[joshuawait]

Excellent response.

[b1x0r]

Quote:

---

Have you used a Mac before..? try uninstalling Outlook on a windows machine, for that matter, try unistalling Explorer and watch the results !
One thing is having cool software that appeals to many, and maybe not to you, welll erase it !, another thing is what you say precisely, having stuff you don't like, its innefficient, horrible interface and still you can't erase it !! because you machine will crash !

---

Have you used a PC before? Apparently the last time you did was back when Windows 95 was the norm, because none if this is true anymore.
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but at least get it right. On my XP laptop I have for work, I've uninstalled pretty much everything that comes with the OS (Outlook Express, Windows Messenger, etc) without any issues. I could also uninstall IE if I wanted to, but I like to have all browsers on my system to compare formatting.
In any case, your argument hasn't been valid for years.

[pixelcruncher]

The biggest criticism I used to have with Microsoft was that they were more interested in turning the PC into a storefront than improving the end user experience. They built so much infrastructure into the OS that allowed companies to sell to the end user. So, I have to say that I'm very disappointed that the iTunes Store is built into iTunes. If iTunes is a conduit for the iPod, fine, the store should be a separate entity. What if I don't have an iPod but want to buy iTunes Store videos for my computer? Too bad, you have to install iTunes. What if I don't want an iTunes Store widget on my iPhone? (I can hear people screaming "It's a priviledge! Your life is so much easier with that widget! It's the greatest store ever, why don't you want a widget??? There must be something wrong with you!!!)) It's a philosophical thing, and I'm probably very much in the minority on this, but it's very "Microsoft" in my opinion. Give me the choice to not have storefronts installed in my software, and for those that want it, give them the choice of which stores.

[mrbach]

Although I have been an Apple customer since 1986, I find their behavior a bit much. I don't get the "team" mentality BS that means you support your platform at all costs.
Apple charges you for ringtones. They have modified iTunes to prevent a simple hack around the ringtone. This sums up Apple for me today. I love the computer and the OS, but I would never purchase a low quality iTunes song that is overpriced. I don't want Apple telling me who my cell phone carrier is, I don't want them messing with my hardware so that something as stupid as a ringtone becomes more difficult.
Does that make them more Microsoft? I think it makes them more of an over bearing corporation focused on money. Although I have two iPods, it really bothers me that they were assembled using slave labour. Anyone who suggests otherwise is free to earn cents an hour for 14 hour days and tell me different. The US embargoes Cuba for its communist position but has no problem exploiting the Chinese.
This is not just Apple. Microsoft does it too. So does Nike and Dell and every other big corporation. I don't have a solution, but I I don't think it is wrong to say I don't like it.

[web]

Frankly, I don't understand the need to have song segments as ringtones. When people's cell phones ring it sounds like intrusive noise to me. Never heard one I liked.
For the few years I had a cell phone I never had the ringer on. I left it on vibrate because it was much less intrusive. Eventually I got rid of the damned phone because it was a pain in the neck to be so readily accessible. People are getting way to addicted to the need to be in constant contact.
In addition, the numbers out there on the net indicate that the total sales of ringtones in 2006 was around $600 million dollars. I've heard other numbers in excess of a billion. Clearly, lots of people are paying for ringtones. And most of them cost more than the ones that Apple sells. Anyway, if you don't like the price, use the tone that came on the phone. After all, it's just a phone. Personally I'd rather spend the $2 on a beer. YMMV.
- web

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Bottom line, iPhones only support special files that cost $.99 as ringtones. My current phone supports any MP3, Windows DRM WMA, or non-DRM AAC as a ringtone. No extra charges are required. It would have been nice if Apple had just modified iTunes to add the ringtone maker (i.e. the feature that lets you pick certain tracks).

---

As I mentioned in the article, the reason for this seems obvious to me: unlike Apple, the manufacturer of your current phone isn't a music retailer and doesn't have to maintain a relationship with the music industry. There's no way the music industry would have allowed Apple to provide "free" ringtones or to include in iTunes a way to make ringtones out of your music without a fee. For-fee ringtones are by far the most profitable product the music industry has right now.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Again, given the stability of the OS and its UNIX core, I wonder to what extent Apple deliberately changes the code in new software just to encourage existing owners to shell out another $100 for an OS upgrade?

