No, it's not. Disclosure is for material facts that directly impinge on your ability to offer an impartial analysis. I am not offering an impartial analysis; I am offering a personal opinion. It is therefore expected to be subjective, and to incorporate bias from any and all sources.
> it reveals your bias
You mean like the bias that led you to search for my connection to Microsoft?
> It also explains how you can get so worked up
You mean, if I didn't work at Microsoft, you wouldn't be such a retarded fuckwit?
You loser. You were so stupidly incapable of believing I could prefer the Zune to the iPod, you went searching for a conspiracy. You are such a complete jackass.
And I'm not "worked up". I think this is FUN. I think you're FUNNY. Because you don't even realise how STUPID you look.
> I'd hate to enter a political discussion with you.
You sure would. Because then you'd have to look even STUPIDER.
And all you had to say was "do you work at Microsoft?", but you didn't.
It shouldn't matter where I work. It does, of course, so I don't volunteer the information. But it only matters because people are small-minded and ignorant. I have never concealed my work as a contractor at Microsoft. If you ask the question, that's because it matters to you - demonstrating that you're small-minded and ignorant. If you go searching for the information on your own, it's because you're small-minded and ignorant AND you have no respect for people's privacy.
Now explain to the good people here how I conspired to mislead them by promoting the Zune as something I personally liked while using my real name. Seriously, I'd like to hear this one myself.
The original Toshiba was not a Zune. The original iPod, however, was and is still an iPod.
> I am not criticizing your choice to buy a Zune
That's true. You're criticising:
- the Zune itself - the hardware predecessor of the Zune - the suitability of a Zune for others - the criteria I've used to choose the Zune - my etiquette
Which, in the end, really doesn't OBJECTIVELY differ from criticising my choice. So pardon me if I still think you're a retarded fuckwit.
Let's go back to my original post, shall we? The REAL one?
"I'm eyeing the Zune. [...] Overall, I think Zune made the best choices of where to fail."
And then, several posts later, here you come complaining that I'm comparing today's Zune with the original iPod. You complain that it's an unfair comparison, and that I'm not even doing it right, and that I am being rude.
But this is MY decision about MY priorities!
Apple FUCKED UP when they released the initial iPod. In fact, they frequently fuck up. They release hardware with major problems, then say "oops" and fix it in the next version... which previous owners have to buy all over again! How do they get away with this? I don't trust a company that does this. I especially don't trust a company that does this, yet still has legions of weirdo cultists who rail against any criticism of the Most Holy. That's just creepy.
So my decision isn't so much about a product as it is about a company. I don't trust Apple, because they clearly can't be trusted. I don't trust the various Plays-For-Sure hardware partners, because I've seen the underbelly of that program and it's pretty rotten. Which leaves Microsoft, and there's no detractor anywhere remotely close to the massive stench coming off the competition.
When I say that I personally would prefer a Zune, that's not rude. What's rude is when people start jumping around like fucking monkeys demanding to know why I made that decision, and then try to argue with me when I explain myself.
> no reason to get personal
This started out personal, you ignorant fucktard. This was all about ME thinking that I would prefer a Zune. Got a problem with that? Fuck all the way off!
> I have a feeling that we are talking about completely > different things. I am only saying that the current > iPod is better for most people than the current Zune,
I am primarily concerned about which is better for ME.
You're probably more concerned about which is better for YOU.
Most people, they can make up their own minds.
All I'm trying to do here is explain why I made the choice I did. I don't know why people feel so compelled to argue with me about it. If you don't like my decision, piss off. I don't know you. Go buy an iPod. I don't care.
> You are delusional if you think that ADDING all of the > DRM hardware mandates to Vista has not ADDED signifigant > physical hardware costs and hardware development costs.
You can't even *spell* significant.
Sorry, couldn't resist that.
These costs are being incurred anyway. Right this very second, every video and audio peripheral manufacturer on the planet is designing a brand new product line. So is every motherboard manufacturer. They have this list of guidelines, and they're making a new design right now based on them. DRM is just a few more pages of guidelines. The added fabrication costs are minimal. We're talking materials that cost two cents, and a few man-weeks of work from a team whose cost is amortised over several hundred thousand devices - less than 1/1000 of an hour's pay per device. Then the product hits shelves at $300 a pop. About $2 of that is the hardware cost of DRM. Multiply it out across the system, it's maybe $20. A decent media-capable system costs $1,000 and up. WTF is the big deal about another $20?
> You are bizarrely asserting that teh article is wrong... that the > costs of adding the Content Protection System magically DO NOT EXIST
It's called "scale". If it costs an extra $50,000 to design a new feature, that's a significant cost for the person who fronts the money, but it already costs a couple million to design the product in the first place. By the time you get the product on shelves, that cost doesn't go away, it's just so tiny that you can't really find it. It exists, it's just not worth bitching about.
> I AM A PROGRAMMER. And yes I have done some (admittedly limited) driver > work.
So... less than one year of professional experience developing drivers, then?
What's your point?
> The notion [...] is beyond comical.
