It is unethical for Microsoft to use its monopoly power in the marketplace to dictate to its partners what they can and can't install on the computers they manufacture in order to protect and enlarge Microsoft's monopoly power. Apple has no monopoly power in the marketplace and is not threatening anyone who refuses to install Safari.
What Apple is doing here is merely annoying. However, I do think that when Microsoft was found guilty for the umpteenth time and got away with a slap on the wrist, Apple noticed and decided to play a bit of hardball, too.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Apple's gambit is designed to loosen Internet Explorer's grip and make Microsoft's version of the Web the same as everyone else's (and not the other way around). I think that's a laudable goal.
I don't have personal experience with Linux desktops, but aren't many of them designed to emulate Windows? This of course would make it logical that Windows users would understand Linux navigation faster than Mac navigation. As a Mac user who sometimes has to use Windows, I can't say that I find Windows painless to navigate. I'm not saying OS X is perfect, just wondering if your observations aren't in keeping with the design goals of (some popular variants of) desktop Linux.
You can set the buttons (including right-click) on the Mighty Mouse in System Preferences > Keyboard and Mouse. If you hate your Apple mouse, buy a third-party mouse of your choice and plug it in. Control-click is probably no less intuitive than right-click until you know what you're going to get; fortunately, with Macs you can use both (and more).
The first is that good design is considered a luxury. Unfortunately, in the U.S., this is largely true, but that's not Apple's fault. Good design (as in how things work, not how things look) is a necessity for the most enjoyable and efficient use of something.
The second is that good customer service is considered a luxury. Again, it seems to be, but it shouldn't be.
The third is that Apple's brand is built around luxury. The Mac guy in the TV ads (or the dancing iPodders or the guy looking for a restaurant after watching a movie on his iPhone) does not say "luxury" to me.
I think Apple is perceived as a luxury brand by some because the company does not generally compete at the low end of a market, and there's no question that Apple products currently have a certain cachet, but I don't think luxury has ever been at the core of Apple's corporate mission or culture.
Rather, I think it's a sad reflection of our times that well-designed and well-supported consumer electronics sold in pleasant surroundings are considered (by some) as too good for the average Joe.
Funny, I thought the same thing about RAM. After buying a new iBook G4 with all-Apple RAM, I ran the extended Apple Hardware Test on it. No problems found. A bit later, I started experiencing intermittent issues with the iBook, but since I "knew" RAM didn't go bad, I didn't check it right away. Too much time later, I finally ran the AHT again and whaddyaknow? Bad RAM!
"A lot of people with ipods resent having itunes as their only option."
Overlooking the lack of evidence for your claim of mass resentment, you are talking about their only option for what? Purchasing music? While music retailing is admittedly taking a hit, there are still plenty of places to buy CDs as well as a few places to buy DRM-free MP3s to play on an iPod. If iTS has more music to sell than its competitors, blame the labels or the competitors, not Apple.
If you're talking about their only option to organize their music for use with the iPod, even if it's true (of which I am skeptical), to me that's like complaining that the only option for using pre-Intel Mac hardware was Mac OS. The hardware and the software are made by the same company and are meant to work together.
Part of Microsoft's misuse of its monopoly power was in telling licensees what business deals they were and weren't permitted to make with other companies in order to protect Microsoft's interests. I'm not aware of Apple doing this.
I don't know much about Standard Oil and railroads, but Apple does not control music or its distribution, only the distribution of music that appears for sale within the iTunes software. A court would have to determine that a) iPod market share constitutes a monopoly, and b) offering a convenient way to purchase music for iPods via iTunes constitutes an abuse of that monopoly, before a comparison with Microsoft would be apt.
It helps to note that the iTunes Music Store was created well before the iPod became a phenomenon and that the store was not created in response to a rising upstart nor was its success considered a shoo-in by any means. Compare this with Microsoft's long-entrenched Windows monopoly and their blatant moves to eliminate newcomer Netscape as a threat.
Note also that Amazon's success indicates that many people find them to be a convenient way to shop. Amazon has created a way for music purchased from them to appear in the iTunes software (or so I've read; I haven't tried it myself). Apple would be like Microsoft if Apple interfered with Amazon's software and prevented it from integrating with iTunes. So far, I haven't heard that this has happened.
I've been hearing about "Apple risk" for decades. That said, I don't see how being dependent on OS X is any more risky than being dependent on any technology. It all changes fast enough that everyone should be prepared to be flexible.