---

Have you even used Mac OS X or read about the underlying technologies?
Deliberately? Give me a break.
Apple is making marked progress in making Mac OS X a mature and robust platform. The newest version, Leopard, is now certified Unix, the first BSD OS to do so.
What exactly are they doing deliberately that you take them to task for?
If Apple decides to use technologies in their OS that make the process of creation better, Apple has to make the case that the upgrade is not only beneficial for that application but beneficial for the user experience on Mac OS X as a whole.
In my Mac OS X experience, every version of Mac OS X has made great progress in providing its customers a unique and rewarding experience and improving on the foundation of the previous release. I've found, as others have, that Mac OS X has gotten faster as each release came out. The same cannot be said of Windows, quite the opposite is true.
Every version of Mac OS X has been worth the money from Expose to many other things, Apple made the case for me and many others. I also know that I will be getting Leopard once it comes out because for me it is a worthy new version of the OS.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Apple perfected DRM technology in order to get the ITMS up and running. IOW, they enabled the media companies and built ITMS into a virtual monopoly in the process. It's somewhat disingenuous for Apple now to claim that they are on the consumer's side by offering DRM-free tracks for 30% more.

---

Apple added DRM because it was the only way they could get the music companies to agree to sell their music on the iTunes Store. Sure, that DRM initially helped encourage repeat iPod buyers, but let's not forget that the average iPod has only 20 or so iTunes-purchased tracks, and there are likely tens of millions of iPods with no iTunes-purchased content at all.
Whatever the "real" reason, and however people want to spin it, Apple is encouraging the labels to offer music in DRM-free format, and that's good for consumers. (The higher price was reportedly the labels' demand because they want to make up for "increased piracy" with DRM-free tracks.) And as more and more labels offer unprotected music -- whether on iTunes or elsewhere -- the (small) "lock-in" effect that arises from store-specific DRM will go away.

Quote:

---

Another difference between ITMS DRM and Windows Media DRM is that a Windows Media DRM file will play on many other devices (including many phones), while Apple DRM files play only on Apple devices.

---

Except that's not the case. Tracks purchased on the Zune Marketplace play on nothing besides a Zune. Tracks purchased from Sony's store played only on Sony devices. Amazon DRM media plays only on TiVos. "Plays For Sure" songs play only on certain devices. Very few phones support any type of DRM. Etc., etc.

Quote:

---

Even DRM-free tracks have issues, as anyone who has tried to play a DRM-free download on a Nokia phone can attest to. Apparently the DRM-free files differ from AAC files by 2 bits, and so any device expecting a basic DRM file couldn't play them at first without a hack. While it could be attributed to a bug that's now been fixed, who's to say it wasn't intentional (MS was known to release demos that crashed other operating systems).

---

Now we're getting into the realm of conspiracy theories /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Every DRM-free track I've purchased from the iTunes Store has played on every device I own that supports standard AAC files.

Quote:

---

Finally, consider that Apple acts oddly like a wireless carrier in how it treats loyal customers. For instance, consider how many Apple devices will run on a Windows 2000 or XP SP1 PC that won't work on OS X 10.3 or 10.2? Again, given the stability of the OS and its UNIX core, I wonder to what extent Apple deliberately changes the code in new software just to encourage existing owners to shell out another $100 for an OS upgrade?

---

Let's consider iPods and iTunes: current iPods and the current version of iTunes require XP or Vista on the Windows side (no Windows 2000), or Panther or later on the Mac side. For Mac users, that means anyone who bought their Mac or a new OS as recently as October 2003 -- nearly four years ago -- can use the latest iPod and iTunes. (Sure, they have to be running the latest free update to the OS, but that's not an onerous requirement, and it's also the case for Windows.) The only reason the Windows timeline stretches back a bit further is because XP had such a long lifespan thanks to Vista delays /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

As I said at the end of the article, I think a reasonable case could be made that Apple's influence is growing in many industries, and that the company is beginning to use that power in ways it couldn't in the past. And Apple has done some consumer-unfriendly things over the years. But I think some of the oft-cited "examples" don't hold up to scrutiny.

[macwilf]

Mr. Frakes - you took the job and wrote a fine article which expressed point for point what I have been thinking and rather feebly tried to express. Very good article, indeed!

[ljocampo]

Thank you Dan for articulating the true much better than most of us could.
I'd also like to add, to the faulty argument of the "Son's Dad" losing his purchased songs from iTMS by buying a competitor's player. iTunes does allow you to burn a playlist converted to regular MP3s that WILL play in any other player.

