Fine. It wasn’t there. But it was there when you posted this. So, what’s your problem? I made an analogy, a poster pointed out that the facts didn’t fit, and I immediately admitted I could be wrong. But you read these two posts, conclusively conclude what you think my intent was, then claim that I was lying through implication.
You may want to look up the word “lie”. After you do, I’ll hope to see an apology.
You got the facts wrong - that was probably an accident. But you also tried your best to paint this as some situation in which the government is forcing Apple to somehow make their product inferior - that’s why you mentioned vacuum cleaners that would be made worse by using standard parts. Implying that the French government is trying to somehow force Apple to make iPods worse is false, and ridiculously so. The merits of competition in an arena with all sorts of licensed DRM schemes are a complicated matter, and I don’t really have an opinion on the outcome. In short, you compared the situation with an imaginary parallel about vacuum cleaners, in hopes to make the French government’s actions look absurd and blatantly bad for consumers. That parallel, though, was badly off - the imaginary vacuum cleaner story and the real-life iPod story have nothing to do with one another. Trying to equate them is a blatantly dishonest argument tactic on your part.
You’ll only see it if you type it. I’ll accept it if you do.
That’s all I could find at the moment.
Do you realize how dumb this drivel is? You accept that I had the facts wrong, which made the analogy I was drawing incorrect. Yet, you then still insist on attributing that analogy to dishonest debating tactics. You might have a point, if I hadn’t readily accepted that my facts might very weel have been incorrect before your initial post on the subject. To refresh your memory (emphasis added):
See? No intransigence. No unreasobnableness. A request for clarification and a quick acceptance that I might have had my facts wrong. Patent law is no simple matter, and my assumptions were wrong. Fine. That was pointed out in a non-assholish manner by DeadBadger, why you felt the need to point out the same error with extra bluster is a commentary on you, not me.
At least I now know how unprincipled and childish you are. The people I prefer to deal with on these boards, as in real life, are those that are wiling to see their mistakes and quickly seek to apologize when they make false accusations against others. Evidently, that’s just not the type of guy you are. Oh well, to each his own.
You’re probably thinking of Quarterdeck’s Desqview software, which was indeed text based (and was quite awesome). As for the initial version of Windows not selling, Windows was originally bundled with other apps, and wasn’t really considered an OS as much as a GUI layer on top of an OS that was required for certain applications. You loaded Pagemaker, for instance, which loaded Windows.
Also, Windows was fairly popular before 3.1 (mainly version 3.0), but 3.1 introduced TrueType, which made it behave much more like Apple’s Postscript font handling. 3.11 included Windowss for Workgroups, and then things really took off.
The above is all from memory, so if I screwed up any minor revision numbers, etc., sue me.
I’ve bought generic Atra refills at various drugstores, and at one time I bought Personna refills that were Atra-compatible.
If they could afford to do so and profit, the media companies **would ** build such a thing. Heck, Sony would be just the company to try it 
As it is, they’ll settle for controlling where, when and through what you play the media you bought from them. The DVD already introduced us to “Region Codes”. The proponents of the competing next-gen videodisc formats, HDDVD and Blu-Ray, tout the DRM capabilities of their respective formats so glowingly you’d almost forget the public did NOT ask for more DRM.
Here is a link to the AP story courtesy of Yahoo news.
The facts about razor blades are irrelevant. The point is that iPods that played other music formats would not be worse - they would, in fact, be better, even if it conflicts with Apple’s marketing schemes (which, once again, I’m not taking a stance on.) Your analogy implied that the French government was going to use legislation to make the iPod worse - but in actuality, should the French government go through with its plans and force Apple to modify the iPod, it would make the iPod more useful. That’s true whatever the facts of vacuum cleaner filters and razor blades. The fact that your analogy was deceptive has nothing to do with whatever you knew or didn’t about Gillette razor blades.
Except that I never said a thing about whether you had those facts wrong - that’s irrelevant. Are you deliberately trying to change the subject, or do you not understand the subject under discussion? See, the iPod would not become any worse if it worked with Microsoft’s DRM technology - but your analogy was to technologies hypothetically made worse by government interference.
Nope. Not pointing out that error at all. I was pretty clear on what my argument was - and it was different than what DeadBadger pointed out.
Except you haven’t even acknowledged yet that your analogy was vastly flawed. The question is who’s being dishonest here. The answer was - and still is - you.
Excalibre:
Sufficient. Some of my ignorance has been dispelled.
Now, I’m understanding you better. You actually have a problem with something I did not say, but something you think my writing implied :rolleyes: . Let’s look at the post you cited:
I’ll parse it for you. The first three sentences in the first paragraph are simply saying that any company should be able to design its products with the features they deem wise. AAre you with me so far? I added at the end, to emphasize the point made in the first three sentences and flagged by the word “even”—and this must be what you’ve glommed onto—that I would find it ridiculous that a company would be told how to design their product, especially if that mandate interfered with the design and made it inferior.
So that’s what you’ve glommed onto. Fine, it’s hardly the point of the paragraph, but I could see how someone with a bug up his ass could fixate on that and ignore that main point: that companies should be able to dictate their own design.
But wait—let’s look at the very next paragraph:
Now which interpretation of the first paragraph makes more sense? Yours, in which you claim that my argument is that the proposed laws would make the iPod an inferior product? Or the one supported by the rest of the words in the post: 1) companies should be able to dictate their own design (of which I admittedly provided incorrect analogies) and 2) the current restrictions designed into the iPod should be taken advantage of by some enterprising fellow? How? By designing a product that doesn’t have the restrictions of the iPod and offers consumers “more flexibility”.
So, if, as you say, I was trying to claim that the government mandating that the iPod remove its restrictions would make it an inferior product, how do you explain my second paragraph? The one where I say that those very restrictions open the door for a less restrictive (better) iPod-like product.
Not that I expect an honest and fair answer from you at this point.
You are a liar. I’ve stated more than once that my analogies were incorrect. If you are talking about the one at the end as opposed to the three that preceeded it, guess what, genius, if the three are flawed than the one I added onto the string to emphasize the first three is also flawed.
Fine. Have it your way. You were so ridiculously incapable of expressing your point that one paragraph of what you wrote undermined the other. Whatever. I don’t care anymore.
The next step is to take some economics classes so you can understand difficult concepts like “market failure”.
You’re not one of those people who think Microsoft is pulling the strings on this one, are you? Don’t the Europeans hate Microsoft because of their alleged monopolistic practices, to the tune of 2 million euros a day? 
I’ll get right on that. And you can see if there’s a class you can take to make up for the poor job your parents did teaching you manners.
I’d been relying on my own memory of events. But, asking the right friend got me these
I keep getting a timed out error when attempting to read the second link he gave me.
The rest of your argument aside, I see no reason to believe that an iPod would be more useful with DRMed WMA support. There was a story a couple days ago on Slashdot (from CNet) that DRM may kill battery life, especially the WMA DRM 10 support. Figure that the cost of licensing the DRM from Microsoft will increase the cost to the consumer of the iPod as well. Also, my collection is primarily from CDs I ripped, then songs bought from iTunes (mostly with free song codes in the Pepsi promotion last year), and then audiobooks from Audible. I have no interest in a “subscription” service and thus such compatibility is not only pointless but undesired for me.
That’s odd logic. If it can play more formats, then it’s more useful. Even if those formats have downsides.
I personally like to download audiobooks from netlibrary.com, which uses the protected WMA format. In fact, I’d never even remotely consider purchasing an iPod unless they added support for that format.
That said, I find it silly for a gov’t to legislate what formats a privately-made product should support.
That test showed that both the Fairplay and WMA DRM incurred a battery life penalty, and because he didn’t bother to compare like-for-like on the WMA tests, there’s no real way to compare which is more costly in terms of processing. And simply having the support for the format doesn’t cut the battery life; you actually have to play that kind of file.
As for the licensing cost, a bit of research indicates that for an iPod, that would come to the princely sum of 10 cents per device. Not exactly onerous.
Just because you don’t want to have more consumer choice doesn’t mean that Apple should be allowed to act anti-competitively. If you’re happy with only being able to buy tracks from iTunes, great, but that’s the same as saying that you’re happy with IE, so Microsoft should be permitted to keep anti-competitively distributing it to the detriment of alternative browsers. It’s not particularly persuasive.
That said, I do think a more natural fix to the iTunes/iPod closed shop is to force Apple to license FairPlay to other providers, rather than forcing them to implement a specific feature. That way download stores could offer multi-format downloads to support players including the iPod, and non-iPod players could start supporting iTunes downloads. Seems a neater way of achieving the same end, really, but should ideally come from somewhere with a bit more sway than France (EU competition commission, anyone?).
Excalibre, marketing is inexorably intertwined with the product itself. You cannot simply claim that an added bit of functionality, marketing aside, improves the product. It’s not necessarily an apt analogy, but in the marketing world, another pocket doesn’t necessarily make a better pair of pants.
Forget about MS or digital rights for a moment. An added ‘software’ feature, of any type, needs programming support both for the PC interface and the unit’s eprom. The current well tested and much used eprom program will need a significant rev change. Ditto for the PC program. If a feature involves another party’s IP, there is legal and financial work to be done. This development work has a cost, with the IP possibly being a recurring cost. Now marketing has some things to think about: development cost, recurring cost, newly calculated manufacturing cost, time to market, consumer willingness to pay for the added feature, etc. Note that last bit is usually looked at first, unless someone is forcing you to make the change. These are marketing considerations, and the end result will be as much a part of that product as the clickwheel.
How is Apple acting anti-competitively? They make a hardware product that, for whatever reason, has managed to grab the market share. They cut a deal with various labels and are now one venue to buy music. They’ve put together a product in the much the same way they have done for years with their computers. Other manufacturers make lots of different players and there are something like half-a-dozen online music sellers in the US.
In any case, if I really like a CD, I’m going to buy the physical CD and not just a bunch of encrypted files. Especially if I can actually get the CD cheaper than the download price (tricky, but possible.) And there are other choices, after all. Sure, they all use Plays For Sure instead of FairPlay (both misnomers in the very least in my opinion), but with Yahoo!, WalMart, Napster, MSN, MusicMatch, MusicNow, and Rhapsody (at the very least), you’ve got lots of options, especially if you want to use a “subscription” service. As I refuse to rent my music, the only places I will buy online are iTunes and eMusic.
As for netlibrary (which I will admit I’ve never used and I’m not sure that the library system I have a card for is a part of), if I wanted to listen to an audiobook like that, I’d probably just buy a small, compatible player. Easier and a bit safer than carrying around my iPod at any rate.
They’re acting uncompetitively by locking competitors out; it’s as simple as that. I don’t believe that you have to have a total monopoly in order to act anti-competitively. Apple, as you note, have obtained the lion’s share of the DAP market with its iPod. Off the back of this, they’ve achieved a similar feat in the audio download market, and that’s fine. But through refusing to license their DRM scheme, they can completely lock out their competitors from the majority of each market. Nobody can sell onto the iPod, and nobody can play iTunes songs but Apple. That’s abusing their market position, and should be remedied.
A bit of googling suggests that the iPod and iTunes Music Store each have somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of their respective markets. FairPlay locks competitors out at both ends. How can you claim this is not anti-competitive?