Thanks for the info. It looks like only Windows Mobile devices get functionality updates, and it is up to the carrier to determine which of the models they carry are eligible. It also looks complicated to do (for some models, anyway). Still, it exists beyond the iPhone. It remains to be seen if the iPhone takes advantage of this capability in a significant way.
You are oversimplifying a bit. Apple does not update your iPhone at their convenience; rather they *offer* updates, which you have the option to accept or decline.
I have heard that part of what makes the iPhone unusual, if not unique, is that the software can be (and, of course, has been) updated to add functionality. I've never heard anyone dispute that this is unusual or unique, though I would seriously like to know if other phones get software updates (optional or otherwise). If not, I'd say this is an oft-overlooked plus for the iPhone.
You bring up interesting questions re the value of being a fan (of anything). I would say that in general, being a fan of something has its own rewards. For example, it might not make sense to be a fan of a perennially-losing sports team, yet people do it all the time (and spend lots of money to support their teams despite the lack of technical merit).
As far as Apple is concerned, I am a fan based on their track record of making complex technology easy to use. I generally value convenience more than money -- and I've never been wealthy, though I do OK. I am happy that I prefer OS X, because it makes my hardware shopping easier. Your Windows or Linux laptop might have some cool feature that I wish my Mac had, but I don't sweat it. I don't own a cell phone, but the iPhone might win on technical merit for me because I can easily understand how to use it and the buttons aren't tiny.
BTW, your example of buying from $COMPANY because it's cool is a little weak. People don't buy RAM, chargers or hard drives from their laptop vendor because the company's cool, they do it because it's convenient. And FWIW, I was a fan of Apple when they weren't cool.
I don't know that putting OS X on a (non-Apple) PC hurts Apple's feelings, but it does break the license agreement. Even so, Apple may turn a blind eye for a few reasons.
First, the population that would hack OS X to run on a PC probably intersects greatly with the population that would install Linux on a PC -- on the one hand, a relatively small group outside the mainstream; on the other, a group that might see value in the Apple approach to Unix.
Second, much as Microsoft may be trying to prevent piracy, piracy has been Microsoft's friend, making Windows the standard in places that could never have afforded it legitimately. This lesson probably has not been lost on Apple.
Third, it's a way to test the waters of broader OS X compatibility without expending any resources on it (perhaps as was done with third-party apps on the iPhone?). A Dell running OS X smoothly is great advertising, but if it crashes a lot, well, what do you expect from an unsupported hack?
If the secret sauce is in a file named "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext," that's at least different from "Don't Install Mac OS X On Non-Apple Hardware.kext" -- it's a friendly reminder that if you're going to hack OS X, please pay for your copy.
Surely, if you buy Vista in a retail box, you get some level of support from Microsoft? With Mac software, the standard is 90 days of free phone support.
Perhaps NBC *can* ignore the iPod (& iPhone), for the moment anyway, as it's not clear to me that these devices are used much for viewing video, especially long-form video. But the only way *not* to ignore the iPod (other than dropping DRM, which again, they won't do) is to negotiate with Apple to be on iTunes.
Apple's case for video on iTunes was AppleTV. It will be interesting to see what Apple does, in terms of both AppleTV changes and iTunes flexibility, as that will indicate how important Apple thinks winning this market is. It also might depend a lot on how much leverage Microsoft can get in this space, since a major reason Apple went its own way with AAC and FairPlay was to prevent their entire product line from being marginalized by Microsoft. (So far, that's worked better than anyone could have expected.)
I don't think the market for downloadable video is anything close to mature. Microsoft is certainly a player, but Apple can afford to wait a bit to see which way the wind blows. The content providers were reluctant to embrace Microsoft when Apple had no solution. Now that Apple has shown them how DRM can come back to bite them even from a benign source (and yes, I think all things considered, Apple has been a benign source in this area), media companies don't know which way to turn.
Interesting times, at least if you find the machinations of large-scale enterprises maneuvering for control of a market that may collapse into the quicksand of universal piracy interesting.
2) How bad does NBC need the iPods to drive content sales? Given they can distribute content in iPod compatible formats independent of Apple not being on iTunes doesn't seem to be that much of an issue; but that means they are at Apple's mercy for compatibility. Apple could "break" something in an iTunes upgrade that makes it impossible to load non-iTunes DRM content onto an iPod, just as they changed the way video out works so that devices need new electronics to still work with iPods (a strange move given how neat the Philip's DVD / iPod player combo is).