[bynkii]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Apple charges you for ringtones. They have modified iTunes to prevent a simple hack around the ringtone. This sums up Apple for me today. I love the computer and the OS, but I would never purchase a low quality iTunes song that is overpriced. I don't want Apple telling me who my cell phone carrier is, I don't want them messing with my hardware so that something as stupid as a ringtone becomes more difficult.

---

Bottom line, iPhones only support special files that cost $.99 as ringtones. My current phone supports any MP3, Windows DRM WMA, or non-DRM AAC as a ringtone. No extra charges are required. It would have been nice if Apple had just modified iTunes to add the ringtone maker (i.e. the feature that lets you pick certain tracks). I would not necessarily have a problem if they limited it to files purchased from iTunes (or had just charged for the ringtone maker and let you use whatever music file you wanted), but if I understand correctly, only certain files purchased from iTunes after 9/5/07 can be made into ringtones? No wonder they had to resort to the "we're not as bad as Verizon" argument.

---

Really? The iPhone only physically supports "special" files for ringtones you say? My GOD, then, you mean I actually don't have ringtones made up of iTMS DRM files, non-DRM'd AAC, and MP3? I'm not actually hearing "Blue Highway" as an MP3, even though my iPhone is clearly making the correct sounds?
Dash it all, I've confused my toddies with my laudnum again!

[macwilf]

I am not a programmer, but it seems to me that Apple lets programmers in on the APIs et cetera these programmes have, so that they can create third party applications which will work just as seamlessly with this bundle as Apple's own applications.
If that goes as long as being able to create a replacement for say, the iCal or Address Book which would work just as well or better with the rest, I cannot say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that would be the case.
Microsoft has no longer locked IE into the OS - they were forced to "bend it loose", one can say, but that's what they did and as far as I can recall, Apple haven't tried to do something similar. No one is forced to buy an iPod. If you do, iTunes is the software it comes with and works well with. That is different. You don't break the iPod or your OS if you try to remove iTunes.
And again, MS were forced to stop doing what they did. They didn't stop doing it because of their customers.
When they had won the browser war, they declared that IE wouldn't be upgraded anymore. No need for it, see. They had won.
Then came the threat from Firefox and MS (Gates) announced that IE would be upgraded...
Yes, they're both big business, but there's a difference.

[natureboyuta]

thank you. i seriously considered writing this same article. i agree in spades.

[natureboyuta]

how is apple a monopoly in any way? there is no market that is cornered by apple. even in the digital music market, there are numerous competitors. comparing them to microsoft's monopolies is ridiculous. there simply aren't other competing operating systems... there is the macOS. otherwise, there is pretty much nothing, (except for linux and unix, which are pretty much restricted to aftermarket purchase.) i.e. if you go out to buy a new PC, you will get a Mac box, a Windows box, or nothing. you could however, buy a windows box and switch to linux, but this is not really competing with MS. you already paid for windows when you bought your box. (of course, you could build your own box, but that is not what i am talking about.) as for computer companies that sell boxes with linux preinstalled, i could count them on half of one hand.
on the music player front, you could get an ipod or a zune, or a creative player, or a sony, or any number of other music players. as for buying music, you can buy music from many different serious competitors. (itunes just outsells them all.) further more, you could just buy the CD and rip it. then you can play the songs on any music player you like. the fact that you have to use itunes with an ipod is beside the point. you can get music from lots of different sources and put it on your ipod. you can use itunes with lots of other players as well. lots of players i have had require you to use a certain software to load songs. so what?
they aren't making you get a mac to use the ipod. i guess i just don't see what the complaints are. the ipod is by far the best of the many mp3 players i have owned. itunes is by far the best of the many, many music player programs i have used. mac os X is by far the best of the current operating systems. my macs are by far the best designed and most reliable of all the computers i have owned. i just can't really find it in me to gripe at apple about anything right now. sure, these items may not be perfect, but they are pretty darn good. i think they are doing a great job. hope they keep getting better.
by the way, off topic, i wish the people griping about the iphone pricing would get a little perspective. this is the type of thing that always happens with technology. the price goes down as they become more popular and prolific. why gripe at apple for lowering the price. if i was jobs, i would just say "FINE,... never mind! I am raising the price by $200."