top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Apple force-feeds customers shit, calls it sunshine

^     All messages            84-99 of 99  68-83 >>
99
CholeraPerson was signed in when posted
06-12-2003
08:59 AM ET (US)
Shoplifters don't widen the pockets on the coats to make them easier to pick, fool.
98
scottpenPerson was signed in when posted
06-06-2003
06:44 PM ET (US)
I think your being a little to extreme here, it's a fucking stream who the fuck cares, if you want your fuckin' music so bad burn it to a fucking disc and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! Apple is just trying to cover their ass from the fucking ass holes at the RIAA, common sense there.
97
josh kirschenbaumPerson was signed in when posted
06-06-2003
12:18 PM ET (US)
I am surprised Apple doesn't implement some kind of authorization network for internet streaming.

Everyone's main complaint (including mine) is that they can't stream from work to home and vice-versa.

What if iTunes had a VPN in it? Apple could set it up so that you could stream from any iTunes that was logged into your iTunes Music Store account to another iTunes that was logged in. The applications could share a "key" to authorize the stream. Apple could use the 3 machine limit here as well. Having 3 machines logged in is fine...and subnet streaming would be unlimited.
96
Andrew PurvisPerson was signed in when posted
06-06-2003
09:41 AM ET (US)
"I paid $50 or so for downloadable iTunes tracks, with the understanding that Apple had sold me something that would stream over the Internet."

Not exactly up to speed on your reading skills, huh? Apple said that it was providing software that allowed users to purchase songs for 99 cents each. Users could then transfer those songs to a limited number of iPods and unlimited number of Macs; furthermore, they could be burned onto an unlimited number of CDs, albeit only 10 with the same playlist.

At no time did Apple promise that unlimited sharing of files between Macs could be accomplished with iTunes itself, though perhaps wishful thinkers overlooked that.

It surprises me that the users of the world's most liberal legal means of obtaining and sharing music files on the internet (yes, I mean iTunes 4.01) are complaining because they can't have something that was never in the agreement Apple made with the music industry.

If this is a problem, go back to using gnutella and take your chances with the law.
95
stevecooleyPerson was signed in when posted
06-05-2003
03:08 PM ET (US)
my final thoughts:
<br><br>Apple's one of the very few companies in the computer industry that consistently wins awards for innovation. Apple's also the most immitated company on earth... Apple has one of the strongest brands on the planet... Yet with all these things, they're still only in command of a tiny tiny fraction of the total market share. For as passionate as you and I are about Apple and it's products, it's still a company that needs to make money, and stay in business, and not get entangled in legal issues that could hurt or even destroy it. We both see the major labels as becoming less relavent, and less powerful. Distribution is the largest portion of service major labels provide, and when that's irrelavent, they're irrelavent. The RIAA is a dying entity. They're not dead yet, but they're on their way out.<br><br>I suggest you listen to Harry Allen's Interactive Super Highway Phone Call to Chuck D<i>, off Public Enemy's <i>"Muse Sick-n-Hour Mess Age" ... which is available off the iTunes Music Store...
94
jimrayPerson was signed in when posted
06-02-2003
04:35 PM ET (US)
John Gruber has a stirring read. It sums the arguments up nicely and provides a rather thoughtful conclusion

http://daringfireball.net/2003/06/looney_tunes.html

Enjoy
93
Thomas TerashimaPerson was signed in when posted
05-31-2003
08:56 PM ET (US)

Something that has struck a resonance is
(of all things) the history of barbed wire:

Glidden's Patent Application

"Fence cutting became a felony..."

The Fence-Cutter's War

Social Transformation

Fence Cutters


tom
-=W=-
92
Chris BarkerPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
11:03 PM ET (US)
agraham999 said in /m80 : "you should do your research before making such a silly post."

You made your point clearly. I see what you mean about contradictions in the readme. My use of the word "bug" was less than optimal.

agraham999 continued in /m80 : "If you know ANYTHING about programming and can imagine the type of quality control that goes on over at Apple, you know why this could not have been a bug."