How can NBC distribute content in iPod-compatible formats without using iTunes unless they also forgo DRM (which they won't do)? As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as "non-iTunes DRM content" that plays on an iPod.
If you didn't want to talk about BitTorrent's website and use of its commercial content, I don't know why you brought it up. Ditto with limits to said content and leverage with content providers.
If your point is that content not purchased from BitTorrent (like recordings of your friend's band) is easier to share with more than five people using BitTorrent than it is using iTunes, I have no reason to disagree. I don't know, but I'll take your word for it.
But since content purchased from BitTorrent cannot be shared (as far as I can tell from the terms of service), I think it's disingenuous to declare unilaterally that BitTorrent is less restrictive than iTunes.
For starters, the BitTorrent Commercial Content Terms of Service says:
"We do not permit transfer or download to portable devices such as iPods, Zunes, PlayStation Portables, or similar devices at this time."
Minimum System Requirements states:
"In order to download or play Commercial Content, you may use only personal computers that (i) you have activated with BitTorrent.com by entering your account ID and (ii) meet the following system requirements:
1. BitTorrent Client 2. Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher 3. Windows XP Service Pack 2 4. Windows Media Player 10 or higher"
To this Mac user, these limits are painful (and there are more where that came from, btw). Perhaps uTorrent is better, or perhaps you are misinformed?
You can share your iTunes library on a local network out of the box. For a brief time (about a month), there was a way to share your iTunes library with the world. There may still be software out there that enables this (not sure, since I don't really care), but iTunes on its own does not.
As an aside, this one change to iTunes (introduced in iTunes 4, modified soon thereafter in iTunes 4.0.1 once it became clear that the sharing function was being used in a way other than intended) became prime evidence over the years for many an Apple-hater to rail against Apple's draconian attempts to control all of our lives -- ironic, since at the time, iTunes was Mac-only.
"Just like there isn't any decent music sharing functionality in iTunes, there won't be anything on the iPhone that doesn't settle well with the ultraconservatives in Apples Ivory Tower. Instead you'll get crippled functionality, like music sharing with ridiculous limits on the number of people/playbacks per day. As if all of their developers and customers are children who can't be given responsibility. Children don't own copyrights, so they don't need the discretion to share music beyond what Apple believes is 'fair enough.'"
When Apple first introduced sharing in iTunes, within 24 hours music was being shared all over the Internet. Depending on one's point of view, one might see this as some users not being able to handle responsibility. In any event, the music labels probably didn't much care for this, so Apple quickly removed that function. It's good to remember that Apple doesn't own the copyrights, either.
"The argument that phones are somehow more vulnerable than any other network connected computer and need to be controlled by a central authority is specious."
Perhaps they are *as vulnerable* but protecting them is considered more important. I don't have a cell phone, but most people I know who do are far more dependent on their phones than they are on their computers.
Strange that you would imply that Steve Jobs is someone without clarity of direction. I think his successes with Apple over the past ten years (iMac, Mac OS X, iPod, iTunes Store, Final Cut Pro, Apple Retail, Intel transition, and probably iPhone -- leading to record-breaking sales and a soaring stock price) far outweigh the mistakes he has made and bespeak a corporate leader who knows where he wants to go. (I would also argue that in this case, his mistake may not have been so much in backpedaling as in not being more forthcoming about future plans for the iPhone sooner, but no matter.)
If you don't install the update, the iPhone works as it always did.
The icing on the cake is that before you install the update, you see this (emphasis in original):
WARNING: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the Internet may cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software. IF YOU HAVE MODIFIED YOUR iPHONE'S SOFTWARE, APPLYING THIS SOFTWARE UPDATE MAY RESULT IN YOUR iPHONE BECOMING PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE. Making unauthorized modifications to the software on your iPhone violates the iPhone software license agreement, and the inability to use your iPhone due to unauthorized software modifications is not covered under your iPhone's warranty.
"Apple just rejected me as a customer by their businessmindedness when they included DRM, and also tried to force me buying iPod."
So you said "no" to the iTunes Store because of DRM. If you wanted to play MP3s, you could still buy an iPod. But you said Apple tried to force you to buy an iPod. I don't see how.
BTW, you can listen to iTunes tracks on your computer and/or burn them to a CD (and rerip to MP3 if you like).
Slashdot Mirror
It is unethical for Microsoft to use its monopoly power in the marketplace to dictate to its partners what they can and can't install on the computers they manufacture in order to protect and enlarge Microsoft's monopoly power. Apple has no monopoly power in the marketplace and is not threatening anyone who refuses to install Safari.
