I have no idea how they handle Leopard. I'm not really sure what the cut off for something being a feature is either. I do know that bug and security fixes are not something SOA considers a feature. It also seems like Apple saves new features for each major release of Mac OS X, just look at the new feature list they were talking about with the Leopard release. I say seems because I haven't tracked all of the changes they've made to Tiger until Leopard was released. The updates to Leopard so far are more along the lines of bug patches.
Well that is true. What I was trying to say though was that you couldn't sync it to an iPod/iPhone and take it with you, cuz that would require buying one from Apple. Although buying from another person is technically possible come to think of it. I was thinking of iTunes being used as a computer media center kind of thing.
Well that isn't strictly true. It doesn't have to be something that they make additional revenue from, it all depends on how they account for the revenue. The way it works for the iPhone and the AppleTV is that they spread the revenue across two years. So if I buy an iPhone for $399 Apple doesn't count the full $399 as revenue right away, only $16.63 (16.625 to be exact). They do the same thing for the next 23 months. Even if I never activate the iPhone I just purchased they would account for this the same way.
Now the the thing I do find bizarre is that for some reason they didn't do this with the iPod Touch. It would seem like an obvious choice. During the event today Jobs mentioned something about the Touch being in the iPod line so they accounted for it like other iPods.
... ok then. Uh it must make sense to someone at Apple I guess.
Yep, that's right, just like we had to pay an upgrade fee when we got the first version of iTunes with the iTMS, and then a year or so ago had to pay an upgrade fee for a version of iTunes that had a built-in movie store.
...wait a moment! We didn't have to do that at all!
I have to admit that I doubt the "obscure accounting rule" explanation has ever been true. It certainly isn't true when Apple is pushing something they're making revenues from like a music, movie, and now software, store. But I don't think it's true for goodwill type freebies either. I think the truth is Apple is cheap. This is the same Apple that was charging $20 for "Quicktime Pro" for all those years. This is about revenue generation, not about accounting.
And exactly how much did you pay for iTunes? $100? $50? $20?
...wait a moment! You didn't have to pay anything for it!
It was, and is, available as a free download from Apple. Since Apple didn't generate any revenue for giving you iTunes they don't have to charge you to give you a new/updated version. It's as simple as that.
Before someone brings this up, the fact that iTunes is used to sync to iPods, iPhone and iPod Touch is completely irrelevant. It's entirely possible to use iTunes without buying anything from Apple. Sure you won't be able to take your music or videos with you, but they work just dandy on your computer.
I haven't seen anything that says it's $99 per year. It looks to me like a one time charge, sort of a setup fee to configure your account and give you a signing certificate for your applications.
Actually the application is running on the iPhone, UI and all. The Mac is to do debugging and performance monitoring WHILE the app is running on the iPhone.
While the principle may be correct, and illegal file sharing is, by definition, illegal, the solution he offers is just ludicrous. My simplistic take on what he is saying is that because it's possible to use something in an illegal way, everyone who uses that thing is a criminal no matter what they do with that thing. While it is possible I can steal CDs from a music store and use my bicycle to get away, something which is illegal in most US cities, does that mean we should make all bicycle makers install GPS tracking systems on the bicycle's so that they can monitor where every single one of there users is at all times? Or, as he proposes, if a users bicycle is seen leaving the area of a music store should they push a button to clamp on the brakes in the case that user might be stealing CDs?
Do people illegally download music using file sharing programs over the internet? Yes they do. Do people legally download music using file sharing programs over the internet? Why yes they do that as well. Do people illegally and legally download all sorts of non-media related files using programs, file sharing or not, over the internet? You gosh darn betcha.
The argument that you make that everyone is trying to justify theft is a complete straw man. The real argument is over who is responsible for preventing that theft. Paul McGuinness is saying that everyone in the chain, no matter if they are even selling things legally, is responsible. Except for the managers. And of course the artists. Oh and certain recording companies, but only the non-stupid ones that didn't make deals to sell things over the internet.
One last example that shows the complete shotgun approach he is taking to assign blame.
