"iTunes is a software product that runs on Windows and Macintosh computers. You can't download music 'from iTunes'. What he means is downloaded from the iTunes Music Store with the iTunes application on your PC and I would be fine with that if he just said that once, at the beginning of the article, but he doesn't. Most people are more careful to differentiate between the iTMS and iTunes itself."
It's a reasonable abbreviation for most of us, since it's not like you can download from other stores with iTunes nor can you download from iTunes Music Store with anything other than iTunes. I'd also argue that I could say, "I got a document from Microsoft Word which is why I can't open it." Yes, it would be clearer if I said, "I got a document in Microsoft Word format which is why I can't open it."
But I'll agree that it might be confusing. Perhaps if I changed his quote thusly:
"[...] what you downloaded with iTunes wouldn't play elsewhere."
This is one of those times I wish I had mod points.
I'd also add that having a monopoly is not inherently illegal, but using your monopoly in one market to achieve a monopoly in another is. This strikes me as an interesting point today considering the buzz currently running around the "video iPod" and Apple selling downloadable movies. If Apple made this part of the iTunes Music Store, it might lead to monopoly issues. On the other hand, if Apple were to add this to, say, iMovie (and the Windows users had to wait a bit for iMovie for Windows) there would be less of a problem.
"What would it do to iPod sales if microsoft became the leader in music distribution software?"
Very little. Apple would open up the iPod, which would now play WMA and Real. From a technical standpoint, you would buy it because it plays the most music formats (FairPlay, protected WMA, protected Real, AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, etc). iPods would still be sexy and people would feel more comfortable buying them because they could buy their music from anywhere.
Remember that we're all presumed innocent. To take an example of encryption, just because I'm using encryption does not mean that I am plotting nefarious schemes against my fellow citizens. I may be discussing confidential business things, for example. Y'know, dare I say it, I might actually work from home in an effort to not drive my car around and burn gas, hurt the environment, etc., etc.
These sorts of mistakes can be dangerous. Imagine the above example--I'm some bigshot business-guy. I own a publicly traded company. The FBI inadvertently taps my phone and learns that someone at the company I work for has just invented something that will make the company a ton of money. Do you really think those agents aren't going to call up their stock-brokers and say, "BUY! BUY! BUY!" (Or, assume the other direction, if you prefer)
Frankly, yes. I want to make it difficult for the government to wiretap it's citizens. I want somebody to look at the evidence that has been accumulated and act as my representative to say, "Hey, wait. Just because he encrypts his phone calls doesn't mean he's a terrorist." I want somebody to second-guess these guys.
The story of the gutsy cop who goes against procedure to nab the bad guys before they enact their evil deeds is a great movie. But it's not real life--remember, in most cases we get the see the bad guys planning their acts in the movies so we know who the bad guy is. Reality is not that cut-and-dried.
In short, I'm more worried about the government abusing it's power than of the terrorists blowing up a building. That happens alot more often.
Suppose I'm an evil person intent on doing evil things and I decide to communicate with my evil minions around the country using some sort of encrypted VOIP-type of thing that I had one of my evil minions put together.
Suppose further that the US Government gets wind of one of my nefarious schemes, goes to the appropriate judge, and gets a warrant to tap my Internet connection. They then discover that I'm using this encrypted VOIP thing.
What are they gonna do? Arrest me? On what charge? Using a service which is not "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? What's the penalty for that?
Are they going to drop me a note saying, "Hey, we can't understand what you're sending. Stop doing that."? Do they have the ISPs shut off the ports? What if I'm using port 80? Does the ISP drop me as a customer? Will there be some sort of federal "Do not let this guy use the Internet" list that ISPs have to check? What about "public" places, like Internet Cafes?
This is what I don't understand. What is "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? Can the Government decide that I don't need to use a service? If so, how do they block it? Again, if I assemble it myself, how will the government block it unless they stumble across it during an investigation? And if they block it afterwards, don't they think I'll suspect something?
This sounds like the FCC is trying to play both sides of the street. Yes, you can use whatever service you like, unless the cops don't like it. If they don't like it, something may or may not happen to you.
That's actually an entertaining way to look at it.
The key in many cases in Microsoft's victory over the three was Windows. Lotus, WordPerfect, and Ashton-Tate (dBase) essentially ignored Windows on the theory that no one would adopt Windows unless it ran their programs. Microsoft, knowing what the future would portend, sunk it's dollars into developing Windows application. Thus, when Microsoft made Windows 3.0 the default boot environment, Microsoft was also ready with Excel and Word (and Access?). Since people either (a) liked this new Windows thing and wanted real Windows apps, (b) didn't know how to shut it off, and/or (c) didn't like going into "DOS Mode" to run Lotus, WordPerfect, or dBase, Microsoft benefitted.
