[starman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Soooo ... you have conspiracy theories about MS?

More like, MS hasn't proven to me that they WOULDN'T do anything with my info. Apple HAS proven they wouldn't. Also, Apple has my info for my .Mac account anyway, so what does it matter?

That's the point I was trying to make - Apple is not known for spamming, calling, emailing crap you don't want. They do send out emails which you can opt-out of. Apple's been responsible with their info, and even set me up with a special purchase account once because of my history with them.

Which brings me back to my original question: what has Apple done to show they cannot be trusted?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

A company that has and continues to be to big for its britches is Microsoft and behind them and coming up quick is google. Both of them act in ways that restrict competition and/or protect consumers rights.

I'd say Apple is far more anti-competitive than Microsoft. It's just that they're much smaller, so when they pull crap, it's not always slashdotted. In fact, Apple's entire method of forcing users to buy their hardware to run their software is pretty damn anti-competitive, don't you think? There's no competition in the hardware market for Apple's software. They won't allow it. At least I can install Windows on whatever the hell I want to install it on...

I don't believe you can use the proprietary chip in the shuffle's airbuds to make an accusation that apple is getting too big for its britches, especially when they already stated that said chip will be available to other companies.

The problem is that the chip costs money, and so third-party manufacturers end up having higher costs associated with designing products compatible with the new shuffle. Given Apple's tendency to slap ridiculous price premiums on everything they make, I suspect that companies will be a little unwilling to jump into the market right away, and those products that do show up will be unnecessarily expensive. There was no reason for Apple to use that chip that I can see.

Originally Posted by starman 

In your OPINION.

Wait. You're saying that what he says he meant is only his subjective OPINION of what he meant?

I'm pretty sure that when someone says something, what they mean to convey is objective fact. If I say "That woman is fat", while her obesity might be subjective to the viewer, it's a FACT that I meant to say she's a fattie.

This was Spheric Harlot's original post that you attacked:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The concept of informational privacy is one that is obviously not important to you, but it is a fairly serious concern in much of the world and to anybody who wants as much control over who knows what about them as possible.

Apple has no business knowing who I am, where I live, what my phone number and e-mail address are, and how I make my living, UNLESS I EXPLICITLY CHOOSE TO TELL THEM SO.

It should be opt-in, and not even giving a visible means of opting OUT is in fact pretty nefarious, REGARDLESS of how "trustworthy" this company appears to be.

The fact is, there is personal information about me stored on yet another corporate machine where infrastructure, access, security policy, and possible breaches thereof, are COMPLETELY out of my control and completely beyond my means of even verifying.

What two different ideas was he mashing together? That privacy is important and that he should have a right to decide who gets his personal information?

Let me spell it out for you:

Apple does not give you an explicit, user-friendly, obvious choice to NOT PROVIDE THEM WITH PERSONAL INFORMATION UPON INSTALLING OS X. For all intents and purposes to a normal user not privy to the secret, backdoor shortcut, divulging personal information is MANDATORY to complete the installation of OS X.

This is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. It is a documented, easily proven fact that there is no opt-out button on the screen where Apple requests personal information. If you'd like, I can go home tonight and install Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, and Leopard on my PowerMac and take some screenshots of each version's installation process in order to clearly, explicitly, and objectively convey this very elementary point to you.

Privacy is important to people. Therefore, it can be concluded that people find it important to choose who gets their personal information. The choice to install an operating system (OS X) should not equate an implied agreement to provide Apple with personal information. This would be like installing a piece of software that includes an implicit agreement that they can install a keylogger along with it.

Oh wait...when software companies do that, they get in trouble! That's right!

Originally Posted by starman 

I don't give it to MS. I give it to Apple because I've been a repeat customer for 21 years. I don't trust MS. I also don't feel that MS needs my info. I feel Apple does so they can track my purchases since I'm buying HARDWARE from them.

