wired.com— Apple Computer said on Tuesday a proposed French law that would force Apple to make sure that songs bought on its iTunes music store can work on any portable player would result in "state-sponsored piracy."
Mar 22, 2006View in Crawl 4
Increase the number of iPods? I think this is a big risk, it can either takes the numbers of iPods way up, or make the iPod an 'everyone's mp3 player', lose the 'image', people get into all sorts of 'playability' problems, and the iPod starts getting a reputation of 'buy the music and pray that it works on your iPod', I think Apple is much better staying away from this hassle, they have their music, they have their player and are sure that their music plays on their player.
Yes actually, if 55% of people agree that murder is a good idea, then a murdering we shall go, that's how wars get started. And no, segregation couldn't have ended while a majority of people were opposed to it. That wouldn't make sense. A law would have been passed and signed, and you get represented by your congressman, senator, president, etc, to cast your opinion on an issue. I'm sure alot of people still wanted segregation to remain, but they were not the majority.
"Some companies just have more ETHICS than others."Ethics are what is expected of you by society and so, by defiinition, all companies have the exact same ethics since we have the same expectations for all of them. If Apple DID have more ethics then that would mean that we, as a society, expect more from them than a similar company and that would be just plain wrong.I think you meant MORALS. Morals are an individual's idea of what's right or wrong. But expecting MORAL behaviour from a corporation goes against most (all?) corporations stated objective of maximizing investor return. They simply can't be moral in many cases without an explicit mandate from their investors. Bottom line. Don't look to Corporations when you are looking for role models.
Sorry, its not a monopoly. Its a business model. As another poster said, a monopoly would have it from the start completely open, then close the doors. The doors were only cracked open at first, and have not changed.Apple has every right to protect its business model - Itunes software with Ipod hardware.
Typical marketing garbage from corporate hotshots who only care about how many more dollars they can squeeze out of consumers. Apple is not much different from any huge money hungry greedy bastards around, like mocro$oft, etc.And just because they have a cult following like google, doesn't make them any less guilty.
You argue that Windows is a monopoly because that's where the consumer software is. Well, I first argued that's wrong, because alternates exist.Well, if you disagree that Windows alternates exist because of spread of use, or name recognition, then iTunes is a monopoly as well because the alternates are not really well known or used often. As my hypothetical example I said, what if a band were to release their music only on iTunes. No CDs, radio broadcasts, etc.. Does that then make iTunes a monopoly because thats where the music would be? Is that really a decision Apple makes, or is it actually the bands choice. As a comparison for Windows, is it Microsoft that decided to make 3dsmax only for Windows, or was it the company?
"Your little company, though it did tangle with MS, disappeared for the same reason buggy whip makers no longer exist... How useful is disk compression technologies when storage becomes cheap?"The point is not whether it's technology is useful NOW. It was VERY useful at the time. But instead of striking while the iron was hot, it spent all it's resources fighting goliath instead of growing and expanding it's product offerings. There are many companies that get a toehold with one technology and use it as a lever and a financing vehicle to release an entire stable of products. The point is that Stac never got that chance. MS came in and unfairly used the courts and it's superior market position to effectively stall them out of the market. No company has a right to be successful forever. All technologies become irrelevant. But Stac was denied the ability to leverage their small success into a large success. "Also, flameboy, according to you, the problem with capitalism is that it isn't socialism?"I have not problems at all with capitalism! I have a problem with monopolies. Stop trying to put word in my mouth. It's true that monopolies can develop in a captialistic society but they can also develop in a socialistic society so you can't point the finger of blame at capitalism. You are just trolling for an argument now. Admit it, that's just what you said, and no competant economist would make that statement."That's not what I said and of course no economist would make that statement. You are trolling now for a fight."The main tenant of capitalism IS NOT to redistribute wealth equally, that's a tenant of socialism."I'll file that under "d'uh".
cojawfeeMar 23, 2006
No, piracy is me having to illegally download some song that I got legally on iTunes because my Zen Microphoto doesn't play .m4a.