There's also the entertaining fact that Microsoft opened various APIs in Windows only to Microsoft's Windows applications. I remember when Lotus came out with Lotus 1-2-3/G for Windows, it was slower than Excel. It came to light that Microsoft was using a bunch of undocumented API calls for drawing which made the application faster. Microsoft loudly insisted that there was no collaboration between the OS people and the Apps people--that there was a "Chinese Wall" between the two--and that Microsoft's application developers were on a level playing field with 3rd parties. Everybody knew this was bullshit, but nobody really took them to task.
Quark entered a similar situation, at least on the Mac. When Apple came out with Mac OS X, Quark pretty much said "Screw Apple" and went on with their Mac OS 9 development. So if you wanted to use a new Mac and do desktop publishing, you had one choice: InDesign. That's what got people to get to know, use, and like InDesign. Well, that and Quark's abysmal purchase and support policies.
"I think there is a law forbidding selling computer set without operating system, so this is a way to go for people who want to install they own system and dont't want to pay for Windows."
There is no law forbidding you from selling a computer without an operating system.
As I understand it, this is a condition of selling Windows. Microsoft will not give you OEM pricing unless you promise not to sell a machine without an operating system.
Actually, the last large corporation I worked for caught Code Red from a salesman's laptop. This salesman was in Australia, far away from the IT Department.
Even better: It was a security company.
Best of all: It was the Mac team that brought it to the IT Department's attention.
Last I knew, it was not illegal to let minors into 'R' or 'NC-17' rated movies. However, much like the FCC, if enough complaints end up at the MPAA, they will fine the theatres.
First, separate devices cost more. Imagine that if you have $250 to spend. You can buy an awesome iPod nano. Or you can buy a ROKR which will play music, allow you to call, text, and send pictures to people, act as an address book, etc. Replicating all those functions with an external device would be more expensive, even if each device does a better job.
Second is the "I don't want to carry all those devices around" syndrome. Suppose I bring my phone but forget my PDA. Suddenly, I can't call anybody because I can't remember their phone number. And it has to be clear where the data is--I can call up addresses on my iPod so I bring that and, suddenly, I can't because the addresses were actually pulled from the PDA which I accidentally left at home.
Finally, of course, is the vendors. Features sell devices, sad but true, and to get all those people working together would be far more difficult than just doing it themselves.
Don't get me wrong--I like the idea, too. Having a bluetooth headset that talks to my cell phone and my iPod and allows me to switch between them would be handy. But I don't see it happening...
This is actually a clever concept. Consider a device that combines an iPod with iChat and an iSight camera.
A comment I made above is that Apple does not enter "mature" markets. But an iChat phone, linked with a Skype-like Apple-branded service, might be intriguing.
You're right in that Apple is "testing the waters" but I think it's for a different reason. Basically, Apple is testing out including iTunes in non-Apple devices and seeing how much money they might make.
Consider Apple's history--when have they ever jumped into a "mature" market? I can't think of one. Apple sold Laser printers early, Apple sold PDAs early, Apple sold digital cameras early, and Apple sold MP3 players early.
So why would Apple jump into the phone market? First, there's lots and lots of competition already out there. So why would Apple want to jump in and try to compete with Motorola, Siemens, Nokia, Sony, and NEC?
Jobs once said that Apple enters markets where they can do something spectacular that no one else is doing. What value would Apple add to the consumer experience of having a cellular phone? That it would look cooler?
Sorry. I don't see Apple making an iPhone. Ultimately, there's no way that they would be able to differentiate it in the vast marketplace for phones.
"[...] is in a fairly standard path for hurricanes [...] the strongest [hurricane] to hit New Orleans was in 1915."
So this "fairly standard path" will send a strong hurricane once every 90 years?
Remember that what hurt New Orleans wasn't the hurricane, it was the flooding. The flooding was caused by the hurricane's storm surge which overwhelmed the levees, etc. Heck, the hurricane actually missed New Orleans, from what I understand.
"it's not a matter of if New Orleans will be flooded by a hurricane, but when."
I always hate these quotes. "It's not a matter of if the universe will end, but when." Yes, but if that "when" is in 6 billion years, we don't need to panic over it.
Again, like with insurance, you're playing with odds. Heck, I live out here in Southern California where we get nasty earthquakes. We do our best to design for large earthquakes, but it's pretty well understood that, eventually, one will come along which is larger than expected and will wreck the place. That could happen in 100 years, 10 years, 1 year, 1 month, 1 hour, 1 minute, 1 se [NO CARRIER]...