What Apple is doing here is merely annoying. However, I do think that when Microsoft was found guilty for the umpteenth time and got away with a slap on the wrist, Apple noticed and decided to play a bit of hardball, too.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Apple's gambit is designed to loosen Internet Explorer's grip and make Microsoft's version of the Web the same as everyone else's (and not the other way around). I think that's a laudable goal.
I don't know where you're from, but in the United States of America, marketing overrides everything.
I don't have personal experience with Linux desktops, but aren't many of them designed to emulate Windows? This of course would make it logical that Windows users would understand Linux navigation faster than Mac navigation. As a Mac user who sometimes has to use Windows, I can't say that I find Windows painless to navigate. I'm not saying OS X is perfect, just wondering if your observations aren't in keeping with the design goals of (some popular variants of) desktop Linux.
You can set the buttons (including right-click) on the Mighty Mouse in System Preferences > Keyboard and Mouse. If you hate your Apple mouse, buy a third-party mouse of your choice and plug it in. Control-click is probably no less intuitive than right-click until you know what you're going to get; fortunately, with Macs you can use both (and more).
A few things bother me about this perspective:
The first is that good design is considered a luxury. Unfortunately, in the U.S., this is largely true, but that's not Apple's fault. Good design (as in how things work, not how things look) is a necessity for the most enjoyable and efficient use of something.
The second is that good customer service is considered a luxury. Again, it seems to be, but it shouldn't be.
The third is that Apple's brand is built around luxury. The Mac guy in the TV ads (or the dancing iPodders or the guy looking for a restaurant after watching a movie on his iPhone) does not say "luxury" to me.
I think Apple is perceived as a luxury brand by some because the company does not generally compete at the low end of a market, and there's no question that Apple products currently have a certain cachet, but I don't think luxury has ever been at the core of Apple's corporate mission or culture.
Rather, I think it's a sad reflection of our times that well-designed and well-supported consumer electronics sold in pleasant surroundings are considered (by some) as too good for the average Joe.
Funny, I thought the same thing about RAM. After buying a new iBook G4 with all-Apple RAM, I ran the extended Apple Hardware Test on it. No problems found. A bit later, I started experiencing intermittent issues with the iBook, but since I "knew" RAM didn't go bad, I didn't check it right away. Too much time later, I finally ran the AHT again and whaddyaknow? Bad RAM!
Lesson learned.
"A lot of people with ipods resent having itunes as their only option."
Overlooking the lack of evidence for your claim of mass resentment, you are talking about their only option for what? Purchasing music? While music retailing is admittedly taking a hit, there are still plenty of places to buy CDs as well as a few places to buy DRM-free MP3s to play on an iPod. If iTS has more music to sell than its competitors, blame the labels or the competitors, not Apple.
If you're talking about their only option to organize their music for use with the iPod, even if it's true (of which I am skeptical), to me that's like complaining that the only option for using pre-Intel Mac hardware was Mac OS. The hardware and the software are made by the same company and are meant to work together.
Part of Microsoft's misuse of its monopoly power was in telling licensees what business deals they were and weren't permitted to make with other companies in order to protect Microsoft's interests. I'm not aware of Apple doing this.
I don't know much about Standard Oil and railroads, but Apple does not control music or its distribution, only the distribution of music that appears for sale within the iTunes software. A court would have to determine that a) iPod market share constitutes a monopoly, and b) offering a convenient way to purchase music for iPods via iTunes constitutes an abuse of that monopoly, before a comparison with Microsoft would be apt.
It helps to note that the iTunes Music Store was created well before the iPod became a phenomenon and that the store was not created in response to a rising upstart nor was its success considered a shoo-in by any means. Compare this with Microsoft's long-entrenched Windows monopoly and their blatant moves to eliminate newcomer Netscape as a threat.
Note also that Amazon's success indicates that many people find them to be a convenient way to shop. Amazon has created a way for music purchased from them to appear in the iTunes software (or so I've read; I haven't tried it myself). Apple would be like Microsoft if Apple interfered with Amazon's software and prevented it from integrating with iTunes. So far, I haven't heard that this has happened.
I've been hearing about "Apple risk" for decades. That said, I don't see how being dependent on OS X is any more risky than being dependent on any technology. It all changes fast enough that everyone should be prepared to be flexible.