So what do you think? Is it reality, or do the driver teams do something else?
If you can't figure out what they do... hey, maybe you shouldn't be writing drivers.
I'm just sayin'.
> you are delusional if you think that denying me > control of my own system is somehow any part of it
But it's not your own system. It's hardware that you own being used to play licensed content someone else owns. The system needs to act as an escrow agent to protect both owners. Neither owner can have control over that process without having the attendant ability to cheat the other. Code signing is just a high-tech notary public.
> I never made such a criticism. I'd say it's an absurd > criticism. That's like complaining that it is possible > to build a gun.
Which is precisely what the third-party security developers SHOULD have said, but instead they added BO to a virus list and snickered about all the flak Microsoft was catching over it. Now their business model is about to fall over and die. Oh, snap! PWNED!
What's that? YOU suffer from this, too? Man, it would have been nice if those security companies actually cared about YOUR SECURITY. Maybe you're better off.
> You argue you don't mind the costs, but that does > not invalidate the accounting of costs.
No. I argue that the costs we pay with DRM are indistinguishable from the costs we would have paid without DRM, which DOES invalidate the accounting. He's comparing the cost of DRM to... nothing. He's simply inventing his own second column on the accounting sheet while he makes wild guesses at the first.
> I don't want to cram SQUAT down your throat.
Sure you do. You want the insecurity back. You claim it will be a choice, but it won't. Once you give people the choice between "secure" and "convenient", which Windows has given them for years, they inevitably choose "convenient". And that's what the developers will assume. Eventually, something important will be written that only works in "convenient" mode, and it will force everyone to either turn off security or use something else.
Only if you don't think Microsoft is serious about this product. That happens a lot.
Novell didn't think Microsoft was serious about networking. Oops. But Microsoft's early network support was shit. Now it has no real competition.
WordPerfect didn't think Microsoft was serious about word processing. Oops. But Word for Windows 1.0 was shit. Now it has no real competition.
Lotus didn't think Microsoft was serious about spreadsheets. Oops. But Excel 1.0 was shit. Now it has no real competition.
Netscape didn't think Microsoft was serious about web servers. Oops. But IIS 1.0 was shit. Now it has no real competition.
History suggests that the iPod groupies are very, very wrong. You can whinge all you want about unfair competition, but losers always whinge that the competition was unfair.
> Let me know when microsoft sends you a free copy.
Already got one. Five, actually, but the first four were technically betas. Microsoft sends me a LOT of free software.
> you should go have a talk with all the people who > bought into "plays for sure".
Nondisclosure sucks. Suffice to say I've worked with several companies in the program, and the problems weren't coming out of Microsoft.
> I can see that you really believe that microsoft > will look after you.
They already do. I'm very happy with the products and services Microsoft has provided me in the past, and continues to provide me to this day. I trust them to make decisions that are ultimately in my best interest over the long run.
There are three components to any hardware device. Things that are software and can be cheaply and easily replaced at any time, peripheral capabilities that are hardware but designed to be replaced easily (though not cheaply), and mainline capabilities that are so tightly integrated any change in them requires buying a new device.
If the mainline capabilities are good enough, the rest are fixable. Bad peripherals are certainly commonplace for the iPod; you can't open a catalog without seeing some sort of dumbass bullshit for your iPod. "Waterproof iPod toaster with built-in fog machine!" (Someone reading this will go search for that because he actually wants it. Frighteningly enough, he might find one.) But bad software, firmware, and web infrastructure can be fixed right under my feet at low or no cost to me.
This assumes, of course, that you trust Microsoft to fix them. I do. You might not.
> Oh yeah, and of course they COULD, for instance, open up > the wireless so there's no limits and you can share > anything, that's not a hardware problem
No, it's a legal problem. I've wrestled with that question a little, and I came up with a few things.
1. You have to limit the DRM-protected stuff from the Zune web store. Contracts and whatnot. 2. Non-DRM media are still PROBABLY copyrighted material, because pirates vastly outnumber musicians. 3. If you really want it to be free, put a URL on it where the full non-DRM file can be downloaded.
So it looks like the 3/3 plan is really not something that needs to be opened up. You might not LIKE copyright (I certainly don't), but it's still the law.
> a complaint reflective of an inability to do "the job".
Sometimes, yes. But there's a point where a wish and reality diverge. I'd like my media player to detect the song running through my head, and either find and play that song (or, lacking appropriate license, a similar one) if I like it, or find and play a song that will get it OUT of my head if I don't. But I can't legitimately expect any media player to do that, so inability to do the job isn't a valid criticism of either media player.
What I'm hearing as criticism of the Zune, where it applies to hardware, is either "I really wanted an iPod" or "I want something that's impossible with modern technology". The software and firmware criticism, however, is frequently valid and sensible; I just don't much mind a problem that can be fixed with a download.
> the video iPod is a much more comfortable size for > pocket or belt clip, IMO.