It's an easy prediction to make. "Someday, this will happen!" When? "We can't say when, but it will happen. Be afraid! Be afraid!"
"they announced that it would take 80 days or longer to drain New Orleans of water from the lake and river however just this weekend I saw several stories that stated it will be drained by the end of this month."
Well, again, what you have is truth through repetition. Either a journalist makes it up or gets a WAG from an engineer (or an "engineering consultant" who is not even at the scene and knows little about the situation). It may originally be reported on CNN, for example, that "it is estimated that it will take 80 days to drain the water." Some MSNBC reporter will then say that they "hear" that it will take 80 days to pump out the water. Later, someone on Fox News will report that, "according to sources, it will take just shy of three months to pump out all the water." And, of course, since none of the other networks will mention that that they got the information from CNN, it will all be anonymous and there'll be no way to check out where they got the information from (unless you saw the original CNN report).
I'm reminded of the World Trade Center attacks, which we were breathlessly told by the media accounted for more than 5,000 dead and some historian pointed out that this was more people who died in some civil war battle, making it a record of some-sort. Of course, the final number of deaths in the World Trade Center was actually about 2600 and, when you add in the Pentagon and all the people on the airplanes, you come up with a bit over 2900.
The 5000 number gets reported in large type on the front page. The 2900 number gets reported on page 17, below the fold, next to the obituaries.
Part of this is due to the immediacy of the news. They want answers now--after all, the news company is spending beaucoup bucks on the live satellite transmission. You've got highly-paid anchors sitting in expensive studios who are rambling away. They need to have some numbers to report. In these days of instant news, being first is far more important than being accurate.
It's one reason I've given up watching any "live news."
Slashdot Mirror
"iTunes is a software product that runs on Windows and Macintosh computers. You can't download music 'from iTunes'. What he means is downloaded from the iTunes Music Store with the iTunes application on your PC and I would be fine with that if he just said that once, at the beginning of the article, but he doesn't. Most people are more careful to differentiate between the iTMS and iTunes itself."
It's a reasonable abbreviation for most of us, since it's not like you can download from other stores with iTunes nor can you download from iTunes Music Store with anything other than iTunes. I'd also argue that I could say, "I got a document from Microsoft Word which is why I can't open it." Yes, it would be clearer if I said, "I got a document in Microsoft Word format which is why I can't open it."
But I'll agree that it might be confusing. Perhaps if I changed his quote thusly:
"[...] what you downloaded with iTunes wouldn't play elsewhere."
So, essentially, you're griping about one word.
This is one of those times I wish I had mod points.
I'd also add that having a monopoly is not inherently illegal, but using your monopoly in one market to achieve a monopoly in another is. This strikes me as an interesting point today considering the buzz currently running around the "video iPod" and Apple selling downloadable movies. If Apple made this part of the iTunes Music Store, it might lead to monopoly issues. On the other hand, if Apple were to add this to, say, iMovie (and the Windows users had to wait a bit for iMovie for Windows) there would be less of a problem.
"What would it do to iPod sales if microsoft became the leader in music distribution software?"
Very little. Apple would open up the iPod, which would now play WMA and Real. From a technical standpoint, you would buy it because it plays the most music formats (FairPlay, protected WMA, protected Real, AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, etc). iPods would still be sexy and people would feel more comfortable buying them because they could buy their music from anywhere.
"[...] they were the Republic of China before the communist rebellion, but they can't claim to be the whole of China anymore."
No, but they are part of China and, therefore, have as much claim to the name as the people on the mainland.
By the way, perhaps you've heard of the Republic of Korea (eg, "South Korea") and the People's Republic of Korea (eg, "North Korea")?
Yes, in fact, I do.
Remember that we're all presumed innocent. To take an example of encryption, just because I'm using encryption does not mean that I am plotting nefarious schemes against my fellow citizens. I may be discussing confidential business things, for example. Y'know, dare I say it, I might actually work from home in an effort to not drive my car around and burn gas, hurt the environment, etc., etc.
These sorts of mistakes can be dangerous. Imagine the above example--I'm some bigshot business-guy. I own a publicly traded company. The FBI inadvertently taps my phone and learns that someone at the company I work for has just invented something that will make the company a ton of money. Do you really think those agents aren't going to call up their stock-brokers and say, "BUY! BUY! BUY!" (Or, assume the other direction, if you prefer)
Frankly, yes. I want to make it difficult for the government to wiretap it's citizens. I want somebody to look at the evidence that has been accumulated and act as my representative to say, "Hey, wait. Just because he encrypts his phone calls doesn't mean he's a terrorist." I want somebody to second-guess these guys.