Buying Apple's hardware is not the same as buying Apple's software. Let's say you buy a G4 Mac. It comes with, what, 10.3 installed? You boot it up for the first time, and it demands your personal information. I would imagine that the odds that you used a credit card to purchase your Mac are pretty damn high, so Apple has already gotten a log of who you are and the fact that you bought your hardware. That's the first log. Now they demand your personal information within the OS, which is the second log.

Let's say that you then go buy 10.4. Hey, they want your personal information again! Third log! NOW you want to upgrade to 10.5. Apple has now grabbed your fully-identifying personal information four times for a single piece of hardware. Sorry, but the argument that "I want to give Apple my personal information in their OS installation so that they know I bought their hardware" just doesn't seem to fly here.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Soooo ... you have conspiracy theories about MS?

Apparently. After all, Apple is unlike every other corporation and isn't evil at all. Now, when Google or Facebook want to collect relatively anonymous data about you, it's the end of the world.

Sh!t, when someone logs IM conversations for personal records and in no way to use those conversations against the other party involved in the conversation and has never done anything to break that trust, it turns into a federal case.

Apparently Apple is the only entity on the planet who couldn't possibly ever ever want your personal information for anything other than statistical or logging purposes.

Originally Posted by starman 

Which brings me back to my original question: what has Apple done to show they cannot be trusted?

Does that matter? So what if Apple hasn't done anything with your information yet? They might. Hell, given how many security breaches have happened with companies and whatnot in the past few years, I want as few places in cyberspace as possible retaining my personal information. My credit card has been compromised and subsequently canceled and replaced twice in the last eighteen months because of companies not appropriately securing customer information.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

There was no reason for Apple to use that chip that I can see.

Thanks for your thoughtful engineering analysis. I bow to your prowess. I'm sure you stand head and shoulders above Apple's engineers.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'd say Apple is far more anti-competitive than Microsoft. It's just that they're much smaller, so when they pull crap, it's not always slashdotted. In fact, Apple's entire method of forcing users to buy their hardware to run their software is pretty damn anti-competitive, don't you think? There's no competition in the hardware market for Apple's software. They won't allow it. At least I can install Windows on whatever the hell I want to install it on...

It's about as anti-competitive as MS forcing me to buy a 360 to play Halo or Sony a PS3 for Gran Turismo.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'd say Apple is far more anti-competitive than Microsoft. It's just that they're much smaller, so when they pull crap, it's not always slashdotted. In fact, Apple's entire method of forcing users to buy their hardware to run their software is pretty damn anti-competitive, don't you think? There's no competition in the hardware market for Apple's software. They won't allow it. At least I can install Windows on whatever the hell I want to install it on...

Oh please, just because apple produces both the hardware and software doesn't make mean they're anti-competitive. So is Sony, MS or Nintendo anti-competitive because I have to buy their hardware to run their games? I find it ludicrous that a company that is in the business to sell both hardware and software is accused of monopoly tactics because they choose to sell both. You are not forced to buy a Macintosh computer, you can buy a dell and use windows or unix. You can also buy a Macintosh and put on windows or Linux. You cannot (as per their EULA) buy OSX and put it on a non-mac computer.

You had me at the issue of using proprietary chips but your anti-apple pablum is just off base, misguided and uninformed. Apple isn't perfect by a long shot but accusing a company with <5% market share of monopolistic tactics is preposterous

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Thanks for your thoughtful engineering analysis. I bow to your prowess. I'm sure you stand head and shoulders above Apple's engineers.

All I'm saying is that nobody has needed such a chip before, why start now?

Have previous wired remotes for CD players and PMPs required some kind of proprietary chip to work?

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

It's about as anti-competitive as MS forcing me to buy a 360 to play Halo or Sony a PS3 for Gran Turismo.

I disagree. The video game console industry is significantly different from the software industry. Apple has made it illegal to install their OS on hardware that they don't deem good enough for OS X. You can physically/technologically install OS X on whatever the hell you want, but Apple's EULA says you aren't allowed to.