Interesting that you use CUPS as an example to prefer Linux over Mac OS X since Apple bought CUPS.
Thanks for the info. It looks like only Windows Mobile devices get functionality updates, and it is up to the carrier to determine which of the models they carry are eligible. It also looks complicated to do (for some models, anyway). Still, it exists beyond the iPhone. It remains to be seen if the iPhone takes advantage of this capability in a significant way.
You are oversimplifying a bit. Apple does not update your iPhone at their convenience; rather they *offer* updates, which you have the option to accept or decline.
I have heard that part of what makes the iPhone unusual, if not unique, is that the software can be (and, of course, has been) updated to add functionality. I've never heard anyone dispute that this is unusual or unique, though I would seriously like to know if other phones get software updates (optional or otherwise). If not, I'd say this is an oft-overlooked plus for the iPhone.
You bring up interesting questions re the value of being a fan (of anything). I would say that in general, being a fan of something has its own rewards. For example, it might not make sense to be a fan of a perennially-losing sports team, yet people do it all the time (and spend lots of money to support their teams despite the lack of technical merit).
As far as Apple is concerned, I am a fan based on their track record of making complex technology easy to use. I generally value convenience more than money -- and I've never been wealthy, though I do OK. I am happy that I prefer OS X, because it makes my hardware shopping easier. Your Windows or Linux laptop might have some cool feature that I wish my Mac had, but I don't sweat it. I don't own a cell phone, but the iPhone might win on technical merit for me because I can easily understand how to use it and the buttons aren't tiny.
BTW, your example of buying from $COMPANY because it's cool is a little weak. People don't buy RAM, chargers or hard drives from their laptop vendor because the company's cool, they do it because it's convenient. And FWIW, I was a fan of Apple when they weren't cool.
I don't know that putting OS X on a (non-Apple) PC hurts Apple's feelings, but it does break the license agreement. Even so, Apple may turn a blind eye for a few reasons.
First, the population that would hack OS X to run on a PC probably intersects greatly with the population that would install Linux on a PC -- on the one hand, a relatively small group outside the mainstream; on the other, a group that might see value in the Apple approach to Unix.
Second, much as Microsoft may be trying to prevent piracy, piracy has been Microsoft's friend, making Windows the standard in places that could never have afforded it legitimately. This lesson probably has not been lost on Apple.
Third, it's a way to test the waters of broader OS X compatibility without expending any resources on it (perhaps as was done with third-party apps on the iPhone?). A Dell running OS X smoothly is great advertising, but if it crashes a lot, well, what do you expect from an unsupported hack?
If the secret sauce is in a file named "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext," that's at least different from "Don't Install Mac OS X On Non-Apple Hardware.kext" -- it's a friendly reminder that if you're going to hack OS X, please pay for your copy.
Surely, if you buy Vista in a retail box, you get some level of support from Microsoft? With Mac software, the standard is 90 days of free phone support.
Perhaps NBC *can* ignore the iPod (& iPhone), for the moment anyway, as it's not clear to me that these devices are used much for viewing video, especially long-form video. But the only way *not* to ignore the iPod (other than dropping DRM, which again, they won't do) is to negotiate with Apple to be on iTunes.
Apple's case for video on iTunes was AppleTV. It will be interesting to see what Apple does, in terms of both AppleTV changes and iTunes flexibility, as that will indicate how important Apple thinks winning this market is. It also might depend a lot on how much leverage Microsoft can get in this space, since a major reason Apple went its own way with AAC and FairPlay was to prevent their entire product line from being marginalized by Microsoft. (So far, that's worked better than anyone could have expected.)
I don't think the market for downloadable video is anything close to mature. Microsoft is certainly a player, but Apple can afford to wait a bit to see which way the wind blows. The content providers were reluctant to embrace Microsoft when Apple had no solution. Now that Apple has shown them how DRM can come back to bite them even from a benign source (and yes, I think all things considered, Apple has been a benign source in this area), media companies don't know which way to turn.
Interesting times, at least if you find the machinations of large-scale enterprises maneuvering for control of a market that may collapse into the quicksand of universal piracy interesting.
2) How bad does NBC need the iPods to drive content sales? Given they can distribute content in iPod compatible formats independent of Apple not being on iTunes doesn't seem to be that much of an issue; but that means they are at Apple's mercy for compatibility. Apple could "break" something in an iTunes upgrade that makes it impossible to load non-iTunes DRM content onto an iPod, just as they changed the way video out works so that devices need new electronics to still work with iPods (a strange move given how neat the Philip's DVD / iPod player combo is).