The story of the gutsy cop who goes against procedure to nab the bad guys before they enact their evil deeds is a great movie. But it's not real life--remember, in most cases we get the see the bad guys planning their acts in the movies so we know who the bad guy is. Reality is not that cut-and-dried.
In short, I'm more worried about the government abusing it's power than of the terrorists blowing up a building. That happens alot more often.
Okay, so here's what I'm wondering.
Suppose I'm an evil person intent on doing evil things and I decide to communicate with my evil minions around the country using some sort of encrypted VOIP-type of thing that I had one of my evil minions put together.
Suppose further that the US Government gets wind of one of my nefarious schemes, goes to the appropriate judge, and gets a warrant to tap my Internet connection. They then discover that I'm using this encrypted VOIP thing.
What are they gonna do? Arrest me? On what charge? Using a service which is not "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? What's the penalty for that?
Are they going to drop me a note saying, "Hey, we can't understand what you're sending. Stop doing that."? Do they have the ISPs shut off the ports? What if I'm using port 80? Does the ISP drop me as a customer? Will there be some sort of federal "Do not let this guy use the Internet" list that ISPs have to check? What about "public" places, like Internet Cafes?
This is what I don't understand. What is "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? Can the Government decide that I don't need to use a service? If so, how do they block it? Again, if I assemble it myself, how will the government block it unless they stumble across it during an investigation? And if they block it afterwards, don't they think I'll suspect something?
This sounds like the FCC is trying to play both sides of the street. Yes, you can use whatever service you like, unless the cops don't like it. If they don't like it, something may or may not happen to you.
It's not easy when you're big in Japan.
The lyrics are all wrong, but there's always The Dead Kennedy's rendition.
What is the crater 'Asia' named after?
Right over his head...
Is that anything like Sosumi?
Something that doesn't affect you, as long as you've applied this patch.
That's actually an entertaining way to look at it.
The key in many cases in Microsoft's victory over the three was Windows. Lotus, WordPerfect, and Ashton-Tate (dBase) essentially ignored Windows on the theory that no one would adopt Windows unless it ran their programs. Microsoft, knowing what the future would portend, sunk it's dollars into developing Windows application. Thus, when Microsoft made Windows 3.0 the default boot environment, Microsoft was also ready with Excel and Word (and Access?). Since people either (a) liked this new Windows thing and wanted real Windows apps, (b) didn't know how to shut it off, and/or (c) didn't like going into "DOS Mode" to run Lotus, WordPerfect, or dBase, Microsoft benefitted.
There's also the entertaining fact that Microsoft opened various APIs in Windows only to Microsoft's Windows applications. I remember when Lotus came out with Lotus 1-2-3/G for Windows, it was slower than Excel. It came to light that Microsoft was using a bunch of undocumented API calls for drawing which made the application faster. Microsoft loudly insisted that there was no collaboration between the OS people and the Apps people--that there was a "Chinese Wall" between the two--and that Microsoft's application developers were on a level playing field with 3rd parties. Everybody knew this was bullshit, but nobody really took them to task.
Quark entered a similar situation, at least on the Mac. When Apple came out with Mac OS X, Quark pretty much said "Screw Apple" and went on with their Mac OS 9 development. So if you wanted to use a new Mac and do desktop publishing, you had one choice: InDesign. That's what got people to get to know, use, and like InDesign. Well, that and Quark's abysmal purchase and support policies.
"I think there is a law forbidding selling computer set without operating system, so this is a way to go for people who want to install they own system and dont't want to pay for Windows."
There is no law forbidding you from selling a computer without an operating system.
As I understand it, this is a condition of selling Windows. Microsoft will not give you OEM pricing unless you promise not to sell a machine without an operating system.
Actually, the last large corporation I worked for caught Code Red from a salesman's laptop. This salesman was in Australia, far away from the IT Department.
Even better: It was a security company.
Best of all: It was the Mac team that brought it to the IT Department's attention.
To quote George Carlin, "The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"
Last I knew, it was not illegal to let minors into 'R' or 'NC-17' rated movies. However, much like the FCC, if enough complaints end up at the MPAA, they will fine the theatres.
There's the difference.
Fuck 'em.
Well, there are a few rationales for why not.
