[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Eug 

VisiCalc and the rise of the Apple ][

Bricklin implemented a primitive demo program in Integer BASIC on an Apple II loaned to him by Personal Software. Fylstra selected the Apple II not only because of its technical merits (it had superior graphics to the CP/M microcomputers and many minicomputers) and because he got a steep discount from Steve Jobs after promising that the popular KIM-1 program, MicroChess, would be ported to the Apple.

Um, how does that back up the assertion that Apple didn't want third parties to write software for the Apple II?

The truth is that Jobs never cared much for the Apple II once the Macintosh project got started, even though the Apple II is what carried Apple through those times. Sculley never cared much for it either. By the time Spindler was CEO, Sculley had already killed the Apple II.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Huh?

You were talking about how Microsoft seems to be able to do different things under its contract with the recording industry than Apple is able to do. I'm saying, that's because they're different contracts.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I call BULLSH*T on that one.

Where's your source?

I call bullshit too.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The first Apple II computers went on sale on June 5, 1977 with a MOS Technology 6502 microprocessor running at 1 MHz, 4 KB of RAM, an audio cassette interface for loading programs and storing data, and the Integer BASIC programming language built into the ROMs.

It had a programming language built into the ROM and they didn't want people writing programs with it?

[- - e r i k - -]

This should put the final lid in the coffin of this myth:

Originally Posted by Apple II History Chapter 3

[Wozniak and Baum] also wrote a disassembler, which was one of the most important features of the Apple II from the beginning and a significant part of its open design. It allowed anyone to view the 6502 code that any program used, and matched the philosophy of the Homebrew Club of making all computer knowledge available to everybody. In the Apple-1 days, when Apple was supplying software "free or at minimal charge", Wozniak and Baum published an early version of their 6502 disassembler in a hacker's magazine.

Originally Posted by Apple II History Chapter 3

Having Wozniak's BASIC language in ROM, available immediately when the power was turned on, made it possible for non-hackers to write programs that used the Apple II's color graphics.

Originally Posted by Apple II History Chapter 7

During this time there was also an explosion of new software written for this easily expandable machine, from the realm of business (VisiCalc and other spreadsheet clones), to utilities, to games of all types. Each month a host of new products would be available for those who wanted to find more things to do with their computer, and the Apple II was finding a place in the home, the classroom, and the office.

Nowhere does it ever mention anything about Apple wanting to limit software from third party vendors, instead it focuses on the extremely OPEN hardware and software structure.

Apple II History Home

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You were talking about how Microsoft seems to be able to do different things under its contract with the recording industry than Apple is able to do. I'm saying, that's because they're different contracts.

I'd be highly surprised if the recording industry told Apple not to allow FairPlay'd songs be loaded on non-Apple players.

Indeed, the RIAA has asked Apple to open up FairPlay. Apple has so far declined to do so.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'd be highly surprised if the recording industry told Apple not to allow FairPlay'd songs be loaded on non-Apple players.

Have you not read Steve's article? He gives a completely reasonable explanation of why it is not possible for Apple to license FairPlay because of the terms of their contract.

[butterfly0fdoom]

No. He can license it. But he claims that it will be more susceptible to being cracked if it's licensed. And if it's cracked, it needs to be fixed. And if it's licensed, it's harder to implement a fix. And if they can't fix it, they violate the contract. Which is why they aren't licensing it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

No. He can license it. But he claims that it will be more susceptible to being cracked if it's licensed. And if it's cracked, it needs to be fixed. And if it's licensed, it's harder to implement a fix. And if they can't fix it, they violate the contract. Which is why they aren't licensing it.

Thanks for saying "No" and then going on to restate my point. Usually people are about to disagree when they say "no."

[butterfly0fdoom]

Well, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you said, but you said it's not possible. It is possible. If they spend the resources, it is possible. Is it viable to spend the resources? No. Is it possible? Yes.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

Well, then I apologize for misinterpreting what you said, but you said it's not possible. It is possible. If they spend the resources, it is possible. Is it viable to spend the resources? No. Is it possible? Yes.

