jaw04005
Apr 21, 09:57 PM
The biggest problem with Windows is Microsoft doesn't design Windows for consumers. The biggest chunk of their cash-cow comes from the enterprise. And the Windows desktop platform reflects that.
That didn't change with Windows 7. What's sad is they have a lot of innovative consumer-focused product teams (Media Center, Zune, XBOX, Live, Bing, Auto Collage, Windows Home Server, etc) that don't work together and don't have enough clout to make their projects prominent. They should let those guys develop the next consumer version of Windows instead of just throwing their different projects into Windows sporadically or in most cases optionally.
Take the Windows Live components:
Windows Live Family Safety - Should be integrated into 7's Parental Controls
Windows Live Mail, Mesh (Backup), Messenger, Movie Maker, Photo Gallery - Should be included on the default "home" version of 7
Windows Live Writer - Should be included as an optional install
http://explore.live.com/
Then you have the optional Zune jukebox, which should be the default media player in 7 instead of Windows Media Player. Windows Media Player in 7 has a really neat "remote media" feature (think Back to My Mac meets your iTunes library), but no one knows about it or how to use it. And it's not present in the optional Zune jukebox software and isn't compatible with Windows Phones or Zune devices (obvious oversight there).
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Stream-your-media-over-the-Internet-using-Windows-Media-Player
http://www.zune.com
Then there's Media Center, which really should be updated to use the newer Metro UI and adopted to be the front-end media experience on both the XBOX 360 (and I'm not talking RDP-like Media Center Extender functionality), PC (for DVD/Blu-ray playback, etc) and possibly tablet UI.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-media-center/get-started/default.aspx
There's Microsoft Research's Auto Collage, which should be included as a plug-in for Windows Live Gallery instead of a $20 separate program that no one knows about.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/autocollage/
The "Drive Extender" technology that Microsoft recently pulled from Windows Home Server should have been how future versions of Windows handle hard drives (no more drive letters).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server#Drive_Extender
Why Bing photos/themes aren't prominent in Windows 7 or the default wallpaper in 7 I'll never know.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/downloads/personalize/themes
Don't get me started on the lack of Security Essentials being pre-installed as part of the default "home" version of Windows.
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/
The list is endless. It's like someone is asleep at the top. And the rest of Microsoft takes the attitude of "We make that? OK. Well, let's just throw it up on the Web site."
That didn't change with Windows 7. What's sad is they have a lot of innovative consumer-focused product teams (Media Center, Zune, XBOX, Live, Bing, Auto Collage, Windows Home Server, etc) that don't work together and don't have enough clout to make their projects prominent. They should let those guys develop the next consumer version of Windows instead of just throwing their different projects into Windows sporadically or in most cases optionally.
Take the Windows Live components:
Windows Live Family Safety - Should be integrated into 7's Parental Controls
Windows Live Mail, Mesh (Backup), Messenger, Movie Maker, Photo Gallery - Should be included on the default "home" version of 7
Windows Live Writer - Should be included as an optional install
http://explore.live.com/
Then you have the optional Zune jukebox, which should be the default media player in 7 instead of Windows Media Player. Windows Media Player in 7 has a really neat "remote media" feature (think Back to My Mac meets your iTunes library), but no one knows about it or how to use it. And it's not present in the optional Zune jukebox software and isn't compatible with Windows Phones or Zune devices (obvious oversight there).
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Stream-your-media-over-the-Internet-using-Windows-Media-Player
http://www.zune.com
Then there's Media Center, which really should be updated to use the newer Metro UI and adopted to be the front-end media experience on both the XBOX 360 (and I'm not talking RDP-like Media Center Extender functionality), PC (for DVD/Blu-ray playback, etc) and possibly tablet UI.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-media-center/get-started/default.aspx
There's Microsoft Research's Auto Collage, which should be included as a plug-in for Windows Live Gallery instead of a $20 separate program that no one knows about.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/autocollage/
The "Drive Extender" technology that Microsoft recently pulled from Windows Home Server should have been how future versions of Windows handle hard drives (no more drive letters).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server#Drive_Extender
Why Bing photos/themes aren't prominent in Windows 7 or the default wallpaper in 7 I'll never know.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/downloads/personalize/themes
Don't get me started on the lack of Security Essentials being pre-installed as part of the default "home" version of Windows.