I think that's really the biggest criticism that can be leveled at the Zune hardware with any real legitimacy. But this, too, depends - I, for one, don't expect to have this on my belt. I expect to carry it from one place to another in short bursts; I'll pick it up in the morning and take it to the car, where it sits on the seat. I'll take it into work and set it on my desk. I'll take it back to the car on my way home. And I might set it on a shelf in the garage while I work out. But I'm not one to go gallivanting all over creation, so I don't need it to be particularly portable. And since I'm a sizeable guy, my pockets tend to be bigger, so I can fit larger hardware into them.
So for traipsing to and from an elevator, a big boxy thing in my pocket is no big deal. If I was a jogger - whole different story.
> How do you not realise that every (design) > decision has both advantages AND disadvantages?
I do realise that. So you decide which is more important: to address a complaint, or to avoid what might be another complaint. I value action more than inaction, so I chose to assign the point for the larger screen rather than remove the point for making the entire device bigger.
If you choose the other direction, then the iPod wins 2-1 over the Zune, but you're retarded.
> Hopefully for you, the 'manliness' of the Zune > will be able to compensate for the crudeness of > your remarks.
I'm not compensating for anything. I'm ADVERTISING.
See this big brown media player? I laid a turd this big yesterday.
And it uses an iPod! LOLOLOLOL, you suck.
> there are some great podcasts on this thing > called 'etiquette'
1. People complained that the screen on the iPod was too small. 2. Therefore, Microsoft made the Zune screen bigger. Point. 3. A bigger screen is more bulky, so the Zune must be more bulky than the iPod. Awarding a point to the iPod for this would be ridiculous. That's like saying "it's bigger, which is good... but it's also bigger, which is bad."
> You can make the screen as "big" (relative to your vision) > as you want just by how you hold it
How you hold a mobile device is part of the design. The screen must be the right size when you hold it the right way.
> Buy an iPod and enjoy it.
I already said I was eyeing the Zune. What part of that did you think meant "I'm still making up my mind"? Apple screwed up a bunch of things Microsoft didn't. That doesn't mean Microsoft didn't screw up, but I don't really mind the things they screwed up. No "Plays For Sure" support? It was a stupid program, so I didn't waste my money on it. Three days or three plays? Don't care! Restrictive DRM? Apple isn't any better. Podcasts? WTF do I want those for? I don't want to listen to some loser NPR wannabe whining about "Pro-Choice Vegans for Jesus" not getting enough respect.
I'm not the one trying to change YOUR mind. Think what you want. There's plenty of room for you to listen to your little faggoty white iPod while I pack a big manly brown Zune. And when I run across you at a diner or something, I'll say...
What I was referring to is the fact that you couldn't do that when the iPod first came out. The iPod came in one style, one size, and one color. The Zune comes in three colors. That's more than Apple had.
Another comment mentions that the iPod is on v5.5 or something like that, while the Zune is on 1.0, which is a major point when I'm considering the two. The Zune also went from concept to shelf in eight months, which is amazingly fast and undoubtedly involved a few cut corners - so I'm much more forgiving of things that can be fixed later. I'm not as forgiving of hardware problems that mean "buy a new one after we fix it".
I'm eyeing the Zune. So far, every single detractor I have heard about it is a software problem. Lot of problems, to be sure, but most of them amount to "not an iPod" or "not what I wish it was". Very few of the complaints are in any way reflective of an inability to do the job: play music and video in a portable format.
Compare iPod: can't change the battery, case easily scratched, screen not large and bright enough. Those are hardware. Once you have those problems, you have to just get a different player. However, the software is rock-solid.
So of the two things you could get right, Microsoft chose to focus on the physical device that needs to be shipped and examined and repaired, while Apple chose to focus on the readily copied and distributed software that would otherwise need to be downloaded from the web.
Overall, I think Zune made the best choices of where to fail. Both sides are failing a little, but the Zune doesn't have any failures that can't be fixed free of charge later on down the line.
What you seem to miss is that I BELIEVE THE ARTICLE IS WRONG. My assertions do not match the article because I have no intention of saying the same things. It isn't that I didn't read it. It's that I DO NOT AGREE.
> The Vista Content Protection does place hardware costs > (and many other costs) upon everyone
I do not believe removing DRM from Vista would reduce those costs in any significant fashion. In fact, I believe it would increase them. As it is, if you want to use HD-DVD discs for backups, you get to watch movies too. Take away the DRM in Vista, and you need to have a separate HD-DVD player for movies.
> Being unable to install the driver you want to install > is a real cost.
I do not believe more than one in ten thousand people will incur this cost, and I also do not believe the cost is worth calculating.
> For starters a developer needing to get it certified > and signed is itself a cost.
And if you can't pay it, you don't get to write device drivers. Welcome to reality: software development is a real industry with real requirements that cost real money. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to go potty in the tall grass.
> it is virtually impossible to develop a new driver with > the above mentioned benefits if you cannot install and > test the driver.
I see you don't actually have any experience doing this. That explains a lot.