ahmedbMar 23, 2006
Increase the number of iPods? I think this is a big risk, it can either takes the numbers of iPods way up, or make the iPod an 'everyone's mp3 player', lose the 'image', people get into all sorts of 'playability' problems, and the iPod starts getting a reputation of 'buy the music and pray that it works on your iPod', I think Apple is much better staying away from this hassle, they have their music, they have their player and are sure that their music plays on their player.
jasqwertyMar 23, 2006
Yes actually, if 55% of people agree that murder is a good idea, then a murdering we shall go, that's how wars get started. And no, segregation couldn't have ended while a majority of people were opposed to it. That wouldn't make sense. A law would have been passed and signed, and you get represented by your congressman, senator, president, etc, to cast your opinion on an issue. I'm sure alot of people still wanted segregation to remain, but they were not the majority.
oepapelMar 23, 2006
"Some companies just have more ETHICS than others."Ethics are what is expected of you by society and so, by defiinition, all companies have the exact same ethics since we have the same expectations for all of them. If Apple DID have more ethics then that would mean that we, as a society, expect more from them than a similar company and that would be just plain wrong.I think you meant MORALS. Morals are an individual's idea of what's right or wrong. But expecting MORAL behaviour from a corporation goes against most (all?) corporations stated objective of maximizing investor return. They simply can't be moral in many cases without an explicit mandate from their investors. Bottom line. Don't look to Corporations when you are looking for role models.
kamikazeh20mlnMar 23, 2006
Sorry, its not a monopoly. Its a business model. As another poster said, a monopoly would have it from the start completely open, then close the doors. The doors were only cracked open at first, and have not changed.Apple has every right to protect its business model - Itunes software with Ipod hardware.
sephiroth965Mar 23, 2006
I hate France but I thank them for leading the way into anti-DRM laws.
aspirinetuMar 24, 2006
i've read lots of "i hate france but..."why the hate to france?just because the world loves the french and not the american?
Closed AccountMar 24, 2006
Typical marketing garbage from corporate hotshots who only care about how many more dollars they can squeeze out of consumers. Apple is not much different from any huge money hungry greedy bastards around, like mocro$oft, etc.And just because they have a cult following like google, doesn't make them any less guilty.
jasqwertyMar 25, 2006
You argue that Windows is a monopoly because that's where the consumer software is. Well, I first argued that's wrong, because alternates exist.Well, if you disagree that Windows alternates exist because of spread of use, or name recognition, then iTunes is a monopoly as well because the alternates are not really well known or used often. As my hypothetical example I said, what if a band were to release their music only on iTunes. No CDs, radio broadcasts, etc.. Does that then make iTunes a monopoly because thats where the music would be? Is that really a decision Apple makes, or is it actually the bands choice. As a comparison for Windows, is it Microsoft that decided to make 3dsmax only for Windows, or was it the company?
oepapelMar 26, 2006
"Your little company, though it did tangle with MS, disappeared for the same reason buggy whip makers no longer exist... How useful is disk compression technologies when storage becomes cheap?"The point is not whether it's technology is useful NOW. It was VERY useful at the time. But instead of striking while the iron was hot, it spent all it's resources fighting goliath instead of growing and expanding it's product offerings. There are many companies that get a toehold with one technology and use it as a lever and a financing vehicle to release an entire stable of products. The point is that Stac never got that chance. MS came in and unfairly used the courts and it's superior market position to effectively stall them out of the market. No company has a right to be successful forever. All technologies become irrelevant. But Stac was denied the ability to leverage their small success into a large success. "Also, flameboy, according to you, the problem with capitalism is that it isn't socialism?"I have not problems at all with capitalism! I have a problem with monopolies. Stop trying to put word in my mouth. It's true that monopolies can develop in a captialistic society but they can also develop in a socialistic society so you can't point the finger of blame at capitalism. You are just trolling for an argument now. Admit it, that's just what you said, and no competant economist would make that statement."That's not what I said and of course no economist would make that statement. You are trolling now for a fight."The main tenant of capitalism IS NOT to redistribute wealth equally, that's a tenant of socialism."I'll file that under "d'uh".
nobogeys217Jul 28, 2006
If I pay $0.99 for a song I want to do whatever the hell I want to with it. If I want it on a PSP I should be able to. Thats why I use allofmp3.com