[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

This isn't about facts. We are speaking hypothetically so there are no facts to cite at this point. Instead this is about logic and past consumer behavior in similiar situations. And based on these things, it's not quantum physics to understand that if product A and product B are identical in all ways (including price) except that product B has additional features or flexibility for the consumer, (and the same company, manufacturer, and marketing strategies are behind both products), then product B will be the bigger seller.

---

But you provide no similar example of these "similar situations." Apple has licensed their technology to other in the past, and been burned. Apploe has licensed the technology of others, and been buirned.
History shows that Microsoft dominates the computer industry, while providing little in terms of consumer choice and interoperability. History shows that when people add third-party features to their products, they are often burned, and consumers don't like the results.
There are very few comparable situations. Apple and the iPod are quite unique in the business world. Apple thrives on quality and innovation. Adding support for dubious third-party companies may destroy Apple's reputation for quality.
What happens when a Mac user buys an iPod because of the "new support" for Napster-to-Go, and then finds that Napster-to-Go is not compatible with the Macintosh? Why should Apple support companies that have "declared war" on Apple?
Doesn't make much sense for Apple to give up control over its own products, to companies that have publicly declared their hostility towards Apple.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

When your CD player goes on the fritz, do you blame your local Sam Goody or Best Buy (or other music store) for it? Or when you buy a bad CD from a store, do you blame the manufacturer of your CD player?

---

This comparison is invalid, because a CD just contains audio data in an extremely common format. DRM-protected music contains different software interactions that are not clear to the user. With an audio CD, the consumer has dozens of other Audio CDs to test whether the player or the CD is at fault.
However, if you buy a DRM-protected track from Napster, and it won't play on your iPod, how do you know if Napster is responsible for giving you a bad file, or if Apple is responsible for a bug in their support for Napster songs, or if it's a problem with the iPod hardware itself?
Believe me, if Napster files won't play on an iPod, the consumer will phone Apple first. After all, their player is made by Apple.

In reply to:

---

Consumers are more savvy than you give them credit for. Even when we speak of current technology, people know the difference between the web sites of amazon, barnesandnoble, and ebay. They know the difference between the music they play and the player on which they play it. Rocket science this is not.

---

So, if it's so simple, can you tell me the easy steps that a consumer would take to determine whether to call Apple or Napster in the case of a file that doesn't play?

[jmincey]

"So, if it's so simple, can you tell me the easy steps that a consumer would take to determine whether to call Apple or Napster in the case of a file that doesn't play?"
Okay, here's the scenario: On Monday all your files are working, everything plays properly, and you are happy. Then on Tuesday you download a new song from Napster and your iPod doesn't play it properly (or at all), even as the other files that were playing on Monday continue to play. This might be a "clue" that the problem lies with Napster. It's just not that hard.
Now, sure, where files and storage media are concerned, things are not as clear cut as with CDs and CD players -- I grant you that. But when Microsoft Word fails to work properly on your Macintosh, who do you call -- Microsoft or Apple? The problem could lie with either party (or even with neither). It's possible Word fails because of system issues rather than Word itself. This is simply a fact of life with software and computers. Given this reality, a company has a choice to make, and so I put it to you: Is it better to give consumers the power to choose according to their own preferences (even if it means the horror of having to use software which supports files from multiple sources), or is it better instead to lock them in -- all the while telling us this is for our own good and that they know what's best for us?
You favor lock-in -- and all for what? It doesn't solve this problem anyway!
Before you leap to disagree, consider that even if you use only iTMS with the iPod, you still could not know for sure that a new song you download fails to play because of a problem with iTMS or with the iPod (or, for that matter, with some corruption that occurred as the file was in transit via a Macintosh). So this dilemma is not intrinsic to the question of open licensing at all. It exists regardless and is simply the nature of the beast (and thus a false argument on your part).
"I just think you should use your brain more, and make better arguments."
You have made this remark a number of times and I have ignored it until now. I have two reactions to it: First, let me suggest that some people might such comments insulting. I don't know if you intend it this way or not, but you might keep this in mind for future conversations. Second, since you have no more data to support your position than I have to support mine, how then does this translate into your having a well developed agument while I do not? I'm sorry to say this, but you have not yet raised a single point that I had not already taken into consideration prior to our conversation.
This is not the first thread in which I have discussed this issue; I'm well aware of (and conversant in) the positions from the other point of view. I approach this subject on several fronts -- economics (profitability), industry leadership, best interest of the consumer, etc., and this is not usually a sign of lack of careful consideration. My position may be incorrect, of course, but it is not half-baked or insufficiently thought out. (Apparently it doesn't occur to you that I might regard your position as the one not well thought out.)
Moreover, what we are debating is a judgment call. It's not quantifiable or empirical or objective. In your subjective judgment, it's best for Apple to provide a music player and store which give consumers less flexibility and fewer options. You prefer a closed system to an open one. Fine -- fair enough. But I differ with you on this. I believe when a company expands the capacity of its products, it will win more customers than it loses. At the end of the day, however, neither of us can cite a study. Neither of us has hard facts (since we are speaking about hypothetical scenarios). Neither of us.
I will close with this observation: If Apple manufactured ONLY a digital music player and did not offer an online music store, then it would have every incentive to make its player compliant with as many online stores as possible. Likewise, if Apple offered only an online store and didn't manufacture a player, then it would have every incentive to make its store compliant with as many players on the market as possible.
Now this is a very revealing and instructive thing. When unclouded by conflicts of interest or concerns over other products, Apple's standard for the best possible product and its assessment of how best to serve the interest of its customers would lead it into the direction of supporting more options for the consumer (rather than less). It's only when Apple makes BOTH kinds of products that its attitude changes and it goes from forging ahead to protecting its lead, from being bold to playing it safe.
Lock-in is the behavior of a monopolist.
"Why is it scary that someone holds a different opinion than you do? Why is it scary that I think that Apple shouldn't revolve around what you think it should do?"
I think you know full well this is not what I have said. Look VanHouten, I realize it's much easier to counter the arguments of your debate partner when you yourself reframe and redefine them, but it's disingenuous and disrespectful. Take issue with my position if you like, but at least let it be MY position and not a bogus argument you prop up in its place. And just to refresh your memory, what I actually said in that post was quite the opposite of your mischaracterization of it. I said, "We need people to raise questions and express opinions. We are all the better and richer for it."
Since you are manifestly not exercising good faith in this discussion, I shall just leave it there.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