> it is impossible to get most driver improvements signed > and certified
If you can't get your driver certified, you are not trying. Certification isn't all that significant; it just proves your code isn't complete garbage. It can still suck pretty bad.
> Adding a feature than enables the owner to block > BackOrifice is obviously a good and usefull thing.
As I understand it, the criticism wasn't that BackOrifice couldn't be blocked, but that it could be written in the first place.
> Denying the owner control of that security system...is part of every serious security plan. You need to make up your mind. Do you want the ability for someone to write a program like BackOrifice, or not? If so, you get a bunch of malware. If not, you lose a bunch of security software. PICK ONE.
> Retract almost all of your attacks against the > article as erroneous
No. I stand by every word I've said. You can scream all day, and it will not make the massive load of shit dumped out of that article stink any less. The argument here is that you want a level of freedom Windows won't give you. The answer is DON'T USE WINDOWS. You have other options; PICK ONE. If you use Windows, you get DRM. Period. End of story. Most people prefer DRM and locked-out APIs to the alternative: HD-DVD drives that don't play HD-DVD movies, and security software that inherently destabilises the system. If you prefer that, fine, but don't shove your crap preferences down *my* throat.
The article is wrong. Vista doesn't impose the costs: Vista is PART of the cost imposed by DRM content. Put the blame on the content providers where it belongs.
> DRM-enabled hardware and software are more expensive, > even if we never play DRM content.
And a combination CD and cassette player is more expensive, even if you never play cassettes.
So I don't understand the problem.
> Try to install a fantastic new custom video driver.
What's wrong with my existing video driver? And why isn't this fantastic new driver properly signed and certified? How do I know it isn't malware?
> try installing some more powerful security software.... > anything that goes beyond the few limited capabilites > Microsoft chose to permit
Like, say, BackOrifice? Wasn't BackOrifice supposed to demonstrate the existence of scary APIs that Microsoft shouldn't provide in the first place? Gee, it worked. Now you can't write anything like BackOrifice. Shouldn't you be happy about that?
> you are completely blind to the massive shrapnel of costs and > harm striking everywhere
No. I just believe that the ability to play DRM protected content has value, even if you never use it.
But after the genie's out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
Open source is distributed and anonymous. Nobody knows who broke the encryption. Nobody knows who wrote the code. Stick it on a P2P network and get it to thousands of hosts, nobody knows who's distributing it. Who are they going to sue? How many lawsuits are they going to open? They have to send you a letter. When you get the letter, simply agree to stop distributing. End of problem. How will they sue you now? And since they can't protect the patents with so many infringements, the patents are diluted beyond utility and effectively go away.
Once the technology's out there, it's over. You can't stop it. We are everywhere. We have this kind of power. We just have to stop whining about it and do something.
Provided, of course, we really care about this issue beyond conspiracy theories and random bellyaching. I don't. I trust that DRM will eventually go away. I think we can expend a lot of energy trying to force it, and there will be a lot of energy expended by the media conglomerates pushing back, and ultimately it won't make DRM go away any faster. They don't care whether it's right or ethical or moral. They only care if it makes them money, and it won't. DRM is an empty technology that will not accomplish anything more than the inconvenience of customers, which will *cost* them money.
But if you think it's a massive injustice, go fight. I will sit here and wait. Eventually, we'll both get the same thing NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.
> I agree that Microsoft COULD have been stopped. But that would have > required intelligence on the part of the consumer and the IT industry > companies who allowed it to happen.
So let me get this straight.
Microsoft got where they are today because everyone else was being stupid.
Sounds an awful lot like how Google is getting where THEY'RE getting.
And if you ask me, both of them deserve every dime they get for it. Stupidity should be painful. Massive long-term stupidity should mean massive long-term pain.
> You also gloss over the fact that it isn't that Microsoft HAS a given > technology - but rather HOW they got it and WHAT they DO with it.
That's because I don't care.
> It applies to me and you - and considerably more so to George Bush.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were sane. BDS is a serious illness; please see a psychologist.
Ever get a Japanese program that's been dubbed in English, and find that even with a limited knowledge of Japanese the translation is obviously wrong?
That's a solid justification for piracy. Among other things, if the subtitle says "let me go" and the audio says "I'm not gay", someone might learn horribly bad Japanese. You might then try to tell someone you want to "go to the convention" and say "be gay at the convention" instead. That could be a career-limiting move. "We would have sent Joe, but he seems more interested in the gay sex than the exhibits."
Slashdot Mirror
> It's called disclosure.
No, it's not. Disclosure is for material facts that directly impinge on your ability to offer an impartial analysis. I am not offering an impartial analysis; I am offering a personal opinion. It is therefore expected to be subjective, and to incorporate bias from any and all sources.
> it reveals your bias
You mean like the bias that led you to search for my connection to Microsoft?
> It also explains how you can get so worked up
You mean, if I didn't work at Microsoft, you wouldn't be such a retarded fuckwit?
You loser. You were so stupidly incapable of believing I could prefer the Zune to the iPod, you went searching for a conspiracy. You are such a complete jackass.