It's not because they don't want to support it on non-Apple hardware. It's because they want to force people to buy their own underfeatured and overpriced hardware, whereas in the case of something like Halo, Bungie would have to develop the game for each console individually. It's already quite obvious that OS X will run on non-Apple hardware with not much effort, and there's no good reason why Apple can't just say in the EULA something along the lines of "if you install this on non-certified hardware, use at your own risk, no warranty is implied, etc. etc.". Instead, they say "if you install this on non-certified hardware, you're officially in violation of the DMCA" or whatever.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I disagree. The video game console industry is significantly different from the software industry. Apple has made it illegal to install their OS on hardware that they don't deem good enough for OS X. You can physically/technologically install OS X on whatever the hell you want, but Apple's EULA says you aren't allowed to.

JSo, back in the PPC days was Apple perfectly ok because of their far more proprietary set-up?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not because they don't want to support it on non-Apple hardware. It's because they want to force people to buy their own underfeatured and overpriced hardware, whereas in the case of something like Halo, Bungie would have to develop the game for each console individually. It's already quite obvious that OS X will run on non-Apple hardware with not much effort, and there's no good reason why Apple can't just say in the EULA something along the lines of "if you install this on non-certified hardware, use at your own risk, no warranty is implied, etc. etc.". Instead, they say "if you install this on non-certified hardware, you're officially in violation of the DMCA" or whatever.

So the only thing stopping Halo from being on the PS3 is the extra development time? Are you shitting me?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

Oh please, just because apple produces both the hardware and software doesn't make mean they're anti-competitive. So is Sony, MS or Nintendo anti-competitive because I have to buy their hardware to run their games? I find it ludicrous that a company that is in the business to sell both hardware and software is accused of monopoly tactics because they choose to sell both. You are not forced to buy a Macintosh computer, you can buy a dell and use windows or unix. You can also buy a Macintosh and put on windows or Linux. You cannot (as per their EULA) buy OSX and put it on a non-mac computer.

You had me at the issue of using proprietary chips but your anti-apple pablum is just off base, misguided and uninformed. Apple isn't perfect by a long shot but accusing a company with <5% market share of monopolistic tactics is preposterous

See my above comment on video game consoles and how they differ.

One of the biggest monopolistic tactics Apple has used to date is with the iTunes/iPod/FairPlay orgy. Until recently, the only way to legally buy digital downloads of music for your iPod (an Apple product) was through iTunes (an Apple product). Such downloads were protected by FairPlay DRM (an Apple product), and Apple was able to leverage the DMCA to explicitly prohibit anyone from reverse-engineering this DRM so that other players (software or hardware) could play their copy-protected iTunes downloads (or so that the iPod could play other types of DRM-poisoned audio files).

It would be akin to Ford creating their own brand of gasoline and saying "If you want to buy a Ford, you have to use our gas, and if you want to use our gas, you have to buy a Ford". Obviously, that wouldn't fly at all. Same if Dell decided to partner with Microsoft and make it so that Windows could only be installed on Dell computers. People would be up in arms about it.

There was no justifiable reason for Apple to do things that way, except that they could and it guaranteed continued profits from existing sales. Every time someone buys an iPod, Apple is guaranteed digital music sales, whereas every time someone buys a SanDisk Sansa, they can buy tracks from a variety of digital music stores. Similarly, every time someone buys an iPod and downloads a ton of tracks through iTunes, Apple is guaranteed future iPod sales, unless the customer either wants to eat the cost of the songs and re-buy them from elsewhere, or violate the EULA of the DRM and strip it from the songs so they can use something other than an iPod.

It was an extremely slick and well-crafted business move on Apple's part, but to say that "they had to do it that way" or "that's not anti-competitive at all" is BS.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

JSo, back in the PPC days was Apple perfectly ok because of their far more proprietary set-up?

So the only thing stopping Halo from being on the PS3 is the extra development time? Are you shitting me?

Part of the console industry is that certain games are only on certain consoles. It would be great if I could play Katamari Damacy on my Wii, but the games aren't even physically compatible.

If someone created a console that could play Wii, xbox360, and PS3 games, then I'd say the exact same thing - it'd be anti-competitive for Bungie to include in the EULA that you may only legally play Halo 3 on a 360.

Before the switch to Intel, it didn't matter a whole lot what Apple's EULA said, since their software was technologically incompatible with other machines on the market. Now, however, there's no real reason for them to legally prevent people from installing their software on third-party hardware, except that this clause in the EULA guarantees continued profits. Do you sincerely think that this isn't why Apple makes it effectively illegal to install OS X on non-Apple hardware?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Part of the console industry is that certain games are only on certain consoles. It would be great if I could play Katamari Damacy on my Wii, but the games aren't even physically compatible.

And part of Apple's draw is their OS is only on their hardware.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If someone created a console that could play Wii, xbox360, and PS3 games, then I'd say the exact same thing - it'd be anti-competitive for Bungie to include in the EULA that you may only legally play Halo 3 on a 360.

It would never get that far. I think you'd find those companies would sue the hell out of whoever was making the knock-offs.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Before the switch to Intel, it didn't matter a whole lot what Apple's EULA said, since their software was technologically incompatible with other machines on the market. Now, however, there's no real reason for them to legally prevent people from installing their software on third-party hardware, except that this clause in the EULA guarantees continued profits. Do you sincerely think that this isn't why Apple makes it effectively illegal to install OS X on non-Apple hardware?

What do you think funds the development of Apple's OS? Here's my Quasi-answer: It ain't the software sales.

[starman]

I'm not going to rehash, but Dakar makes a VERY good point with respect to game consoles. VERY good point.

[starman]

I seem to remember that the PlayStation emulator for the Mac lost its court battle because Sony claimed you couldn't run games on anything other than a PlayStation.

(searches the net....)

Found it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/04...ctory_against/

So I guess Sony is evil too?

I don't see why this is such a big deal. So companies want to make sure their software only runs on certain hardware. As an engineer, I sure as hell wouldn't want my code running on an UNTESTED piece of hardware. A lot of time, research, and QA goes into running an app on what is KNOWN to work.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by starman 

So I guess Sony is evil too?

Well, I can't say I'm a fan...

[starman]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Well, I can't say I'm a fan...

I don't have a problem with Sony. They make good products that have never broken on me, I love the Playstation series, so I can't say anything bad about them.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by starman 

I don't have a problem with Sony. They make good products that have never broken on me, I love the Playstation series, so I can't say anything bad about them.

Lucky you. Their electronics are overpriced and the PS1 and 2 had known issues.

[starman]

I never had a problem with my PS1, and the PS2 I just traded in about three months ago was the one I bought on Launch Day in 2000. The PS2 did have an odd problem with blue-coated discs, but the only one I had of that type was Ridge Racer V.

Anyway, my point is that Apple is not the only company to tie hardware to software, and this court case proves that it's not so unusual or unheard of for a company to defend it.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by starman 

I don't have a problem with Sony. They make good products that have never broken on me, I love the Playstation series, so I can't say anything bad about them.

Either way, the comparison is still valid. I don't think Apple is sinless regarding some of its moves, either.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Either way, the comparison is still valid. I don't think Apple is sinless regarding some of its moves, either.

I agree. I don't agree with everything Apple does, but in the case of marrying hardware and software, I don't see why people can't understand why companies want to protect how their software runs.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by starman 

i agree. I don't agree with everything apple does, but in the case of marrying hardware and software, i don't see why people can't understand why companies want to protect how their software runs.

qft

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I disagree. The video game console industry is significantly different from the software industry. Apple has made it illegal to install their OS on hardware that they don't deem good enough for OS X. You can physically/technologically install OS X on whatever the hell you want, but Apple's EULA says you aren't allowed to.

They TRY to do this (intent matters, obviously).

But, as has been mentioned, in many places outside the U.S., EULAs aren't worth the electrons they're written with.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

I don't give it to MS. I give it to Apple because I've been a repeat customer for 21 years. I don't trust MS. I also don't feel that MS needs my info. I feel Apple does so they can track my purchases since I'm buying HARDWARE from them.

With all due respect: That's a completely arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principles of informational privacy.

The fact is: Apple gets away with a LOT of crap that other companies would take a shitstorm for simply because Apple happens to make products that we happen to love buying and using.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

As an engineer, I sure as hell wouldn't want my code running on an UNTESTED piece of hardware. A lot of time, research, and QA goes into running an app on what is KNOWN to work.

So what? It's the user's choice if they want to run your software on an unsupported piece of hardware, and if they run into problems, it's not your responsibility to deal with it. I am perfectly fine with an EULA saying "if you install this on unsupported hardware, we're not going to help you". I am not, however, fine with an EULA saying "fi you try to install this on unsupported hardware and we find out about it, we're going to sue your ass".

It's perfectly fine and acceptable for Apple to say "we're only going to design OS X for our hardware, and if it doesn't run correctly on your computer, too damn bad". I think it's total crap that they say "you're not ALLOWED to install the software YOU PAID FOR on hardware that we haven't specifically designed it for".

If you install a beta driver in Windows XP or Vista (32-bit only), a warning comes up informing you that you might experience system instability if you install that driver, since it's not yet certified. By doing that, the onus is on the consumer. If they get a BSOD because of the driver, that just came with agreeing to install something unsupported. In fact, this is one of the things that annoys the hell out of me with vista 64-bit - you can't install unsigned drivers. At all.

There's a big difference between a recommendation and a legal mandate when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[starman]

Apple isn't going to go after end users. Do you REALLY think they are? They have way too much of a load to deal with a small group of users that install OS X on their hackintoshes.

Running apps/games on unsupported hardware detracts from the user experience. If a game runs choppy or software crashes because it's not running on the hardware it's supposed to, that's a negative experience for the user which can translate into lost sales.

[shifuimam]

If only OS X were that unstable on non-Apple hardware...except that it isn't.

No, Apple isn't going to necessarily go after end users, but they're going to make it harder and harder to do what you want with the products you purchase, just like the RIAA and the MPAA, who have jointly succeeded in pissing off their customers more than just about any organization I can think of.

I'm so tired of arguing crap like this. It's not pro-competition to legally mandate your customers aren't allowed to install your software on whatever technically compatible hardware they want to put it on. Whatever reasons Apple has for doing it, it's a pretty objective statement that such an act is anti-competitive. No, they don't have a monopoly on the OS or the hardware market, but they are notorious for making a head-to-toe software/hardware/product universe that is nearly bulletproof. It's something I have never liked about the company. The whole iTunes/FairPlay/iPod orgy is a total load of crap and entirely anti-consumer.

In the case of an OS, you might be able to argue on the side of supporting an EULA that explicitly denies the user the right to install the OS on unsupported hardware. But in the case of something like the iOrgy, there was zero reason to do it that way except to guarantee more sales and secure future profits from existing customers.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, Apple isn't going to necessarily go after end users, but they're going to make it harder and harder to do what you want with the products you purchase, just like the RIAA and the MPAA, who have jointly succeeded in pissing off their customers more than just about any organization I can think of.

I'm so tired of arguing crap like this. It's not pro-competition to legally mandate your customers aren't allowed to install your software on whatever technically compatible hardware they want to put it on.

If Apple were like the MPAA and RIAA, they'd be feverishly tracking down and threatening individuals who build themselves hackintoshes. But they don't. They're suing Psystar for building clones.

Now, considering that the last time Mac clones were around Apple almost bit the big one, what is the incentive for them or us to have clones on the market?

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If only OS X were that unstable on non-Apple hardware...except that it isn't.

No, Apple isn't going to necessarily go after end users, but they're going to make it harder and harder to do what you want with the products you purchase, just like the RIAA and the MPAA, who have jointly succeeded in pissing off their customers more than just about any organization I can think of.

I'm so tired of arguing crap like this. It's not pro-competition to legally mandate your customers aren't allowed to install your software on whatever technically compatible hardware they want to put it on. Whatever reasons Apple has for doing it, it's a pretty objective statement that such an act is anti-competitive. No, they don't have a monopoly on the OS or the hardware market, but they are notorious for making a head-to-toe software/hardware/product universe that is nearly bulletproof. It's something I have never liked about the company. The whole iTunes/FairPlay/iPod orgy is a total load of crap and entirely anti-consumer.

In the case of an OS, you might be able to argue on the side of supporting an EULA that explicitly denies the user the right to install the OS on unsupported hardware. But in the case of something like the iOrgy, there was zero reason to do it that way except to guarantee more sales and secure future profits from existing customers.

But it IS unstable, and Apple didn't even write some of the hardware drivers. I see reports all the time about how people are having problems on some of these netbooks.

And really, I don't see why you don't like arguing it when it was you who brought it up in the first place. Also, a court of law upheld the Sony case so arguing it is moot anyway. You're not going to win.

And comparing Apple to the RIAA? ARE YOU INSANE?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

If Apple were like the MPAA and RIAA, they'd be feverishly tracking down and threatening individuals who build themselves hackintoshes. But they don't. They're suing Psystar for building clones.

Now, considering that the last time Mac clones were around Apple almost bit the big one, what is the incentive for them or us to have clones on the market?

qft on both counts.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

what has Apple done to show they cannot be trusted?

What has Apple done to show to *me*, a customer of only a few year, that they *can* be trusted? Hiding the ability to opt out of giving them my personal information certainly doesn't increase my trust for Apple.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What has Apple done to show to *me*, a customer of only a few year, that they *can* be trusted? Hiding the ability to opt out of giving them my personal information certainly doesn't increase my trust for Apple.

That should be pretty apparent. Apple's reputation is not to cause distrust amongst their customers.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

That should be pretty apparent. Apple's reputation is not to cause distrust amongst their customers.

*How* is it apparent? Can you provide examples of not causing distrust that *everyone* would be aware of?

[AKcrab]

http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/

Find something in there that you don't like and let us know what it is.

Seems to me  is pretty damn responsible with your personal information.

[starman]

AK beat me to it.

[Wiskedjak]

Almost every company has a statement like that.
http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx

What makes you trust Apple more, that other people without your years of experience might also be able to appreciate?

[starman]

That's like saying "that guy hasn't killed anyone in 40 years, what makes you think he won't tomorrow?"

[Wiskedjak]

No. It's more like saying "Apple hasn't done anything to earn my trust, other than make a privacy statement similar to Microsoft's privacy statement".

If anything, their actions of late cause me to trust them *less*.

[starman]

Which actions?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

Which actions?

Again, hiding the ability to opt-out of giving them my personal information.

Also, this issue with the Shuffle headphones, the proprietary iPhone/Touch video cables (that cost twice as much as the last Apple video cables), using iTunes and iPods to push customers to newer versions of MacOS.

Honestly, there are a lot of factors that cause me to distrust Apple and serious consider whether I want to purchase something from them again. And, that disappoints because it's not what I was expecting after several people as loyal as you convinced me to try Apple.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Hiding the ability to opt out of giving them my personal information certainly doesn't increase my trust for Apple.

QFT

If Apple were this super friendly company they surely would give users an obvious choice. Hiding the "opt-out" is what tells me I should rather not trust them. Hey, after all they didn't trust me making a decision about giving my personal information. Why should I trust them?

All this 'Apple is a loving company and is totally different than everybody else' is fanboi crap. Seriously. Apple is a company. They want to make more money. They play hardball just like anybody else. People should buy Apple's products because they're good. But this unconditional love for Apple against all reason is just outright silly.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If anything, their actions of late cause me to trust them *less*.

Absolutely. Not giving an obvious opt-out is distrust. Result: I distrust them. Simple as that.

[Simon]

And BTW, wasn't this thread about the shuffle?

[Maflynn]

I think this thread got hijacked on page 2.

[starman]

I have to wonder why all you Apple haters are even HERE.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Simon 

And BTW, wasn't this thread about the shuffle?

Yes... and I would kindly ask these interlopers to quit crapping all over my thread!!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

But it IS unstable, and Apple didn't even write some of the hardware drivers. I see reports all the time about how people are having problems on some of these netbooks.

And really, I don't see why you don't like arguing it when it was you who brought it up in the first place. Also, a court of law upheld the Sony case so arguing it is moot anyway. You're not going to win.

And comparing Apple to the RIAA? ARE YOU INSANE?

You know, for the record, I said that you sounded insane because you were so angry about the idea that anyone could possibly want or like the Kindle. Quit misquoting me. It's annoying.

There's no reason for Apple to not provide an opt-out. I want them to provide an opt-out. It's a little button on a window and shouldn't be that hard to do. These are objective facts.

If any other company (not just Microsoft) tried to make users provide full personal details without any obvious opt-out, I doubt you'd be defending the action so vehemently.

Originally Posted by starman 

I have to wonder why all you Apple haters are even HERE.

Wait...wanting a clear opt-out in regards to providing full personal information translates into hating a company?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

I have to wonder why all you Apple haters are even HERE.

And, this statement here is the core of it. If I don't adore Apple, I'm an "Apple hater". I've own many Apple products and am here to discuss what I like and dislike about the products and the company. I'm also here to provide a counter-point to the "Apple can do no wrong" perspective.

I really like Apple's products, *but I don't trust the company to have my best interests at heart*. Apple is a company like any other company and, as such, it's goal is to maximize profits. What increases my distrust for Apple is my perception that Apple monopolizes the loyalty of it's fan-base to increasingly lock them out of non-Apple products.

Another item to the list of things I don't trust about Apple:
Software/Firmware updates. Given how closed Apples operating environment is, I find their updates to be extremely buggy, to the degree that I won't install an update unless I absolutely need what it's offering; and, even then, I'll wait a few weeks and read the reviews of the update. There is *absolutely no reason* why AppleTV and Airport firmware should have *any* bugs. These are completely closed environments that Apple should be able to QA completely, and yet updates for them are often buggy.

[Maflynn]

I think starman's comments were not necessarily directed towards you but rather shif. She has stated on a number of occasions that she not a mac or apple fan. I think she visits macnn for the lounge and iPhone forums. I'm not going to speak for her, so I'll leave it at that.

FWIW, while I disagree with many of her points and sentiments she is not a troll and I have no issues with her posting here or anywhere in the forum. She has a right to her opinion even if its wrong We all don't have to be apple fanboys to contribute to macnn. I'd consider myself a fanboy most of the time but I also don't think apple is perfect.

btw, think this shuffle thread is toast at this point, but then there's really not much more you can say about the shuffle that hasn't already been stated.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

I have to wonder why all you Apple haters are even HERE.

Thanks for the confirmation.

You *know* you're somewhat balanced in your opinion when you get called a blind fanboy AND and Apple hater in one and the same thread.

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You know, for the record, I said that you sounded insane because you were so angry about the idea that anyone could possibly want or like the Kindle. Quit misquoting me. It's annoying.

You're the one that keeps all the logs, look it up. I took a screenshot. I was even going to use it for my .sig but decided against it.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, this statement here is the core of it. If I don't adore Apple, I'm an "Apple hater". I've own many Apple products and am here to discuss what I like and dislike about the products and the company. I'm also here to provide a counter-point to the "Apple can do no wrong" perspective.

Yeah, you're right. I was cranky this morning. That's what a lingering cold will do to you.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

You're the one that keeps all the logs, look it up. I took a screenshot. I was even going to use it for my .sig but decided against it.

O RLY?

[IMG]snip[/IMG]

And, no, I didn't edit the file just to be a twit:



There's also the fact that the referenced conversation happed...

One year, four months, and six days ago. Let it go, dude.