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/
The list is endless. It's like someone is asleep at the top. And the rest of Microsoft takes the attitude of "We make that? OK. Well, let's just throw it up on the Web site."
Appel
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
Looks like ****.
dsnort
Aug 1, 08:39 PM
The problem is that the license says that the limitations can change at any time, so one doesn't really know what one buys, even if one has read the license - which I'm sure most people has not. I don't believe that the complaint is first and foremost about the DRM (which one may have opinions about exactly how it is implemented and shared but most anyway recognises it as a necessary evil) but rather what is summarised in these two sentences: "it is unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must give consent to is regulated by English law. That iTunes disclaims all liability for possible damage the software may cause and that it may alter the rights to the music". I think most of us agree that it is not reasonable that that which we buy can destroy anything on our computer and that they can e.g. suddenly just allow me to play a song just five times. And even though we all trust and like Apple these sort of licences are getting sillier and sillier (and it is certainlly not just Apple, it is basically the whole industry) and I think it is really good that someone who has the time and knowledge to fight it takes a stand against it, even though I believe shutting down the store may be overkill but I'm sure it won't come to that.
Cheers,
Peter
I understand what you are saying, and empathize with your concern. I just find it bewildering that the focus of so much of this debate is Apples DRM, which is one of the most reasonable out there. This is not a case, so far, of Apple abusing the customer so much as it is of Apple having so many customers. For real DRM abuse stories, check out what Sony did on some of the DVD's they sold. Or Napsters subscription service where you have rights to the music as long as you keep making the payments, every month. Or try to decipher M$'s DRM policy. Or try to sign up for Sony's Connect Store on a Mac.
I personally don't think it will ever come to the point where Apple will pull iTunes from any country, at least, I certainly hope not.
As for the post you quoted, sorry. People who insist that everyone who doesn't agree with them is mentally defective touch a hot button for me. Especially when their reasoning is.....suspect.
Cheers,
Peter
I understand what you are saying, and empathize with your concern. I just find it bewildering that the focus of so much of this debate is Apples DRM, which is one of the most reasonable out there. This is not a case, so far, of Apple abusing the customer so much as it is of Apple having so many customers. For real DRM abuse stories, check out what Sony did on some of the DVD's they sold. Or Napsters subscription service where you have rights to the music as long as you keep making the payments, every month. Or try to decipher M$'s DRM policy. Or try to sign up for Sony's Connect Store on a Mac.
I personally don't think it will ever come to the point where Apple will pull iTunes from any country, at least, I certainly hope not.
As for the post you quoted, sorry. People who insist that everyone who doesn't agree with them is mentally defective touch a hot button for me. Especially when their reasoning is.....suspect.
slimbek
May 3, 10:30 PM
I want that voice-over guy to read me bedtime stories.
Leemo
Sep 12, 03:55 AM
I genuinely think that if Apple are introducing a movie store today they're going to have something rather special up their sleeve - I think pricing should be extremely competitive compared to DVDs otherwise what's the point?
Digital downloads of films (sorry, movies) needs to be made appealing to the masses in the same way music was, with cheap individual prices that compared favourably to CDs - people have gotten used to owning only digital copies of their music, however movies are still in that tangible area of hard media, and I feel Apple are going to have to really be priced competitively to alter public perception of digital distribution of movie content.
Not that they *won't* of course, but I don't think it's going to be necessarily easy.
If they introduce HD content I'll be a very happy bunny.
-Leemo
Digital downloads of films (sorry, movies) needs to be made appealing to the masses in the same way music was, with cheap individual prices that compared favourably to CDs - people have gotten used to owning only digital copies of their music, however movies are still in that tangible area of hard media, and I feel Apple are going to have to really be priced competitively to alter public perception of digital distribution of movie content.
Not that they *won't* of course, but I don't think it's going to be necessarily easy.
If they introduce HD content I'll be a very happy bunny.