And I'm not "worked up". I think this is FUN. I think you're FUNNY. Because you don't even realise how STUPID you look.
> I'd hate to enter a political discussion with you.
You sure would. Because then you'd have to look even STUPIDER.
And all you had to say was "do you work at Microsoft?", but you didn't.
It shouldn't matter where I work. It does, of course, so I don't volunteer the information. But it only matters because people are small-minded and ignorant. I have never concealed my work as a contractor at Microsoft. If you ask the question, that's because it matters to you - demonstrating that you're small-minded and ignorant. If you go searching for the information on your own, it's because you're small-minded and ignorant AND you have no respect for people's privacy.
Now explain to the good people here how I conspired to mislead them by promoting the Zune as something I personally liked while using my real name. Seriously, I'd like to hear this one myself.
This is Slashdot. What did you expect?
Moron.
> But the original Toshiba was fucked-up, too.
The original Toshiba was not a Zune. The original iPod, however, was and is still an iPod.
> I am not criticizing your choice to buy a Zune
That's true. You're criticising:
- the Zune itself
- the hardware predecessor of the Zune
- the suitability of a Zune for others
- the criteria I've used to choose the Zune
- my etiquette
Which, in the end, really doesn't OBJECTIVELY differ from criticising my choice. So pardon me if I still think you're a retarded fuckwit.
Let's go back to my original post, shall we? The REAL one?
"I'm eyeing the Zune. [...] Overall, I think Zune made the best choices of where to fail."
And then, several posts later, here you come complaining that I'm comparing today's Zune with the original iPod. You complain that it's an unfair comparison, and that I'm not even doing it right, and that I am being rude.
But this is MY decision about MY priorities!
Apple FUCKED UP when they released the initial iPod. In fact, they frequently fuck up. They release hardware with major problems, then say "oops" and fix it in the next version... which previous owners have to buy all over again! How do they get away with this? I don't trust a company that does this. I especially don't trust a company that does this, yet still has legions of weirdo cultists who rail against any criticism of the Most Holy. That's just creepy.
So my decision isn't so much about a product as it is about a company. I don't trust Apple, because they clearly can't be trusted. I don't trust the various Plays-For-Sure hardware partners, because I've seen the underbelly of that program and it's pretty rotten. Which leaves Microsoft, and there's no detractor anywhere remotely close to the massive stench coming off the competition.
Now go drink your Kool-Aid.
> You are being quite rude.
When I say that I personally would prefer a Zune, that's not rude. What's rude is when people start jumping around like fucking monkeys demanding to know why I made that decision, and then try to argue with me when I explain myself.
> no reason to get personal
This started out personal, you ignorant fucktard. This was all about ME thinking that I would prefer a Zune. Got a problem with that? Fuck all the way off!
> I have a feeling that we are talking about completely
> different things. I am only saying that the current
> iPod is better for most people than the current Zune,
I am primarily concerned about which is better for ME.
You're probably more concerned about which is better for YOU.
Most people, they can make up their own minds.
All I'm trying to do here is explain why I made the choice I did. I don't know why people feel so compelled to argue with me about it. If you don't like my decision, piss off. I don't know you. Go buy an iPod. I don't care.
> You are delusional if you think that ADDING all of the
> DRM hardware mandates to Vista has not ADDED signifigant
> physical hardware costs and hardware development costs.
You can't even *spell* significant.
Sorry, couldn't resist that.
These costs are being incurred anyway. Right this very second, every video and audio peripheral manufacturer on the planet is designing a brand new product line. So is every motherboard manufacturer. They have this list of guidelines, and they're making a new design right now based on them. DRM is just a few more pages of guidelines. The added fabrication costs are minimal. We're talking materials that cost two cents, and a few man-weeks of work from a team whose cost is amortised over several hundred thousand devices - less than 1/1000 of an hour's pay per device. Then the product hits shelves at $300 a pop. About $2 of that is the hardware cost of DRM. Multiply it out across the system, it's maybe $20. A decent media-capable system costs $1,000 and up. WTF is the big deal about another $20?
> You are bizarrely asserting that teh article is wrong... that the
> costs of adding the Content Protection System magically DO NOT EXIST
It's called "scale". If it costs an extra $50,000 to design a new feature, that's a significant cost for the person who fronts the money, but it already costs a couple million to design the product in the first place. By the time you get the product on shelves, that cost doesn't go away, it's just so tiny that you can't really find it. It exists, it's just not worth bitching about.
> I AM A PROGRAMMER. And yes I have done some (admittedly limited) driver
> work.
So... less than one year of professional experience developing drivers, then?
What's your point?
> The notion [...] is beyond comical.
So what do you think? Is it reality, or do the driver teams do something else?
If you can't figure out what they do... hey, maybe you shouldn't be writing drivers.
I'm just sayin'.
> you are delusional if you think that denying me
> control of my own system is somehow any part of it
But it's not your own system. It's hardware that you own being used to play licensed content someone else owns. The system needs to act as an escrow agent to protect both owners. Neither owner can have control over that process without having the attendant ability to cheat the other. Code signing is just a high-tech notary public.