How can NBC distribute content in iPod-compatible formats without using iTunes unless they also forgo DRM (which they won't do)? As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as "non-iTunes DRM content" that plays on an iPod.
If you didn't want to talk about BitTorrent's website and use of its commercial content, I don't know why you brought it up. Ditto with limits to said content and leverage with content providers.
If your point is that content not purchased from BitTorrent (like recordings of your friend's band) is easier to share with more than five people using BitTorrent than it is using iTunes, I have no reason to disagree. I don't know, but I'll take your word for it.
But since content purchased from BitTorrent cannot be shared (as far as I can tell from the terms of service), I think it's disingenuous to declare unilaterally that BitTorrent is less restrictive than iTunes.
Four more years of Bush?
For starters, the BitTorrent Commercial Content Terms of Service says:
"We do not permit transfer or download to portable devices such as iPods, Zunes, PlayStation Portables, or similar devices at this time."
Minimum System Requirements states:
"In order to download or play Commercial Content, you may use only personal computers that (i) you have activated with BitTorrent.com by entering your account ID and (ii) meet the following system requirements:
1. BitTorrent Client
2. Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher
3. Windows XP Service Pack 2
4. Windows Media Player 10 or higher"
To this Mac user, these limits are painful (and there are more where that came from, btw). Perhaps uTorrent is better, or perhaps you are misinformed?
You can share your iTunes library on a local network out of the box. For a brief time (about a month), there was a way to share your iTunes library with the world. There may still be software out there that enables this (not sure, since I don't really care), but iTunes on its own does not.
As an aside, this one change to iTunes (introduced in iTunes 4, modified soon thereafter in iTunes 4.0.1 once it became clear that the sharing function was being used in a way other than intended) became prime evidence over the years for many an Apple-hater to rail against Apple's draconian attempts to control all of our lives -- ironic, since at the time, iTunes was Mac-only.
"Just like there isn't any decent music sharing functionality in iTunes, there won't be anything on the iPhone that doesn't settle well with the ultraconservatives in Apples Ivory Tower. Instead you'll get crippled functionality, like music sharing with ridiculous limits on the number of people/playbacks per day. As if all of their developers and customers are children who can't be given responsibility. Children don't own copyrights, so they don't need the discretion to share music beyond what Apple believes is 'fair enough.'"
When Apple first introduced sharing in iTunes, within 24 hours music was being shared all over the Internet. Depending on one's point of view, one might see this as some users not being able to handle responsibility. In any event, the music labels probably didn't much care for this, so Apple quickly removed that function. It's good to remember that Apple doesn't own the copyrights, either.
"The argument that phones are somehow more vulnerable than any other network connected computer and need to be controlled by a central authority is specious."
Perhaps they are *as vulnerable* but protecting them is considered more important. I don't have a cell phone, but most people I know who do are far more dependent on their phones than they are on their computers.
Strange that you would imply that Steve Jobs is someone without clarity of direction. I think his successes with Apple over the past ten years (iMac, Mac OS X, iPod, iTunes Store, Final Cut Pro, Apple Retail, Intel transition, and probably iPhone -- leading to record-breaking sales and a soaring stock price) far outweigh the mistakes he has made and bespeak a corporate leader who knows where he wants to go. (I would also argue that in this case, his mistake may not have been so much in backpedaling as in not being more forthcoming about future plans for the iPhone sooner, but no matter.)
You've lost me. Everything I mentioned in my previous reply was completely legal.
If you don't install the update, the iPhone works as it always did.
The icing on the cake is that before you install the update, you see this (emphasis in original):
WARNING: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the Internet may cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software. IF YOU HAVE MODIFIED YOUR iPHONE'S SOFTWARE, APPLYING THIS SOFTWARE UPDATE MAY RESULT IN YOUR iPHONE BECOMING PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE. Making unauthorized modifications to the software on your iPhone violates the iPhone software license agreement, and the inability to use your iPhone due to unauthorized software modifications is not covered under your iPhone's warranty.
"Apple just rejected me as a customer by their businessmindedness when they included DRM, and also tried to force me buying iPod."
So you said "no" to the iTunes Store because of DRM. If you wanted to play MP3s, you could still buy an iPod. But you said Apple tried to force you to buy an iPod. I don't see how.
BTW, you can listen to iTunes tracks on your computer and/or burn them to a CD (and rerip to MP3 if you like).