First, separate devices cost more. Imagine that if you have $250 to spend. You can buy an awesome iPod nano. Or you can buy a ROKR which will play music, allow you to call, text, and send pictures to people, act as an address book, etc. Replicating all those functions with an external device would be more expensive, even if each device does a better job.
Second is the "I don't want to carry all those devices around" syndrome. Suppose I bring my phone but forget my PDA. Suddenly, I can't call anybody because I can't remember their phone number. And it has to be clear where the data is--I can call up addresses on my iPod so I bring that and, suddenly, I can't because the addresses were actually pulled from the PDA which I accidentally left at home.
Finally, of course, is the vendors. Features sell devices, sad but true, and to get all those people working together would be far more difficult than just doing it themselves.
Don't get me wrong--I like the idea, too. Having a bluetooth headset that talks to my cell phone and my iPod and allows me to switch between them would be handy. But I don't see it happening...
This is actually a clever concept. Consider a device that combines an iPod with iChat and an iSight camera.
A comment I made above is that Apple does not enter "mature" markets. But an iChat phone, linked with a Skype-like Apple-branded service, might be intriguing.
Hmm...
Well, yes and no.
You're right in that Apple is "testing the waters" but I think it's for a different reason. Basically, Apple is testing out including iTunes in non-Apple devices and seeing how much money they might make.
Consider Apple's history--when have they ever jumped into a "mature" market? I can't think of one. Apple sold Laser printers early, Apple sold PDAs early, Apple sold digital cameras early, and Apple sold MP3 players early.
So why would Apple jump into the phone market? First, there's lots and lots of competition already out there. So why would Apple want to jump in and try to compete with Motorola, Siemens, Nokia, Sony, and NEC?
Jobs once said that Apple enters markets where they can do something spectacular that no one else is doing. What value would Apple add to the consumer experience of having a cellular phone? That it would look cooler?
Sorry. I don't see Apple making an iPhone. Ultimately, there's no way that they would be able to differentiate it in the vast marketplace for phones.
They'll take down our flags and put theirs up.
Minor quibble:
"[...] is in a fairly standard path for hurricanes [...] the strongest [hurricane] to hit New Orleans was in 1915."
So this "fairly standard path" will send a strong hurricane once every 90 years?
Remember that what hurt New Orleans wasn't the hurricane, it was the flooding. The flooding was caused by the hurricane's storm surge which overwhelmed the levees, etc. Heck, the hurricane actually missed New Orleans, from what I understand.
"it's not a matter of if New Orleans will be flooded by a hurricane, but when."
I always hate these quotes. "It's not a matter of if the universe will end, but when." Yes, but if that "when" is in 6 billion years, we don't need to panic over it.
Again, like with insurance, you're playing with odds. Heck, I live out here in Southern California where we get nasty earthquakes. We do our best to design for large earthquakes, but it's pretty well understood that, eventually, one will come along which is larger than expected and will wreck the place. That could happen in 100 years, 10 years, 1 year, 1 month, 1 hour, 1 minute, 1 se [NO CARRIER]...
It's an easy prediction to make. "Someday, this will happen!" When? "We can't say when, but it will happen. Be afraid! Be afraid!"
"they announced that it would take 80 days or longer to drain New Orleans of water from the lake and river however just this weekend I saw several stories that stated it will be drained by the end of this month."
Well, again, what you have is truth through repetition. Either a journalist makes it up or gets a WAG from an engineer (or an "engineering consultant" who is not even at the scene and knows little about the situation). It may originally be reported on CNN, for example, that "it is estimated that it will take 80 days to drain the water." Some MSNBC reporter will then say that they "hear" that it will take 80 days to pump out the water. Later, someone on Fox News will report that, "according to sources, it will take just shy of three months to pump out all the water." And, of course, since none of the other networks will mention that that they got the information from CNN, it will all be anonymous and there'll be no way to check out where they got the information from (unless you saw the original CNN report).
I'm reminded of the World Trade Center attacks, which we were breathlessly told by the media accounted for more than 5,000 dead and some historian pointed out that this was more people who died in some civil war battle, making it a record of some-sort. Of course, the final number of deaths in the World Trade Center was actually about 2600 and, when you add in the Pentagon and all the people on the airplanes, you come up with a bit over 2900.
The 5000 number gets reported in large type on the front page. The 2900 number gets reported on page 17, below the fold, next to the obituaries.
Part of this is due to the immediacy of the news. They want answers now--after all, the news company is spending beaucoup bucks on the live satellite transmission. You've got highly-paid anchors sitting in expensive studios who are rambling away. They need to have some numbers to report. In these days of instant news, being first is far more important than being accurate.
It's one reason I've given up watching any "live news."