> I never made such a criticism. I'd say it's an absurd
> criticism. That's like complaining that it is possible
> to build a gun.
Which is precisely what the third-party security developers SHOULD have said, but instead they added BO to a virus list and snickered about all the flak Microsoft was catching over it. Now their business model is about to fall over and die. Oh, snap! PWNED!
What's that? YOU suffer from this, too? Man, it would have been nice if those security companies actually cared about YOUR SECURITY. Maybe you're better off.
> You argue you don't mind the costs, but that does
> not invalidate the accounting of costs.
No. I argue that the costs we pay with DRM are indistinguishable from the costs we would have paid without DRM, which DOES invalidate the accounting. He's comparing the cost of DRM to... nothing. He's simply inventing his own second column on the accounting sheet while he makes wild guesses at the first.
> I don't want to cram SQUAT down your throat.
Sure you do. You want the insecurity back. You claim it will be a choice, but it won't. Once you give people the choice between "secure" and "convenient", which Windows has given them for years, they inevitably choose "convenient". And that's what the developers will assume. Eventually, something important will be written that only works in "convenient" mode, and it will force everyone to either turn off security or use something else.
> I just want a normal computer.
Only if you don't think Microsoft is serious about this product. That happens a lot.
Novell didn't think Microsoft was serious about networking. Oops. But Microsoft's early network support was shit. Now it has no real competition.
WordPerfect didn't think Microsoft was serious about word processing. Oops. But Word for Windows 1.0 was shit. Now it has no real competition.
Lotus didn't think Microsoft was serious about spreadsheets. Oops. But Excel 1.0 was shit. Now it has no real competition.
Netscape didn't think Microsoft was serious about web servers. Oops. But IIS 1.0 was shit. Now it has no real competition.
History suggests that the iPod groupies are very, very wrong. You can whinge all you want about unfair competition, but losers always whinge that the competition was unfair.
> Let me know when microsoft sends you a free copy.
Already got one. Five, actually, but the first four were technically betas. Microsoft sends me a LOT of free software.
> you should go have a talk with all the people who
> bought into "plays for sure".
Nondisclosure sucks. Suffice to say I've worked with several companies in the program, and the problems weren't coming out of Microsoft.
> I can see that you really believe that microsoft
> will look after you.
They already do. I'm very happy with the products and services Microsoft has provided me in the past, and continues to provide me to this day. I trust them to make decisions that are ultimately in my best interest over the long run.
The Toshiba player is *also* better than an iPod.
Happy?
> Who cares how long it's been on the market?
Um... I do. Wasn't that obvious?
There are three components to any hardware device. Things that are software and can be cheaply and easily replaced at any time, peripheral capabilities that are hardware but designed to be replaced easily (though not cheaply), and mainline capabilities that are so tightly integrated any change in them requires buying a new device.
If the mainline capabilities are good enough, the rest are fixable. Bad peripherals are certainly commonplace for the iPod; you can't open a catalog without seeing some sort of dumbass bullshit for your iPod. "Waterproof iPod toaster with built-in fog machine!" (Someone reading this will go search for that because he actually wants it. Frighteningly enough, he might find one.) But bad software, firmware, and web infrastructure can be fixed right under my feet at low or no cost to me.
This assumes, of course, that you trust Microsoft to fix them. I do. You might not.
> Oh yeah, and of course they COULD, for instance, open up
> the wireless so there's no limits and you can share
> anything, that's not a hardware problem
No, it's a legal problem. I've wrestled with that question a little, and I came up with a few things.
1. You have to limit the DRM-protected stuff from the Zune web store. Contracts and whatnot.
2. Non-DRM media are still PROBABLY copyrighted material, because pirates vastly outnumber musicians.
3. If you really want it to be free, put a URL on it where the full non-DRM file can be downloaded.
So it looks like the 3/3 plan is really not something that needs to be opened up. You might not LIKE copyright (I certainly don't), but it's still the law.
> a complaint reflective of an inability to do "the job".
Sometimes, yes. But there's a point where a wish and reality diverge. I'd like my media player to detect the song running through my head, and either find and play that song (or, lacking appropriate license, a similar one) if I like it, or find and play a song that will get it OUT of my head if I don't. But I can't legitimately expect any media player to do that, so inability to do the job isn't a valid criticism of either media player.
What I'm hearing as criticism of the Zune, where it applies to hardware, is either "I really wanted an iPod" or "I want something that's impossible with modern technology". The software and firmware criticism, however, is frequently valid and sensible; I just don't much mind a problem that can be fixed with a download.
> the video iPod is a much more comfortable size for
> pocket or belt clip, IMO.
I think that's really the biggest criticism that can be leveled at the Zune hardware with any real legitimacy. But this, too, depends - I, for one, don't expect to have this on my belt. I expect to carry it from one place to another in short bursts; I'll pick it up in the morning and take it to the car, where it sits on the seat. I'll take it into work and set it on my desk. I'll take it back to the car on my way home. And I might set it on a shelf in the garage while I work out. But I'm not one to go gallivanting all over creation, so I don't need it to be particularly portable. And since I'm a sizeable guy, my pockets tend to be bigger, so I can fit larger hardware into them.
