will be more coming that takes advantage of the HDTV than exists in this 1.0 product.
I like sex, so I will buy the AppleTV. :-)
> Patents are a necessary part of scientific development.
I'm not going to argue about patents in another field, but in the universe of computer software, I do think patents need to be abolished. Patents are now stifling progress in the computer industry.
The personal computer industry has been around for about 30 years. That represents less than TWO generations of patents (which are roughly 17 years). Consider how far we have come along in just the last 17 years. Things patented in 1990 are just now coming off patent. How far have we come along since 1990 in the software world? Just a bit. In fact, the same 17 years represents close to 8 generations of development (assuming an average 2-year development cycle).
The purpose of patents is to foster innovation by rewarding the inventor exclusivity for advancement. Today patents are used as weapons in some kind of corporate war. Companies have business models of buying up software patents, then suing. No innovation there. Large companies keep an arsenal of patents in their belt as a defense, but it leaves smaller companies at a huge disadvantage today.
I think software patents and business process patents are ridiculous. They stifle innovation, plain and simple. Look at all the software patent litigation in just the last few years. I believe we might actually be further along in the world of software if not for the software patents, as most new ideas are built on earlier successes.
This is the argument that RIAA wants us to have. The reality is that DRM treats all customers as likely criminals.
My collection of music is more than 13,000 songs bought legally (and mostly CDs over the past years). I've made a few mix CDs here and there, but I'm not a pirate and am sicking of being treated like one. My online music purchases are relatively low due to this fact alone.
I have more than 5 machines, so even FairPlay restricts my usage. MS's PlaysForSure/Zune DRM seems even more draconian.
Steve Jobs is on the right track by pointing out the idiocy of the recording industry (whether or not he has ulterior motives). I read that EMI is considering non-DRM tracks for sale online. RIAA has been asserting its rights at the expense of our rights (not unlike the Patriot Act). It is doing it under the guise of piracy, but ultimately it is about control and more importantly money. RIAA wants DRM so that it can control what you do with the music you bought.
DRM and interoperable DRM are interesting topics for things like subscription services (where for $10/mo you get access to the entire library of music), but for bought tracks, it is the wrong argument.
And finally, let me say Bravo to the open market. The more RIAA tries to tighten its grip, the more sales plummet for the music they hock. This, of course, only causes RIAA to stick its head farther up its ass and tighten more. The ultimate result will be the end of RIAA, it'll just take some time for everything to implode. Hopefully then, the artists will get their rights back (as a bonus).
Typical slashdotter. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must automatically be an Mac apologist.
Of course all I did was point out that it's probably a bit more complicated that the "hour of work" claimed. But since most don't even RTFA, why should I expect them to RTFComment before actually responding to it.
As a business owner, I see the logic in an all or none option. Why should I invest in mixed approaches when I'm trying to kill DRM.
We also don't know any legal requirements set by the record labels on Apple. Remember, they want a tight reign on their distribution. I'm sure there are all kinds of releases that need to be filed and kept on hand.
And we also don't know what Apple will do in the future. Maybe as part of his argument, Apple will take the extra effort and start offering some songs DRM free. The response of a simple SQL statement is just silly, or conveys a lack of understanding of the the business world and the legal ramifications for a company as big as Apple. Even if it were just a simple SQL statement, I'm sure a dozen lawyers would have to sign off, policies would have to be written up, and lots of other goodies that are totally ignored.
So, rather than trying to read Steve Jobs' mind -- I'll take him at his word until he demonstrably shows something that is not beneficial to my point to view: that DRM should go away.
Statements like this make me fear the software you folks work on. Never mind potential legal issues. Never mind QA. Never mind maintenance. Never mind existing workflows. Never mind anything but a quick SQL statement. I pray you don't really work like this.
In typical Slashdot fashion, rather than joining Jobs in the fight to kill all DRM, you focus on this issue. It's no better than RIAA's take that Jobs should just license FairPlay. The argument has been completely wasted.
You preface something with "I can't imagine" and then claim it can be done in an hour. I'd hate to manage a project with that type of estimating.
And of course you ignore any possible legal obligations that might be included in all that. I'm sure RIAA would want regular auditing of their DRM'd music to insure it didn't slip through the cracks. There's more to coding than just coding.
I love how folks are attacking Jobs for not doing the extra work to split out the DRM and non-DRM as a response to his call for removing DRM all together. If the goal is to remove DRM, managing both DRM and non-DRM is wasted man-hours.
So Steve says "Get rid of DRM" and the response is "Damn you Steve, why don't you do extra work and manage both DRM and non-DRM. The logic is baffling at best.