Do people do legal and illegal things while talking on, say, a phone? Oh boy howdy do they do. Plus since that whole cell phone thing has taken off people talk pretty much everywhere! But wait, who is responsible for the illegal things on a cell phone? The phone manufacturer? The cell carrier? The land line carrier, or, other cell carrier (yes they can and often are different)? The poor schmoe who sells you the phone? The power company that charges the phone? The people that maintain the power lines that allow you to charge the phone?
Your basic premise is that the value on user experience goes up over time. What do you base this on? Oh right comparing installations of Linux from 10 years ago to installations of today? Well that just doesn't cut it with users today. Improvements in installation are nice but when the competitors have equal or better installation experiences that isn't really saying much. Especially when they can boast better after the installation experiences. Mac OS X has a huge advantage since Apple controls the hardware and works very hard to make a good, long term, user experience. Microsoft also has an advantage since they work very hard at making their OS work with, and accept, many hardware configurations and drivers. Well Vista may be an exception but XP without a doubt.
The secondary premise that Linus Torvalds = Steve Jobs is equally flawed. Linus cares about the core of Linux, the kernel. Steve Jobs cares about the user experience, well the user experience for the majority of customers (it's the latter that get's him and Apple in trouble most of the time.) So if Steve Jobs gets hit by a bus, the Mac OS X/iPod/iPhone/AppleTV interfaces may go into the toilet. My guess, based on Apple's history, is the hardware will go into the toilet but the interfaces will mature and improve. If Linus Torvalds get's hit by a bus then the Linux kernel will, do something. Probably he will be replaced by another person who will drive the kernel in the direction they want it to go. And all of the rest of the Linux distros will follow suit. But the interfaces will be driven by a completely different set of people. Namely those that run Gnome and KDE.
Until the "economics of Linux" value the user experience Linux will not be dominant. As much grief as is given to Microsoft, mostly their stuff works. Plus when users have a problem they can point a finger at something. Same goes for Apple. There is at some point, regardless of tech support morons, a responsible party. But Linux doesn't even have tech support morons. If your wireless/vidoe card/etc. device doesn't work you can't talk to anyone. Not the creator, they will say why the hell are you using Linux? Not the OS vendor, they will point you to the supplier. Not the Open Software crowd, they will say, make your own driver!
User experience has to be THE dominate factor in any software, OS or otherwise.
Well in the classical sense writing meant using a quill and dipping it in ink. Of course that doesn't mean much to the price of tea in China either. What the poster meant is one thing. What the actual article and supporting information say is quite another.
What you have experience with in the mindset of the average user is far different from my experience. What I see is "WHS sweet I can store more stuff!" Of course if they actually try to use the "more stuff" on the WHS, well, corruption city. However, if all they do is move things to the server for backup (or use the automated backup) then they won't have any issues. So again backup "corruption" is a non-issue.
The problem is editing files that are on a WHS share with certain applications. Period. Full stop.
This is a pretty serious problem with this OS and needs to be treated as such. But confusing the issue with backups doesn't really help anyone.
Well and good. But the bug is not related to backups per se. It's related to editing files on a WHS share, both the article and KB article make this clear. This share bug is pretty serious and far more likely to happen to the average user that wants to extend their storage space by saving files on their WHS.
So commenting on backup corruption is really clouding the issue. Backups are not being corrupted from what I can tell, it's the files themselves that are being corrupted IF they are edited on a WHS share.
Well since the article NEVER mentions backup I'm trying to figure out why the blurb and everyone is going on about backups being corrupted. What is actually happening is that there is a bug in WHS folder sharing. If you edit files with particular programs that exist on a WHS share the files will be corrupted.
Going to chime in on the "great" editing on this story and the Slashdot blurb. How the frak MP3s won't play on the iPod got through I'll never no. In point of fact the article only says MP3 players and that "Apple's wildly popular iPod MP3 players" won't be able to play them. From Sprialfrogs support link:
http://www.spiralfrog.com/pages/support.aspx
They clearly state "We require you to be running Windows XP or Vista at SpiralFrog for the simple reason that Windows Digital Rights Management is the only standard available for independent music stores like us to protect the songs and videos as required by the record labels' licenses." Which should come as no surprise since any method to limit burning and playing requires some form of DRM which is not compatible with the MP3 spec.
Sprialfrog also says "Windows Digital Rights Management is not supported by Apple Macintosh computers. Macintosh supports the AAC Digital Rights Management, but it is closed to Apple's own use only." Well it's not supported by Apple no. On the other hand Apple isn't preventing someone from making an application that does support it. Would it work with iPods? No. But would it work with all the other MP3 players on the market? Very probably. So this caveat is an exercise in lazyness.
If you burn it out and then import it back in there will be no DRM restrictions. It's just like importing any other CD. If the burned CD has all of the the tracks in the same order as a purchased CD the CDDB lookup will even succeed and download the meta data. I've actually done this with every CD I've purchased out of iTMS. I backup the original AAC files, burn a CD and then import them back.
The downside to this is that, due to compression, the burned audio tracks are not of the same quality as one from a store bought CD. When you then go and import them, compressing them yet again, there is some degradation in quality. That's why I keep the original DRMed AAC files if I ever wanted to go back. I really don't care about the loss of quality but some people might.
Please elaborate on how the "retail" box is what most people thing as an "upgrade." Obviously I'm not most people because I don't consider it an "upgrade" and consider it another OS I can put on my box along side of a long list of linux and bsd operating systems. And please explain what has changed recently that allows Apple to enforce that the "retail" versions of Mac OS X can only be an upgrade or considered an upgrade.
I'm still trying to see your point. You buy one retail box. It only updates one license that is implied by actually owning hardware that can run it?
Or are you arguing a legal issue.
Something that allows you to use an OS or software on anything? Does this "full" license mean that it's legal to do use it on any hardware you happen to have and let you get support for it? Or is it you bought it and if you want to try to do something with it go for it but don't ask us for help?
I guess my basic question is what is a "full" license to you?
Not especially. There's never been a full retail copy of Mac OS X available. The most Apple made available is an all upgrade that works on any system that previously ran Mac OS (i.e. any Macintosh).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. So if I go out and buy Mac OS X 104 I can't reformat my Macs hard drive and the install my brand new operating system? BTW this is a rhetorical question since I have done exactly that. Every single major version of the Mac OS X has been available as a full retail copy and does not require an existing version of the Mac OS X to actually install it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea how they handle Leopard. I'm not really sure what the cut off for something being a feature is either. I do know that bug and security fixes are not something SOA considers a feature. It also seems like Apple saves new features for each major release of Mac OS X, just look at the new feature list they were talking about with the Leopard release. I say seems because I haven't tracked all of the changes they've made to Tiger until Leopard was released. The updates to Leopard so far are more along the lines of bug patches.
Well that is true. What I was trying to say though was that you couldn't sync it to an iPod/iPhone and take it with you, cuz that would require buying one from Apple. Although buying from another person is technically possible come to think of it. I was thinking of iTunes being used as a computer media center kind of thing.
Well that isn't strictly true. It doesn't have to be something that they make additional revenue from, it all depends on how they account for the revenue. The way it works for the iPhone and the AppleTV is that they spread the revenue across two years. So if I buy an iPhone for $399 Apple doesn't count the full $399 as revenue right away, only $16.63 (16.625 to be exact). They do the same thing for the next 23 months. Even if I never activate the iPhone I just purchased they would account for this the same way.
Now the the thing I do find bizarre is that for some reason they didn't do this with the iPod Touch. It would seem like an obvious choice. During the event today Jobs mentioned something about the Touch being in the iPod line so they accounted for it like other iPods.
... ok then. Uh it must make sense to someone at Apple I guess.
Yep, that's right, just like we had to pay an upgrade fee when we got the first version of iTunes with the iTMS, and then a year or so ago had to pay an upgrade fee for a version of iTunes that had a built-in movie store.
I have to admit that I doubt the "obscure accounting rule" explanation has ever been true. It certainly isn't true when Apple is pushing something they're making revenues from like a music, movie, and now software, store. But I don't think it's true for goodwill type freebies either. I think the truth is Apple is cheap. This is the same Apple that was charging $20 for "Quicktime Pro" for all those years. This is about revenue generation, not about accounting.
And exactly how much did you pay for iTunes? $100? $50? $20?
It was, and is, available as a free download from Apple. Since Apple didn't generate any revenue for giving you iTunes they don't have to charge you to give you a new/updated version. It's as simple as that.
Before someone brings this up, the fact that iTunes is used to sync to iPods, iPhone and iPod Touch is completely irrelevant. It's entirely possible to use iTunes without buying anything from Apple. Sure you won't be able to take your music or videos with you, but they work just dandy on your computer.
I haven't seen anything that says it's $99 per year. It looks to me like a one time charge, sort of a setup fee to configure your account and give you a signing certificate for your applications.
Actually the application is running on the iPhone, UI and all. The Mac is to do debugging and performance monitoring WHILE the app is running on the iPhone.
While the principle may be correct, and illegal file sharing is, by definition, illegal, the solution he offers is just ludicrous. My simplistic take on what he is saying is that because it's possible to use something in an illegal way, everyone who uses that thing is a criminal no matter what they do with that thing. While it is possible I can steal CDs from a music store and use my bicycle to get away, something which is illegal in most US cities, does that mean we should make all bicycle makers install GPS tracking systems on the bicycle's so that they can monitor where every single one of there users is at all times? Or, as he proposes, if a users bicycle is seen leaving the area of a music store should they push a button to clamp on the brakes in the case that user might be stealing CDs?
Do people illegally download music using file sharing programs over the internet? Yes they do. Do people legally download music using file sharing programs over the internet? Why yes they do that as well. Do people illegally and legally download all sorts of non-media related files using programs, file sharing or not, over the internet? You gosh darn betcha.
The argument that you make that everyone is trying to justify theft is a complete straw man. The real argument is over who is responsible for preventing that theft. Paul McGuinness is saying that everyone in the chain, no matter if they are even selling things legally, is responsible. Except for the managers. And of course the artists. Oh and certain recording companies, but only the non-stupid ones that didn't make deals to sell things over the internet.
One last example that shows the complete shotgun approach he is taking to assign blame.
Do people do legal and illegal things while talking on, say, a phone? Oh boy howdy do they do. Plus since that whole cell phone thing has taken off people talk pretty much everywhere! But wait, who is responsible for the illegal things on a cell phone? The phone manufacturer? The cell carrier? The land line carrier, or, other cell carrier (yes they can and often are different)? The poor schmoe who sells you the phone? The power company that charges the phone? The people that maintain the power lines that allow you to charge the phone?
Your basic premise is that the value on user experience goes up over time. What do you base this on? Oh right comparing installations of Linux from 10 years ago to installations of today? Well that just doesn't cut it with users today. Improvements in installation are nice but when the competitors have equal or better installation experiences that isn't really saying much. Especially when they can boast better after the installation experiences. Mac OS X has a huge advantage since Apple controls the hardware and works very hard to make a good, long term, user experience. Microsoft also has an advantage since they work very hard at making their OS work with, and accept, many hardware configurations and drivers. Well Vista may be an exception but XP without a doubt. The secondary premise that Linus Torvalds = Steve Jobs is equally flawed. Linus cares about the core of Linux, the kernel. Steve Jobs cares about the user experience, well the user experience for the majority of customers (it's the latter that get's him and Apple in trouble most of the time.) So if Steve Jobs gets hit by a bus, the Mac OS X/iPod/iPhone/AppleTV interfaces may go into the toilet. My guess, based on Apple's history, is the hardware will go into the toilet but the interfaces will mature and improve. If Linus Torvalds get's hit by a bus then the Linux kernel will, do something. Probably he will be replaced by another person who will drive the kernel in the direction they want it to go. And all of the rest of the Linux distros will follow suit. But the interfaces will be driven by a completely different set of people. Namely those that run Gnome and KDE. Until the "economics of Linux" value the user experience Linux will not be dominant. As much grief as is given to Microsoft, mostly their stuff works. Plus when users have a problem they can point a finger at something. Same goes for Apple. There is at some point, regardless of tech support morons, a responsible party. But Linux doesn't even have tech support morons. If your wireless/vidoe card/etc. device doesn't work you can't talk to anyone. Not the creator, they will say why the hell are you using Linux? Not the OS vendor, they will point you to the supplier. Not the Open Software crowd, they will say, make your own driver! User experience has to be THE dominate factor in any software, OS or otherwise.
Well in the classical sense writing meant using a quill and dipping it in ink. Of course that doesn't mean much to the price of tea in China either. What the poster meant is one thing. What the actual article and supporting information say is quite another.
What you have experience with in the mindset of the average user is far different from my experience. What I see is "WHS sweet I can store more stuff!" Of course if they actually try to use the "more stuff" on the WHS, well, corruption city. However, if all they do is move things to the server for backup (or use the automated backup) then they won't have any issues. So again backup "corruption" is a non-issue.
The problem is editing files that are on a WHS share with certain applications. Period. Full stop.
This is a pretty serious problem with this OS and needs to be treated as such. But confusing the issue with backups doesn't really help anyone.
Well and good. But the bug is not related to backups per se. It's related to editing files on a WHS share, both the article and KB article make this clear. This share bug is pretty serious and far more likely to happen to the average user that wants to extend their storage space by saving files on their WHS.
So commenting on backup corruption is really clouding the issue. Backups are not being corrupted from what I can tell, it's the files themselves that are being corrupted IF they are edited on a WHS share.
Well since the article NEVER mentions backup I'm trying to figure out why the blurb and everyone is going on about backups being corrupted. What is actually happening is that there is a bug in WHS folder sharing. If you edit files with particular programs that exist on a WHS share the files will be corrupted.
Here is the KB article http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/946676/en-us?spid=12624
It too doesn't mention using WHS to backup but does say that you should backup the possible affected files before storing them on WHS.
Going to chime in on the "great" editing on this story and the Slashdot blurb. How the frak MP3s won't play on the iPod got through I'll never no. In point of fact the article only says MP3 players and that "Apple's wildly popular iPod MP3 players" won't be able to play them. From Sprialfrogs support link: http://www.spiralfrog.com/pages/support.aspx They clearly state "We require you to be running Windows XP or Vista at SpiralFrog for the simple reason that Windows Digital Rights Management is the only standard available for independent music stores like us to protect the songs and videos as required by the record labels' licenses." Which should come as no surprise since any method to limit burning and playing requires some form of DRM which is not compatible with the MP3 spec. Sprialfrog also says "Windows Digital Rights Management is not supported by Apple Macintosh computers. Macintosh supports the AAC Digital Rights Management, but it is closed to Apple's own use only." Well it's not supported by Apple no. On the other hand Apple isn't preventing someone from making an application that does support it. Would it work with iPods? No. But would it work with all the other MP3 players on the market? Very probably. So this caveat is an exercise in lazyness.
If you burn it out and then import it back in there will be no DRM restrictions. It's just like importing any other CD. If the burned CD has all of the the tracks in the same order as a purchased CD the CDDB lookup will even succeed and download the meta data. I've actually done this with every CD I've purchased out of iTMS. I backup the original AAC files, burn a CD and then import them back.
The downside to this is that, due to compression, the burned audio tracks are not of the same quality as one from a store bought CD. When you then go and import them, compressing them yet again, there is some degradation in quality. That's why I keep the original DRMed AAC files if I ever wanted to go back. I really don't care about the loss of quality but some people might.
Please elaborate on how the "retail" box is what most people thing as an "upgrade." Obviously I'm not most people because I don't consider it an "upgrade" and consider it another OS I can put on my box along side of a long list of linux and bsd operating systems. And please explain what has changed recently that allows Apple to enforce that the "retail" versions of Mac OS X can only be an upgrade or considered an upgrade.
I'm still trying to see your point. You buy one retail box. It only updates one license that is implied by actually owning hardware that can run it? Or are you arguing a legal issue. Something that allows you to use an OS or software on anything? Does this "full" license mean that it's legal to do use it on any hardware you happen to have and let you get support for it? Or is it you bought it and if you want to try to do something with it go for it but don't ask us for help? I guess my basic question is what is a "full" license to you?