Okay, here's the scenario: On Monday all your files are working, everything plays properly, and you are happy. Then on Tuesday you download a new song from Napster and your iPod doesn't play it properly (or at all), even as the other files that were playing on Monday continue to play. This might be a "clue" that the problem lies with Napster. It's just not that hard.

---

How can you do that if you just bought the iPod specifically for the Napster service, and don't have any "other" files on your iPod? How do you tell then? And even if the user does deduce eventually that it is Napster's file - how does the consumer know if it's Napster's bad file, or a bug in Apple's support for the files?
Sorry, once again, you are saying things are simple and easy where they aren't. As it stands now, the buck stops with Apple. You don't think Napster or Realnetworks or Creative support wouldn't blame Apple even if Apple wasn't at fault? these companies are extremely hostile, and not trustworthy in the least.

In reply to:

---

Now, sure, where files and storage media are concerned, things are not as clear cut as with CDs and CD players -- I grant you that. But when Microsoft Word fails to work properly on your Macintosh, who do you call -- Microsoft or Apple?

---

I don't call either, because I know how to fix it myself. But many people do call Apple first. The answer is not clear as to what the consumer thinks.

In reply to:

---

Given this reality, a company has a choice to make, and so I put it to you: Is it better to give consumers the power to choose according to their own preferences (even if it means the horror of having to use software which supports files from multiple sources), or is it better instead to lock them in -- all the while telling us this is for our own good and that they know what's best for us?

---

Not if the "choices" aren't really choices. None of the other stores support Macs, why should Apple support them? more choice is not always better. If this choice reflects badly on the iPod, then the whole digital music experience could suffer. You need to give a reason why it's worth Apple's time and resources to support these third parties.
If MacOS had offered more choice, and been able to run on x86 processors, the Mac and the Mac experience would probably not exist today. In the real world, consumers just want to do what they do, they don't care about technical choices they don't need.
"Keep it Simple" has always been a part of the Mac experience. Many don't see it as "lock in." That's a stupid term, anyway, because Apple isn't locking you in to anything. You choose to buy an iPod, you aren't forced. You can use your itunes music on CD players, etc. You can use them on Mac and Windows.
Napster is the service that locks you in more extremely - no burning your music to CD, or playing on a non-Janus player. No ownership, monthly fees. Windows only. But it's still the consumer's choice.

In reply to:

---

You favor lock-in -- and all for what? It doesn't solve this problem anyway!