So for traipsing to and from an elevator, a big boxy thing in my pocket is no big deal. If I was a jogger - whole different story.
> How do you not realise that every (design)
> decision has both advantages AND disadvantages?
I do realise that. So you decide which is more important: to address a complaint, or to avoid what might be another complaint. I value action more than inaction, so I chose to assign the point for the larger screen rather than remove the point for making the entire device bigger.
If you choose the other direction, then the iPod wins 2-1 over the Zune, but you're retarded.
> Hopefully for you, the 'manliness' of the Zune
> will be able to compensate for the crudeness of
> your remarks.
I'm not compensating for anything. I'm ADVERTISING.
See this big brown media player? I laid a turd this big yesterday.
And it uses an iPod! LOLOLOLOL, you suck.
> there are some great podcasts on this thing
> called 'etiquette'
I don't think that runs on Windows.
How do they make no logical sense?
1. People complained that the screen on the iPod was too small.
2. Therefore, Microsoft made the Zune screen bigger. Point.
3. A bigger screen is more bulky, so the Zune must be more bulky than the iPod. Awarding a point to the iPod for this would be ridiculous. That's like saying "it's bigger, which is good... but it's also bigger, which is bad."
> You can make the screen as "big" (relative to your vision)
> as you want just by how you hold it
How you hold a mobile device is part of the design. The screen must be the right size when you hold it the right way.
> Buy an iPod and enjoy it.
I already said I was eyeing the Zune. What part of that did you think meant "I'm still making up my mind"? Apple screwed up a bunch of things Microsoft didn't. That doesn't mean Microsoft didn't screw up, but I don't really mind the things they screwed up. No "Plays For Sure" support? It was a stupid program, so I didn't waste my money on it. Three days or three plays? Don't care! Restrictive DRM? Apple isn't any better. Podcasts? WTF do I want those for? I don't want to listen to some loser NPR wannabe whining about "Pro-Choice Vegans for Jesus" not getting enough respect.
I'm not the one trying to change YOUR mind. Think what you want. There's plenty of room for you to listen to your little faggoty white iPod while I pack a big manly brown Zune. And when I run across you at a diner or something, I'll say...
Wait for it...
MINE'S BIGGER THAN YOURS!
What I was referring to is the fact that you couldn't do that when the iPod first came out. The iPod came in one style, one size, and one color. The Zune comes in three colors. That's more than Apple had.
Another comment mentions that the iPod is on v5.5 or something like that, while the Zune is on 1.0, which is a major point when I'm considering the two. The Zune also went from concept to shelf in eight months, which is amazingly fast and undoubtedly involved a few cut corners - so I'm much more forgiving of things that can be fixed later. I'm not as forgiving of hardware problems that mean "buy a new one after we fix it".
Bigger screen is better. Same resolution is the same. Verdict: Zune.
Bulkier to carry because of bigger screen. Verdict: no points awarded.
Less efficient interface: oh, come on, it's Apple. Who *doesn't* have a less efficient interface than Apple? Verdict: iPod.
No options other than color: the iPod didn't even start with a color option. Verdict: Zune.
Winner: Zune, beating iPod 2-1.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm eyeing the Zune. So far, every single detractor I have heard about it is a software problem. Lot of problems, to be sure, but most of them amount to "not an iPod" or "not what I wish it was". Very few of the complaints are in any way reflective of an inability to do the job: play music and video in a portable format.
Compare iPod: can't change the battery, case easily scratched, screen not large and bright enough. Those are hardware. Once you have those problems, you have to just get a different player. However, the software is rock-solid.
So of the two things you could get right, Microsoft chose to focus on the physical device that needs to be shipped and examined and repaired, while Apple chose to focus on the readily copied and distributed software that would otherwise need to be downloaded from the web.
Overall, I think Zune made the best choices of where to fail. Both sides are failing a little, but the Zune doesn't have any failures that can't be fixed free of charge later on down the line.
What you seem to miss is that I BELIEVE THE ARTICLE IS WRONG. My assertions do not match the article because I have no intention of saying the same things. It isn't that I didn't read it. It's that I DO NOT AGREE.
...is part of every serious security plan. You need to make up your mind. Do you want the ability for someone to write a program like BackOrifice, or not? If so, you get a bunch of malware. If not, you lose a bunch of security software. PICK ONE.
> The Vista Content Protection does place hardware costs
> (and many other costs) upon everyone
I do not believe removing DRM from Vista would reduce those costs in any significant fashion. In fact, I believe it would increase them. As it is, if you want to use HD-DVD discs for backups, you get to watch movies too. Take away the DRM in Vista, and you need to have a separate HD-DVD player for movies.
> Being unable to install the driver you want to install
> is a real cost.
I do not believe more than one in ten thousand people will incur this cost, and I also do not believe the cost is worth calculating.
> For starters a developer needing to get it certified
> and signed is itself a cost.
And if you can't pay it, you don't get to write device drivers. Welcome to reality: software development is a real industry with real requirements that cost real money. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to go potty in the tall grass.
> it is virtually impossible to develop a new driver with
> the above mentioned benefits if you cannot install and
> test the driver.
I see you don't actually have any experience doing this. That explains a lot.
> it is impossible to get most driver improvements signed
> and certified
If you can't get your driver certified, you are not trying. Certification isn't all that significant; it just proves your code isn't complete garbage. It can still suck pretty bad.
> Adding a feature than enables the owner to block
> BackOrifice is obviously a good and usefull thing.
As I understand it, the criticism wasn't that BackOrifice couldn't be blocked, but that it could be written in the first place.
> Denying the owner control of that security system
> Retract almost all of your attacks against the
> article as erroneous
No. I stand by every word I've said. You can scream all day, and it will not make the massive load of shit dumped out of that article stink any less. The argument here is that you want a level of freedom Windows won't give you. The answer is DON'T USE WINDOWS. You have other options; PICK ONE. If you use Windows, you get DRM. Period. End of story. Most people prefer DRM and locked-out APIs to the alternative: HD-DVD drives that don't play HD-DVD movies, and security software that inherently destabilises the system. If you prefer that, fine, but don't shove your crap preferences down *my* throat.
The article is wrong. Vista doesn't impose the costs: Vista is PART of the cost imposed by DRM content. Put the blame on the content providers where it belongs.
But... but... we don't come here for the intelligence. We come here for the retarded arguments.
Or is that just me?
> With the lawsuit threat, it won't get into Debian,
> Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, Gentoo, Fedora, or any other
> major distro
If a development community is going to whinge about anticompetitive practices, the very least they can do is compete.
> DRM-enabled hardware and software are more expensive,
> even if we never play DRM content.
And a combination CD and cassette player is more expensive, even if you never play cassettes.
So I don't understand the problem.
> Try to install a fantastic new custom video driver.
What's wrong with my existing video driver? And why isn't this fantastic new driver properly signed and certified? How do I know it isn't malware?
> try installing some more powerful security software....
> anything that goes beyond the few limited capabilites
> Microsoft chose to permit
Like, say, BackOrifice? Wasn't BackOrifice supposed to demonstrate the existence of scary APIs that Microsoft shouldn't provide in the first place? Gee, it worked. Now you can't write anything like BackOrifice. Shouldn't you be happy about that?
> you are completely blind to the massive shrapnel of costs and
> harm striking everywhere
No. I just believe that the ability to play DRM protected content has value, even if you never use it.
You failed ECON 101, didn't you?
But after the genie's out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
Open source is distributed and anonymous. Nobody knows who broke the encryption. Nobody knows who wrote the code. Stick it on a P2P network and get it to thousands of hosts, nobody knows who's distributing it. Who are they going to sue? How many lawsuits are they going to open? They have to send you a letter. When you get the letter, simply agree to stop distributing. End of problem. How will they sue you now? And since they can't protect the patents with so many infringements, the patents are diluted beyond utility and effectively go away.
Once the technology's out there, it's over. You can't stop it. We are everywhere. We have this kind of power. We just have to stop whining about it and do something.
Provided, of course, we really care about this issue beyond conspiracy theories and random bellyaching. I don't. I trust that DRM will eventually go away. I think we can expend a lot of energy trying to force it, and there will be a lot of energy expended by the media conglomerates pushing back, and ultimately it won't make DRM go away any faster. They don't care whether it's right or ethical or moral. They only care if it makes them money, and it won't. DRM is an empty technology that will not accomplish anything more than the inconvenience of customers, which will *cost* them money.
But if you think it's a massive injustice, go fight. I will sit here and wait. Eventually, we'll both get the same thing NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.
> I agree that Microsoft COULD have been stopped. But that would have
> required intelligence on the part of the consumer and the IT industry
> companies who allowed it to happen.
So let me get this straight.
Microsoft got where they are today because everyone else was being stupid.
Sounds an awful lot like how Google is getting where THEY'RE getting.
And if you ask me, both of them deserve every dime they get for it. Stupidity should be painful. Massive long-term stupidity should mean massive long-term pain.
> You also gloss over the fact that it isn't that Microsoft HAS a given
> technology - but rather HOW they got it and WHAT they DO with it.
That's because I don't care.
> It applies to me and you - and considerably more so to George Bush.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were sane. BDS is a serious illness; please see a psychologist.
Ever get a Japanese program that's been dubbed in English, and find that even with a limited knowledge of Japanese the translation is obviously wrong?
That's a solid justification for piracy. Among other things, if the subtitle says "let me go" and the audio says "I'm not gay", someone might learn horribly bad Japanese. You might then try to tell someone you want to "go to the convention" and say "be gay at the convention" instead. That could be a career-limiting move. "We would have sent Joe, but he seems more interested in the gay sex than the exhibits."