That's like saying, "It's possible to stick your head in a meat grinder. Will your head get turned into taco fixings? Yes. But it's possible."

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Have you not read Steve's article? He gives a completely reasonable explanation of why it is not possible for Apple to license FairPlay because of the terms of their contract.

This is exactly why I brought up MS. MS has proven that Jobs' statement is bull.

The real reason Apple isn't licencing FairPlay because they want sales dominance for players, and everyone knows that.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eug 

This is exactly why I brought up MS. MS has proven that Jobs' statement is bull.

The real reason Apple isn't licencing FairPlay because they want sales dominance for players, and everyone knows that.

a) Microsoft have just turned their back on PlaysForSure and are implementing a new strategy for the Zune, which is as closed as Apple's.

b) Have you *seen* how the record companies ****ed Microsoft over? Castrating the "squirting" social feature to the point of complete laughability? Cashing in a dollar in piracy reparation on EVERY ZUNE SOLD?

Are you saying Microsoft is proof that there is another way? They got the crap end of the deal, brother.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogika 

a) Microsoft have just turned their back on PlaysForSure and are implementing a new strategy for the Zune, which is as closed as Apple's.

b) Have you *seen* how the record companies ****ed Microsoft over? Castrating the "squirting" social feature to the point of complete laughability? Cashing in a dollar in piracy reparation on EVERY ZUNE SOLD?

Are you saying Microsoft is proof that there is another way? They got the crap end of the deal, brother.

I knew someone would bring this up. Thanks.

1) PlaysForSure is still thriving (even though I have no interest in buying its products), and will continue to do so.
2) MS wants part of the hardware sales pie, which is why they've come up with a proprietary solution... like Apple's. MS is just as willing to fsck over 3rd party hardware vendors when they start selling their own hardware.
3) Apple doesn't have any squirting feature, so the comparison is irrelevant.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

This is exactly why I brought up MS. MS has proven that Jobs' statement is bull.

So because MS — under a completely different and unrelated contract — is able to do something that Apple is not able to do specifically because of the terms of its contract, that proves that "Jobs' statement is bull"? You're really going to have to spell out the logic that makes this work, because I don't see it at all.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I knew someone would bring this up. Thanks.

1) PlaysForSure is still thriving (even though I have no interest in buying its products), and will continue to do so.
2) MS wants part of the hardware sales pie, which is why they've come up with a proprietary solution... like Apple's. MS is just as willing to fsck over 3rd party hardware vendors when they start selling their own hardware.
3) Apple doesn't have any squirting feature, so the comparison is irrelevant.

1) PlaysForSure is no longer supported by the ones who created it. A slow death, for sure, no? "Thriving"?

2) If MS's only motivation were hardware sales, why would they have to let the corporations **** them over? A dollar per Zune for Universal? Surely you can't believe that Microsoft CHOSE to let Sony cripple one of the most-touted features of their player?

The castration of their service is proof enough (to me) that it was NOT Microsoft who dictated the conditions. Who in their right mind would accept such idiocy unless the HAD TO, especially if they're the biggest kid in the playpen?

Jobs negotiated Apple's contract back when the labels were still pretty unsure if there was any money in online music sales at all (all previous endeavours had pretty much tanked or were languishing), so he got a better deal than Microsoft, from the looks of it.

But considering the bullshit Microsoft has obviously had to swallow, it's not hard to believe that Apple's deal was set against rock-hard conditions. And those conditions have certainly not got any softer since Apple proved there's money to be made, and the record companies got the feeling he'd pulled a fast one on them (it's pretty easy to make a fool of fools).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogika 

1) PlaysForSure is no longer supported by the ones who created it. A slow death, for sure, no? "Thriving"?

2) If MS's only motivation were hardware sales, why would they have to let the corporations **** them over? A dollar per Zune for Universal? Surely you can't believe that Microsoft CHOSE to let Sony cripple one of the most-touted features of their player?

The castration of their service is proof enough (to me) that it was NOT Microsoft who dictated the conditions. Who in their right mind would accept such idiocy unless the HAD TO, especially if they're the biggest kid in the playpen?