---

What are you talking about? When did I say I "favour lock in"? And what's this "problem" you are talking about being solved?
[quoteBefore you leap to disagree, consider that even if you use only iTMS with the iPod, you still could not know for sure that a new song you download fails to play because of a problem with iTMS or with the iPod

---

Why does it matter? Apple provides both. No dealing with two companies blaming one another - one of the biggest frustrations in Windows application support today.

In reply to:

---

(or, for that matter, with some corruption that occurred as the file was in transit via a Macintosh). So this dilemma is not intrinsic to the question of open licensing at all. It exists regardless and is simply the nature of the beast (and thus a false argument on your part).

---

"False Argumentation"?? Wow, that takes the cake for arrogance. My argument is just FALSE because you disagree with it. The question is NOT instrinsic to this situation. I am not talking about "blaming the component" - I'm talking about where the buck stops for support questions - at the moment, that's Apple.
Do you know how unbelievably arrogant you sound?

In reply to:

---

You have made this remark a number of times and I have ignored it until now. I have two reactions to it: First, let me suggest that some people might such comments insulting. I don't know if you intend it this way or not, but you might keep this in mind for future conversations. Second, since you have no more data to support your position than I have to support mine, how then does this translate into your having a well developed agument while I do not?

---

It's supposed to be insulting - as payback for how incredibly insulting you are to basically the whole of this forum. You post the same simplistic, arrogant posts continuously, call other people "primitives" and whine when someone disagrees. You certainly appeal to "logic" and "fact" on certain issues which are far from cut-and-dried. You may not directly insult people, but you do it in a much more insidious, subtle way. I think direct insults are more honest than your passive-aggressive way.
I'm not talking about having a "well developed argument" - that's rather besides the point. I was talking about lateral thinking. It's fairly obvious you have only thought about this in a conventional, narrow way, and haven't considered it much from Apple's perspective, only your own.

In reply to:

---

I'm sorry to say this, but you have not yet raised a single point that I had not already taken into consideration prior to our conversation.

---

More of the arrogance! If you had already considered all of my points - then why didn't you mention them in your initial post? Instead, you just said it was so "simple" and just a "logical" mathematical choice of "More features = better product = increased sales."
So, why did you entirely neglect to mention any complicating factors? Why are you still reluctant to acknowledge them?

In reply to:

---

This is not the first thread in which I have discussed this issue; I'm well aware of (and conversant in) the positions from the other point of view. I approach this subject on several fronts -- economics (profitability), industry leadership, best interest of the consumer, etc., and this is not usually a sign of lack of careful consideration.

---

You haven't demonstrated any of those considerations in this thread. And you continue to downplay and avoid them. See what you're doing now? We could be having a constructive discussion about these things - but you keep on insisting you are right, and that these other considerations don't matter.

In reply to:

---

Moreover, what we are debating is a judgment call. It's not quantifiable or empirical or objective.

---

EXACTLY! So, why did yolu portray it as a simple, logical choice in the first place? This is we have been trying to tell you.

In reply to:

---

In your subjective judgment, it's best for Apple to provide a music player and store which give consumers less flexibility and fewer options. You prefer a closed system to an open one. Fine -- fair enough.

---

But Idon't. I never said that. Why are you erecting this strawman, instead of responding to what I wrote? I never said I favoured "closed systems," or "less flexibility." I just said I trusted Apple's judgement, and there are valid reasons not to trust or support Napster et. al.
Since you are putting words in my mouth - why don't I put some in yours? You obviously support Napster, which is a much more "closed" system than Apple's. So why do you support closed systems? And how is the system closed, anyway? Apple uses standard file formats, that can easily be transferred elsewhere. It is WAY more open than any of the other options in the legal music store market.

In reply to:

---

But I differ with you on this. I believe when a company expands the capacity of its products, it will win more customers than it loses. At the end of the day, however, neither of us can cite a study. Neither of us has hard facts (since we are speaking about hypothetical scenarios). Neither of us.

---

So, why did you keep insisting the answer was simple and clear? I'm not even putting forth a "position" or trying to "win" - just kicking ideas around. I don't know the answers, and I have admitted that from the start. You, on the other hand, claim that you know what Apple should do. See the difference?

In reply to:

---

Now this is a very revealing and instructive thing. When unclouded by conflicts of interest or concerns over other products, Apple's standard for the best possible product and its assessment of how best to serve the interest of its customers would lead it into the direction of supporting more options for the consumer (rather than less).