-Leemo
baryon
Mar 24, 04:10 PM
Wow, 10 years ago I didn't even have a computer yet... Those times were waaay different :D
Qwest905
Apr 6, 01:57 PM
lol thanks...
no need to wait in line when here in canada(not sure if it's the same in the US)
in order to buy the ipad in the apple store now..you have to logon to their website at 9pm in hope to be able to reserve an ipad for pickup the next day
and congratulations on your engagement =)....i'm still in my honeymoon phase as i was married back in november!!
no need to wait in line when here in canada(not sure if it's the same in the US)
in order to buy the ipad in the apple store now..you have to logon to their website at 9pm in hope to be able to reserve an ipad for pickup the next day
and congratulations on your engagement =)....i'm still in my honeymoon phase as i was married back in november!!
AndroidfoLife
Apr 15, 10:28 PM
Google, Microsoft and Bush are Devils!
For the most part they all work together. Apple Google and Microsoft are all the devils they all work together to form a greater overarching monopoly. It all cost so much because they want it so.
For the most part they all work together. Apple Google and Microsoft are all the devils they all work together to form a greater overarching monopoly. It all cost so much because they want it so.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Despite the source of the image being not 100% trusted, this seems to be most accurate sounding rumour. Although I do not think that it will be called iPhone 4S as this will mess with the versioning numbers because the one after the 4S/5 would be 6.
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
Despite the source of the image being not 100% trusted, this seems to be most accurate sounding rumour. Although I do not think that it will be called iPhone 4S as this will mess with the versioning numbers because the one after the 4S/5 would be 6.
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
Tsunami911
Apr 8, 01:02 PM
I wonder what the special promotion is.
I bet it is simply..."We have the iPad 2 in stock and no one else does. Come get one."
I bet it is simply..."We have the iPad 2 in stock and no one else does. Come get one."
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
the future
Sep 12, 07:59 AM
Film content from Fox and Dreamworks?!
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
mikelegacy
Dec 13, 12:25 PM
Haha, nope.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Okay? But what 3G competition was out there at the time? There was no Android at that time. The iPhone was competing with Blackberry, and it was a MAJORLY different device. Now they HAVE to compete, so they HAVE to advance. Look for LTE in the next iPhone.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Okay? But what 3G competition was out there at the time? There was no Android at that time. The iPhone was competing with Blackberry, and it was a MAJORLY different device. Now they HAVE to compete, so they HAVE to advance. Look for LTE in the next iPhone.
UTclassof89
Jul 21, 11:49 AM
This is key. If the iPhone 4 isn't dropping calls any more often than the 3GS, then there is no real issue at all.....
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
Calidude
Apr 17, 12:26 PM
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
leekohler
Jan 15, 02:08 PM
Who is Apple kidding, the ultra-portable market is for *cheap* ultra-portables or for Tablets. If I didn't buy a 7" touch-screen UMPC for $1000, why on earth would I buy a non-touchscreen, ethernetless, 13" envelope-sized "sub-notebook". The price is Pro-line, the lack of screen options, lack of graphics, lack of FW800, lack of ethernet, speaks otherwise. Even a touchscreen would have saved this thing, right now its just an incredibly expensive, thinner, backlit Macbook. I mean, I get it is thin, but are they serious? My MBP is thin enough....
Agreed- this was a real bummer.
Agreed- this was a real bummer.
WhiteShadow
Nov 16, 01:08 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
Lord Blackadder
Nov 16, 10:12 AM
I doubt Apple will go with AMD in the near future - at the moment Intel has the performance lead and the AMD/Intel war is so hot Intel would no doubt punish Apple for adding AMD CPUs to their product line.
I'm not holding my breath...but I am interested to see what AMD comes out with in answer to the Core 2 Duo. Maybe if AMD regains its competitiveness there will be pressure for Apple to branch out a little.
I'm not holding my breath...but I am interested to see what AMD comes out with in answer to the Core 2 Duo. Maybe if AMD regains its competitiveness there will be pressure for Apple to branch out a little.
unlimitedx
May 3, 09:24 PM
another great video!