Jobs negotiated Apple's contract back when the labels were still pretty unsure if there was any money in online music sales at all (all previous endeavours had pretty much tanked or were languishing), so he got a better deal than Microsoft, from the looks of it.

But considering the bullshit Microsoft has obviously had to swallow, it's not hard to believe that Apple's deal was set against rock-hard conditions. And those conditions have certainly not got any softer since Apple proved there's money to be made, and the record companies got the feeling he'd pulled a fast one on them (it's pretty easy to make a fool of fools).

The RIAA has already said "Go ahead Apple, open up FairPlay to 3rd parties."

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The RIAA has already said "Go ahead Apple, open up FairPlay to 3rd parties."

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

Yes, but they didn't say it until after Jobs posted his open letter, and that doesn't change the contract that Apple is still under. Those contracts come up for renegotiation this year, so maybe Apple can get RIAA's statment in writing in the new contract.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The RIAA has already said "Go ahead Apple, open up FairPlay to 3rd parties."

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

Have they absolved Apple of the contractual responsibilities that make it impractical? I must have missed that part.

Seriously, you're reaching. Jobs never said, "The RIAA expressly forbids us to share FairPlay, but if they issue a press release welcoming us to do so, that changes everything." He said, "The terms of our contract make it infeasible to share FairPlay." The terms of that contract have not changed. I don't know why you're so desperate to vilify Apple that you keep ignoring the points I've made, but it's getting kind of tired.

[Eug]

As I posted elsewhere, Nettwerk already put forth the idea to Apple (before Stevie's blog) to make its iTunes songs DRM-free. Nettwerk already does this with other online services.

Apple's response: <silence>

I also see that many of you continue to ignore Jobs' stance on movies and DRM, when he was CEO of Pixar.

ie. When Jobs' company owns the content, Jobs is very pro DRM. When Jobs' company sells the players, he claims he's anti-DRM. Sounds a little fishy to me.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I also see that many of you continue to ignore Jobs' stance on movies and DRM, when he was CEO of Pixar.

ie. When Jobs' company owns the content, Jobs is very pro DRM. When Jobs' company sells the players, he claims he's anti-DRM. Sounds a little fishy to me.

Obviously I don't know what's going on in Steve's head, and I'm just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it possible that he's changed his mind/stance on this subject between now and when he was CEO of Pixar?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Obviously I don't know what's going on in Steve's head, and I'm just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it possible that he's changed his mind/stance on this subject between now and when he was CEO of Pixar?

No. He's now a board member of Disney/Pixar.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No. He's now a board member of Disney/Pixar.

That makes it impossible for him to have changed his mind?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That makes it impossible for him to have changed his mind?

I don't think it's impossible that he changed his mind. I just don't think being a part of Pixar or Disney has anything to do with it.

[Eug]

Anything possible, but his previous statements heavily promoting DRM and his inaction on Nettwerk's offer to make their songs DRM-free on iTunes certainly do not lend Jobs' claims credibility. This is reemphasized with RIAA now saying they're perfectly happy to run the "risk" of having FairPlay on multiple non-Apple devices. Anyone in the industry should have known that'd be their stance, especially given that's their stance with other forms of DRM.

[nonhuman]

One question: what motivation does Jobs have to actually make songs on iTunes DRM free? It's already outrageously successful, it doesn't really need another edge ...yet.

When another serious competitor comes to the table and iTunes needs another edge, then it might become expedient to remove the DRM restrictions on iTunes music. Until then, there's really no good reason to do so. Business is all about turning the situation to your benefit, and Jobs is a master at it. Expect DRM music from iTunes when it will be the most benefit to Apple to have that music be DRM free and not a moment sooner.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

One question: what motivation does Jobs have to actually make songs on iTunes DRM free? It's already outrageously successful, it doesn't really need another edge ...yet.

When another serious competitor comes to the table and iTunes needs another edge, then it might become expedient to remove the DRM restrictions on iTunes music. Until then, there's really no good reason to do so. Business is all about turning the situation to your benefit, and Jobs is a master at it. Expect DRM music from iTunes when it will be the most benefit to Apple to have that music be DRM free and not a moment sooner.

The motivation is European countries declaring iTunes proprietary and closed DRM illegal.

Saying "We support DRM-free music" is Jobs way of trying to deflect this blame, to put it onto the record labels instead, knowing that most of them are not interested in DRM-free music (although some like Nettwerk and possibly EMI are). Sure, the record labels do deserve most of the blame, but this is an easy way for Jobs to gloss over the fact that iTunes FairPlay DRM actually helps iPod sales, because it partially locks the iTunes user into the iPod.

I think of it as a stalling tactic. Banter with the labels for as long as possible to keep FairPlay intact and closed as long as possible.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The motivation is European countries declaring iTunes proprietary and closed DRM illegal.

They need to do the same for Microsoft's Zune player as well, since the situation with them is no different.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

They need to do the same for Microsoft's Zune player as well, since the situation with them is no different.

I agree. However, it seems they've gone after the big fish first. Zune sales are pretty damn insignificant (at this time).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The RIAA has already said "Go ahead Apple, open up FairPlay to 3rd parties."

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

Apple does not sign its distribution deals with the RIAA.

And RIAA recommendations say absolutely nothing about whether something is actually possible or not.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Apple does not sign its distribution deals with the RIAA.

And RIAA recommendations say absolutely nothing about whether something is actually possible or not.

No, but existing deals using other DRMs says it's quite possible.

Furthermore, the fact that Apple declined to offer DRM-free music when the head of a small but significant label (the one that has Sarah McLachlan) asked about it says something too.



Ironically, Jobs even had Sarah come up on stage and play for Apple too.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by asagai 

I must say, as much as I am unhappy with Apple's approach to this endeavor, I REALLY believe you will be correct! It saddens me though, that Apple will only begin to sell these unlocked, only AFTER we hackers will make the device work with any GSM chip.

Whatever happened to CONSUMER CHOICE?

-Asagai

It's still there. You have 3 choices:
1. Buy the iPhone and pay for roaming charges outside the U.S.
2. Don't buy the iPhone and get something that better suits your needs.
3. Wait for the "Cingular exclusive" deal to expire.

This is no different from the original iPod release. Just replace the most common complaints like "works only on Macs" with "works only on Cingular" and "supports Firewire not USB" with "supports Edge not 3G." Bitching about the high cost hasn't changed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

No, but existing deals using other DRMs says it's quite possible.

Furthermore, the fact that Apple declined to offer DRM-free music when the head of a small but significant label (the one that has Sarah McLachlan) asked about it says something too.

It says that Apple likes simplicity. This is the same reason Apple told the record labels to shove it when they wanted to price tracks according to popularity. Everything is 99¢, everything is the same.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Stogieman 

It's still there. You have 3 choices:
1. Buy the iPhone and pay for roaming charges outside the U.S.
2. Don't buy the iPhone and get something that better suits your needs.
3. Wait for the "Cingular exclusive" deal to expire.

This is no different from the original iPod release. Just replace the most common complaints like "works only on Macs" with "works only on Cingular" and "supports Firewire not USB" with "supports Edge not 3G." Bitching about the high cost hasn't changed.

Cingular's exclusive deal is only within the United States. It's already been announced that Rogers will be carrying the iPhone in Canada, and Apple is free to make deals with other carriers in other countries. Those deals just either haven't been made or haven't been announced yet.

[analogika]

Yep.

It's far too early to start bitching, since there's nothing to actually bitch ABOUT YET.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It says that Apple likes simplicity. This is the same reason Apple told the record labels to shove it when they wanted to price tracks according to popularity. Everything is 99¢, everything is the same.

1) Despite Apple's 99¢ for every song philosophy, Apple has lots of songs that can only be purchased with the album.
2) Apple could easily make DRM-free songs 99¢, and they don't even have to make them MP3s. They could just keep them as AAC files. It would be completely invisible to the average user, and would have 100% backwards compatibility.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

1) Despite Apple's 99¢ for every song philosophy, Apple has lots of songs that can only be purchased with the album.
2) Apple could easily make DRM-free songs 99¢, and they don't even have to make them MP3s. They could just keep them as AAC files. It would be completely invisible to the average user, and would have 100% backwards compatibility.

Yes, but they are not going to do the Microsoft-style "Well, this song can be bought and listened to three times, this song can be burned to a CD, this song can be listened to only on a Tuesday…" Your rights when buying a song from the iTunes music store are the same for all songs. Period. I can understand the reasoning for this. It's consistent with their pricing model.

[asagai]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Apple cripples things all the time to make you buy more expensive stuff. Take my iMac G5, for instance, which has an artificial software block in it to cripple video mirroring, to encourage people to buy something more expensive. Or more generally, look at Apple's entire consumer line since the original iMac - completely closed. No PCI slots on the desktop models, no card slots on the laptop models; unless you pay over $2000, you won't get these features which are standard on every other machine in the industry, so when some new standard comes out like USB 2.0 or eSATA or 802.11n, you have to chuck your whole machine and buy a new one instead of just sticking a card in. Oh, and they also like to lag behind in implementing those standards just so you'll have to buy a new machine when it becomes difficult to use it without that standard (see: USB 2.0 and 5G iPods).

Add in the fact that both companies are criticized for using technologies that are incompatible with what most people in the world use (note: not saying that's a bad thing), and it's pretty clear to me, at least, that Apple pretty much is the Verizon of the industry. Of course, there's some really nice things about what they do that keeps me using their stuff, but there are also some other things about the way they do business that are maddening.


Uh... so use some other IMAP service? I have eight different IMAP accounts right now. I seriously doubt that there's too many people out there who don't have some sort of e-mail service already.


Okay, so T-Mobile users will do without Visual Voicemail. Big deal.


It'd be out of my price range anyway, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about it. That's called free speech.

I am glad I am NOT alone, what you have stated here is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
iPods...LOCKED SYSTEM!! iTunes...LOCKED SYSTEM!! Apple Hardware...LOCKED!! iPhones..LOCKED AS WELL!!

Whatever happened to the support of OPEN STANDARDS, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, and MULTI-PLATFORM support? \??? I use Machintosh's, but I think Apple could really use some competition.

Best Regards,
-Asagai

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by asagai 

I am glad I am NOT alone, what you have stated here is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
iPods...LOCKED SYSTEM!! iTunes...LOCKED SYSTEM!! Apple Hardware...LOCKED!! iPhones..LOCKED AS WELL!!

Whatever happened to the support of OPEN STANDARDS, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, and MULTI-PLATFORM support? \??? I use Machintosh's, but I think Apple could really use some competition.

Best Regards,
-Asagai

Um, this is the way that Apple has always operated... (Except for the brief period with the clones.) It's largely because Apple's products are so closed that customer satisfaction is as high as it is.

And what do you mean that Apple doesn't have any competition?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by asagai 

I am glad I am NOT alone, what you have stated here is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
iPods...LOCKED SYSTEM!! iTunes...LOCKED SYSTEM!! Apple Hardware...LOCKED!! iPhones..LOCKED AS WELL!!

Whatever happened to the support of OPEN STANDARDS, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, and MULTI-PLATFORM support? \??? I use Machintosh's, but I think Apple could really use some competition.

You're making no sense whatsoever.

However, I suspect whatever you're spluttering at is very easily resolved by these four little words:

Apple. Is. A. Business.

Their goal is to make money, and they choose to do so by making the coolest products they can, while getting away with what they can get away with - just like any other business. They just happen to be a lot better at cool products than others.
It's interesting that you consider their products so much cooler than others' that you don't even see them as competitors.

Apple has LOTS of competitors in everything they do. You just happen to want exactly what they're selling, so it rubs you that there's trade-offs.

Oddly, those trade-offs must be orders of magnitude heavier for all other products, since you refuse to even consider them competition.

[JoshuaZ]

I fail to see how the iPod is a closed system. It uses mp3s. Which, as far as I know, are used by most people in the world and very easy to make from music you buy at the store. Thats right. A real store. Or off some second hand music site online. Stop complaining about it being locked when it uses the most popular music compression formatt in the world. The video is much the same way, it uses a very common form of video compression, MPEG-4.

Now if you want to complain about being locked into itunes, use linux. I`m under the impression that there are programs available to work with your iPod in an unrestrictive environment.

I will agree that apple does cripple some of its computers. iBooks for the longest time supported video mirroring, but not spanning. Even though their cards allowed them to, and could be enabiled to do so with a firmware hack. Annoying. (Though ADC was a good plug. Video, Power, USB, all in one cable? Seems like a winning combination to me) But just as apple does cripple some things, its an early adopter of others. Remember the original iMac? When Apple went all USB on us. Just one day switched everything to USB when no one in the industry was really pushing it? Or how about dropping the floppy drive? (Ok, it may have been a bit premature, but eh.) Some people still give Apple crap for not having one. But for the life of me who would ever use a floppy drive these days?

Now with Music apple did something no one else could, they actually made some money off online music sales. Sure, most of their money was because they heaily pushed iPods with their music, but then again most people have iPods to begin with. While I hate the idea of DRM, and dislike apple having it, if it was up to the RIAA we`d be paying for music every time we hummed it. If the RIAA is ok getting rid of it, Apple should do so. But as long as they face pressure from the RIAA, and as a business it would be stupid for Apple to try and push the RIAA too far, they`ll have to keep playing their game.

But as several people have pointed out, Apple is a Business that has certain standards. Which is why you won`t see the iPhone being sold with companies who can`t provide all of its fun features. Nothing would be worse then 1,000 people buying iPhone only to start finding half the features didn`t work. Imagion the online backlash at that.

So long story short, get over it.

[Chuckit]

Just wanted to point out: Good article from John Gruber on the topic.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

I fail to see how the iPod is a closed system.

It isn't. You've completely missed the point.

FairPlay is the closed system.

[- - e r i k - -]

Man. This thread is full of bullshit to debunk.

Originally Posted by Eug 

As I posted elsewhere, Nettwerk already put forth the idea to Apple (before Stevie's blog) to make its iTunes songs DRM-free. Nettwerk already does this with other online services.

Apple's response: <silence>

Complete and utter falsification:

When asked whether this was the case, [Carter Marshall, Director of Digital Sales and Marketing at Nettwerk Music Group] responded that there were "no current plans" to ask Apple to strip DRM from NMG's catalogue. This seemed a bit odd, considering the passion with which Marshall discussed unrestricted music.

Further into the interview he also says:

Originally Posted by Carter Marshall

Another consideration might be that iTunes has a contractual commitment to the Majors where they would not offer two-levels of DRM on their store, but that's speculation. I know a few digital retailers that are planning on offering DRM and open-source side-by-side imminently. Perhaps once a few of these services change, and there is wider pressure from the indie labels, iTunes will change.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Eug 

1) PlaysForSure is still thriving

1)

[Eug]

Not falsification at all. Terry McBride (who is Marshall's boss by the way) asked Apple if they would consider doing DRM-free music. They didn't officially request it per se, but they asked Apple if they would consider it. Apple failed to respond in any way shape or form.

Had Apple truly been interested in DRM-free music, they'd be all over this, especially when the person asking about it is the head of the label with which Sarah McLachlan has signed.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's like how you intentionally cripple Pacifist by not letting it edit video or do my taxes even though there are dozens of programs out there that allow it. Not including something extra that you want is different from crippling the functionality that exists. I am glad Apple didn't charge an extra $500 for a feature 98% of people probably don't give a **** about.

If you can't see why that's a ridiculous analogy, then it would make my brain hurt to explain it to you.

[hint: every desktop Mac has a PCI bus.]

[another hint: every non-Mac desktop computer on the market includes PCI slots. That includes cheapo machines that cost way less than $500].

[Eug]

I have to admit, I'm not that concerned about missing a PCI bus these days. I prefer having a 24" monstrosity on my desk without having to deal with an external box. I have enough crap in this place as it is.

I just wish that iMac didn't have the chin. It makes the 24" iMac a bit taller than I'd prefer. It's tough on my desk and chair ergonomics.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

I fail to see how the iPod is a closed system.

Originally Posted by Eug 

It isn't. You've completely missed the point.

Eug, I think you completely missed the point. JoshuaZ was responding to this comment made by asagai.

Originally Posted by asagai

I am glad I am NOT alone, what you have stated here is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
iPods...LOCKED SYSTEM!! iTunes...LOCKED SYSTEM!! Apple Hardware...LOCKED!! iPhones..LOCKED AS WELL!!

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

[hint: every desktop Mac has a PCI bus.]

[another hint: every non-Mac desktop computer on the market includes PCI slots. That includes cheapo machines that cost way less than $500].

[and yet another hint: the average consumer doesn't care about PCI slots.]


The way I see it, I would rather have the small form factor and the lack of expandability of my Mac mini rather than the 2 PCI slots and huge size of my old Dell. And both of those PCI slots were occupied. And the case was probably the size of a blue PowerMac G3 compared to my Mac Mini that's the size of a couple of CD jewel cases stacked atop each other. It's a trade-off, and I'm willing to accept that trade off. That Dell was such a space hog, and now I have my Mac mini. It takes up such little space that I don't care if it will become obsolete soon because it's AirPort card doesn't support N. The average consumer isn't going to rush out and buy brand new N routers. I know people who still use B and don't see any point in changing to G. THE AVERAGE CONSUMER WANTS SOMETHING THAT WORKS. NOT SOMETHING TO TINKER WITH.

Just like how, if I had the money, I would be willing to be locked into Cingular just for the iPhone. Or that I'm willing to lock myself into the iPod+iTunes ecosystem. It's choices. And if Apple's way of doing business is to lock people into their systems, those people have a choice.


On a completely unrelated note, I once purchased Counting Crow's American Girls, and it came as an unlocked MP3. Forgot when that happened, and I've lost the file. But I found that immensely odd.

As for the whole DRM thing, if Apple let that label sell DRM-free music, imagine what all the other labels would've thought at that time. If Apple had said no DRM when negotiations first started, nothing would've happened. Apple had to make compromises to make things happen. Even if they didn't believe in DRM. You've seen how Warner has reacted to Steve's letter. If Steve had told them originally, "No DRM", Warner would've walked away. And probably so would the other labels. If that other label's songs were sold without DRM, the other labels probably wouldn't be happy about that, and that would have a negative impact on future negotiations. But now that iTunes has been proven to be successful, Steve can argue against DRM.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

The way I see it, I would rather have the small form factor and the lack of expandability of my Mac mini rather than the 2 PCI slots and huge size of my old Dell. And both of those PCI slots were occupied. And the case was probably the size of a blue PowerMac G3 compared to my Mac Mini that's the size of a couple of CD jewel cases stacked atop each other. It's a trade-off, and I'm willing to accept that trade off.

Hint: There are a couple of technologies known as CardBus and ExpressCard that let you fit expansion cards in a compact space.

That Dell was such a space hog, and now I have my Mac mini. It takes up such little space that I don't care if it will become obsolete soon because it's AirPort card doesn't support N. The average consumer isn't going to rush out and buy brand new N routers. I know people who still use B and don't see any point in changing to G. THE AVERAGE CONSUMER WANTS SOMETHING THAT WORKS. NOT SOMETHING TO TINKER WITH.

Right, and without some kind of expansion, you can't guarantee it's going to work in the future. If you don't believe me, just ask someone who bought an iBook in 2003 and then couldn't use it with an iPod 5G or nano just two years later without having to wait literally half a waking day for it to sync.

Just like how, if I had the money, I would be willing to be locked into Cingular just for the iPhone. Or that I'm willing to lock myself into the iPod+iTunes ecosystem. It's choices. And if Apple's way of doing business is to lock people into their systems, those people have a choice.

Well, I guess if you want to look at it that way, "my way or the highway" could technically be called a choice. But if Apple could give consumers a choice that was more palatable, they'd sell more units.