---

What are you talking about? Making two products that work together is not a "conflict of interest," it's simply business. Is MacOS a "conflict of interest" because it runs on Apple hardware? The interests are NOT conflicting here, they are symbiotic. What's good for the iTMS is good for the iPod, and vice-versa.

In reply to:

---

It's only when Apple makes BOTH kinds of products that its attitude changes and it goes from forging ahead to protecting its lead, from being bold to playing it safe.

---

Well, that has not been demonstrated. "Playing it safe" would be supporting WMA like every other crappy player. Apple are being bold and different, to avoid commodification.

In reply to:

---

Lock-in is the behavior of a monopolist.

---

But Apple does not lock you in. What are you talking about? Do you mean that Napster is a monopolist?

In reply to:

---

I think you know full well this is not what I have said.

---

Well, what did you mean about my argument being "scary"?

In reply to:

---

And just to refresh your memory, what I actually said in that post was quite the opposite of your mischaracterization of it. I said, "We need people to raise questions and express opinions. We are all the better and richer for it."

---

1. That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your "scary" remark. What's so scary about my position? you know, my actual position, not the strawman that I "like lock-in"?
2. Why would you even mention "raising questions and expressing opinions"? We all like doing that here. In fact, that's what I was doing in response to your post. Raising questions (which you have barely addressed) and expressing myself. Somehow, you interpret MY expressing myself as trying to "silence" you.
3. What's with the "I won't be silenced" crap, anyway? Is that more arrogance? No-one is trying to censor you. In fact from your "it's scary" I could infer you were trying to censor me, as fear is what censors usually appeal to (see: Homeland Security)
So, what's the purpose of the "help, help, I'm being repressed" stuff? Is it supposed to make me look like an evil censor, or is it supposed to make you look like a noble, Christ-like martyr? Why is it that you bring all this superfluous baggage into a conversation that was once about iPods?

In reply to:

---

Since you are manifestly not exercising good faith in this discussion, I shall just leave it there.

---

Wow. Just wow. you should listen to yourself sometime.

[Nobody]

P.S:
I also believe that supporting Windows Media is only in the very short-term interests, of a very few consumers. I think long-term consumer interests are best served by stopping Windows Media in its tracks, before consumers truly don't have choices, and are locked in by their media.
You fear lock-in, but WMF is where the real lock-in threat comes from. We're not just talking computers and players, they are doing it to DVD players, CD players, and proposals like Palladium for extreme lock-in.
The fact is that Apple have not locked you in to anything. Microsoft wants to. Apple are being bold and original by not jumping on the WMF bandwagon. Look at how damaging the Windows monopoly is to consumer choice, quality and freedom. If Apple is successful, this might stop Microsoft extending their monopoly beyond the desktop. Consumers may be extremely grateful in the future.

[jmincey]

I'm leaving your two posts above as the last word on this topic. On a point of order, however, I will call your attention to the fact that deliberate insults (which you yourself admit to above) are a violation of Macworld and MacCentral terms of use. When you engage in this behavior on the forums, you run the risk that your posts will be deleted.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

I'm leaving your two posts above as the last word on this topic. On a point of order, however, I will call your attention to the fact that deliberate insults (which you yourself admit to above) are a violation of Macworld and MacCentral terms of use.

---

So are your deliberate insults like "primitive minds." So why did you mention this? Is it grandstanding? your hands aren't exactly clean of insults, so if this applies to me, then it also applies to you. And it's lame to appeal to moderators just because you can't hold your own in a conversation.

In reply to:

---

When you engage in this behavior on the forums, you run the risk that your posts will be deleted.

---

So what? Why would I care? It's just text. What kind of person would be bothered by such things? I guess the kind of person who takes the discussion fora way too seriously, and don't have a life.

[jmincey]

"So are your deliberate insults like 'primitive minds'."
Despite your use of quotation marks, I have said no such thing. To anyone interested in accuracy and the truth, what I actually said was this:
"...music subscriptions are relatively NEW to people and -- human nature being what it is -- people's first reaction toward something new is to oppose it. (And, yes, this is a fear-based, primitive reaction.)"
I call no one "primitive." Instead I speak of a reflexive opposition to new things. It is this reflex reaction which I regard as primitive, and this is an insult to no one.
Now let's allow this thread to end, okay? I have answered you only because you continue in a personal vein rather than to focus on the issues. And I want to correct any misapprehension that I have insulted anyone. I'm sorry to those who I offended. It was not my intention.