Simmias
May 3, 10:37 PM
I love my iPad 2, but I don't care for the ads. I like the overall message, but the narrator's inflections really bug me for some reason - a little too sappy. Also, the use of the word "magic" (wink, wink) in this ad and the previous one smacks of Steve Jobs thumbing his nose at critics. No matter how successful the iPad is, we will still cringe at his calling it magical.
pgw3
Aug 1, 04:27 PM
I don't FEEL ignorant and stupid. Maybe that's because I took the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the limitations imposed on me by iTunes/iPod before I BOUGHT in. And maybe because I understand that what I am BUYING is a DIGITAL DATA FILE that must be interpreted by a certain APPLICATION to become music, and that this was EXPLAINED to me before I BOUGHT. That I don't OWN the MUSIC, and that there are LIMITATIONS to what I can do with it. ( And if you think I'm wrong on that last point, let a copyright holder catch you using their music for commmercial gain. Write back to us and describe the world of hurt that descends on you)!
The fact of the matter is that reasonable DRM's protect the artists who are the source of the music. And Apples DRM is one the most reasonable in the industry, both protecting the artist, and allowing fair use by the customer.
The problem is that the license says that the limitations can change at any time, so one doesn't really know what one buys, even if one has read the license - which I'm sure most people has not. I don't believe that the complaint is first and foremost about the DRM (which one may have opinions about exactly how it is implemented and shared but most anyway recognises it as a necessary evil) but rather what is summarised in these two sentences: "it is unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must give consent to is regulated by English law. That iTunes disclaims all liability for possible damage the software may cause and that it may alter the rights to the music". I think most of us agree that it is not reasonable that that which we buy can destroy anything on our computer and that they can e.g. suddenly just allow me to play a song just five times. And even though we all trust and like Apple these sort of licences are getting sillier and sillier (and it is certainlly not just Apple, it is basically the whole industry) and I think it is really good that someone who has the time and knowledge to fight it takes a stand against it, even though I believe shutting down the store may be overkill but I'm sure it won't come to that.
Cheers,
Peter
The fact of the matter is that reasonable DRM's protect the artists who are the source of the music. And Apples DRM is one the most reasonable in the industry, both protecting the artist, and allowing fair use by the customer.
The problem is that the license says that the limitations can change at any time, so one doesn't really know what one buys, even if one has read the license - which I'm sure most people has not. I don't believe that the complaint is first and foremost about the DRM (which one may have opinions about exactly how it is implemented and shared but most anyway recognises it as a necessary evil) but rather what is summarised in these two sentences: "it is unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must give consent to is regulated by English law. That iTunes disclaims all liability for possible damage the software may cause and that it may alter the rights to the music". I think most of us agree that it is not reasonable that that which we buy can destroy anything on our computer and that they can e.g. suddenly just allow me to play a song just five times. And even though we all trust and like Apple these sort of licences are getting sillier and sillier (and it is certainlly not just Apple, it is basically the whole industry) and I think it is really good that someone who has the time and knowledge to fight it takes a stand against it, even though I believe shutting down the store may be overkill but I'm sure it won't come to that.
Cheers,
Peter
SuperCachetes
Apr 25, 09:46 PM
No, I expect human beings to try and stop another from being seriously hurt.
This.
There's entirely too much "not giving a **** about each other" in this world. Social class, race, employment, on-the-clock/off-the-clock should make a **** of difference when it comes to human compassion. At least in theory...
Stay classy, Baltimore. :rolleyes:
This.
There's entirely too much "not giving a **** about each other" in this world. Social class, race, employment, on-the-clock/off-the-clock should make a **** of difference when it comes to human compassion. At least in theory...
Stay classy, Baltimore. :rolleyes:
8CoreWhore
Apr 12, 03:43 AM
There is the objective and the subjective. Objectively, one might say - hey, W8 is stable, and functional, etc...
Subjectively, people like what they like...
Subjectively, people like what they like...
skunk
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
If the score is X, you can change the score to X-1 and X+1. If you change it to X-1 then press up, it'll display as X+1 which removes your down vote and adds your upvote.In other words, there is no allowance for apathy. I can't be arsed with a system that doesn't allow for apathy. **** that.
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar