stcanard
Mar 18, 09:27 PM
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.
DRM lock in does not sell iPods.
Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.
Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.
Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.
You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.
If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?
Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.
DRM lock in does not sell iPods.
Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.
Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.
Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.
You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.
If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?
BC2009
Mar 18, 12:22 PM
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
To those who have limited data and just want the ability to use it any way they like -- I totally feel your pain. I fully agree that it is really dumb of AT&T to cap the data and then charge you extra per device. It is non-sensical to anyone with a basic sense of logic. To me, why not let people use the data up and pay for more if they need it (i.e.: upgrade to 4GB if they need that much data or 6GB or 8GB).
But it is still does not escape the fact that they are the ones who erected the wireless towers and built up the network infrastructure and they can license it as they see fit. And we as consumers have the option to not license it at all. I think the more dumb decisions they make the more likely folks will change carriers or somebody else will come along that offers something better.
I think Cable companies have been sticking it to Americans for years even though they are subsidized with municipal permits to build out their network under public roads. Now better things are coming along and some of these Cable companies are scared out of their minds. First Dish Network and DirectTV offered a better alternative and now the potential for wireless WAN or other internet providers to replace the need for subscription television.
Cable companies are becoming a commodity for pure data. Eventually the wireless providers will as well But for now, if you sign an agreement it should be with the intent of keeping that agreement. Most folks would expect others to keep up their end of any bargain, why shouldn't these wireless carriers expect the same or enforce it otherwise?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
To those who have limited data and just want the ability to use it any way they like -- I totally feel your pain. I fully agree that it is really dumb of AT&T to cap the data and then charge you extra per device. It is non-sensical to anyone with a basic sense of logic. To me, why not let people use the data up and pay for more if they need it (i.e.: upgrade to 4GB if they need that much data or 6GB or 8GB).
But it is still does not escape the fact that they are the ones who erected the wireless towers and built up the network infrastructure and they can license it as they see fit. And we as consumers have the option to not license it at all. I think the more dumb decisions they make the more likely folks will change carriers or somebody else will come along that offers something better.
I think Cable companies have been sticking it to Americans for years even though they are subsidized with municipal permits to build out their network under public roads. Now better things are coming along and some of these Cable companies are scared out of their minds. First Dish Network and DirectTV offered a better alternative and now the potential for wireless WAN or other internet providers to replace the need for subscription television.
Cable companies are becoming a commodity for pure data. Eventually the wireless providers will as well But for now, if you sign an agreement it should be with the intent of keeping that agreement. Most folks would expect others to keep up their end of any bargain, why shouldn't these wireless carriers expect the same or enforce it otherwise?
Interstella5555
Mar 18, 10:51 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Napster's legit, and only porn hungry idiots who like downloadig viruses use limewire...
Napster's legit, and only porn hungry idiots who like downloadig viruses use limewire...
xper
Apr 13, 07:54 AM
I will save my major comments until I see the shortcut layout, the amount of customization, and hear from the working industry . . . you know the ones too busy getting it done to attend the event. Not the ones that got paid go.
The shortcuts hasnt changed and it is possible to remap shortcuts so no need to worry.
The shortcuts hasnt changed and it is possible to remap shortcuts so no need to worry.
vniow
Oct 9, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
call of duty black ops
lack ops prestige emblems wii
lack ops prestige emblems
call of duty black ops
Call of duty black ops
call of duty black ops
lack ops prestige emblems
lack ops prestige emblems
call of duty black ops
lack ops prestige emblems
lack ops prestige emblems ps3
call of duty black ops
lack ops prestige emblems
lack ops prestige emblems
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
aristobrat
Feb 16, 03:45 PM
The Android Marketplace is still relatively new.
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
skunk
Mar 27, 03:10 PM
But I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what point I missed.The point, though it's off-topic, is that your RC friend (that's a homophone, by the way) wanted, for reasons best known to himself, to communicate with you in Latin, but to translate a "sign of contradiction" you have to use the word for "sign" as in signifier (n), rather than the word for "sign" as in sign your name (vb). He obviously looked up the wrong meaning and thus mangled his translation.
DTphonehome
Mar 18, 02:39 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
TroyBoy30
May 14, 07:25 AM
There is only 1 spot in the ATL where I drop calls, but I leave my phone on edge so maybe that's why
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
millerb7
May 2, 11:31 AM
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
roguewave23
Jun 8, 12:22 AM
All you have to do is disable 3G under Settings > General > Network > Enable 3G OFF... and you will never drop calls. With 3G enabled, dropped calls happen all the time. My Blackberry (EDGE, not 3G) never drops calls, but my 3G Enabled Nokia dropped calls with the same frequency as my iPhone. All on AT&T network. Pretty easy to see that their 3G network is to blame. So when I want to talk, I turn 3G off... when I want to surf, it's on or I leave it off if I can access Wi-Fi. Bring on Verizon!! ASAP!!
ct2k7
Apr 24, 12:43 PM
I am religious, however, I have to say there is some sort of motivation inside me to stick to my religion. I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but there's something there. I'm always looking forward to something for some reason.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 05:19 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
darbus69
Apr 20, 06:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
thejoshu
Mar 19, 10:31 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.
Cowinacape
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?
Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.
The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.
Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?
Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.
The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
If you and your entire office are sitting laughing at MacRumors comment posts then you are charging your customers WAY too much money.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:57 PM
Probably, but it's speculation.
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
skunk
Mar 27, 02:37 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.It's a homonym... :)
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.It's a homonym... :)
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
eawmp1
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!