Please dont make assumptions about my ignorance in the same sentance as you question my ability to speculate. I dont work for Apple, do you? if so please document the process you speak of.

lastly, agraham999 nearly concluded /m80 with : ".it is the premise (and a dangerous one) that fair use is only defined by whatever the music industry defines it to be. The courts have already ruled on this folks."

As of now "fair use" is a doctrine. It is not protected by law in the context which we are discussing. If I am wrong, please cite a court case which protects the act of streaming digital audio across public networks.

MiskatonicU speculated at the end of /m91 : "Cory "a corporation made me eat excrement" Doctorow, as a wannabe champion of the geeks, should know better. Maybe he does by now."

I can only hope so.

BTW, the hostname of my powerbook is potmeetkettle.
91
MiskatonicUPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
04:13 PM ET (US)
1. I agree that Apple's behavior here was less than perfect. However, I can count the number of times I've had the opportunity to fix a serious legality-related code problem slowly, progressively, and in an enlightened manner on the fingers of my left unicorn horn. While we are all making guesses, my guess is that a memo came down from Apple Legal or Apple Executive demanding an instant fix, and the engineers scrambled to solve the problem. Think the engineers talk back to Steve Jobs much?

1a. 'Period...end of story' doesn't apply yet, because the deeply critical, nation-riveting story of the $50 iTunes software is not done yet. Perhaps Apple will release a 4.0.2 that includes the password-protection feature you suggested.

2. Agreed, Apple engaged in egregious bullshit a la Microsoft continually talking about their "great software". And indeed they've always done this ("the G4 is the world's first personal supercomputer", and so forth), as has every other corporation on the planet.

So why are they 'force feeding customers shit'? Not because of their corporate marketspeak, but because some twits got incredibly outraged at their own misbegotten belief that Apple was trying to Change The World. Apple is not wrapped up in your flag, Apple is wrapped up in their flag. Their flag is the hot sweet green heat-mirage-shimmering sweat-stained Vegas-smelling flag of American corporate capitalism.

Cory "a corporation made me eat excrement" Doctorow, as a wannabe champion of the geeks, should know better. Maybe he does by now.
90
agraham999Person was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
03:36 PM ET (US)
MiskatonicU, I agree, they haven't removed the ability to stream tunes if I really wanted to. There are a number of legal ways I can go outside (or inside) to do it. I also don't believe that Apple is my friend or pal. There are a number of levels why this upsets me...and it isn't being downtrodden by The Man.

1. Apple obviously meant to include the feature...they engineered it to allow people to share music for personal use outside a subnet...they documented it. The intention was a valid one because THEY understand that allowing someone to use their own music regardless of location is perfectly legal fair use.

Period...end of story.

When the feature was misused and a few people used the technology for piracy, they didn't FIX the problem, they removed funcitonality...and called it an enhancement...implying progress or improvement. As a former executive in the software business, this smells bad...it is bad engineering and bad business. Now many people will say that it was good business decision, allowing Apple to appease the media companies and keep the store open.

Wrong.

The correct approach to fixing this problem is progressively. You look at what causes the feature to be misused and repair it, enhance it. You don't remove it out of fear.

2. Don't bullshit me. Don't tell me you don't trust me, remove the feature, and tell me you are enhancing it.

Nowhere did I say that Apple violated my rights...or that Apple didn't have the right to do it...they OWN the software. I do think it is sloppy programming, bad business, and poor PR. I also don't think it addresses the real issues or help the problem of staving off piracy. In fact what it tells the music industry is that they have the power to control the development of technology...if they don't like something...just smash it. Do you really want that? I can point you to several court cases where the RIAA has actually sued technology companies that now provide you with MP3 players, CD players, etc.

I'm not sitting here holding up the Constitution or Bill of Rights...that is something inferred incorrectly. I am saying that on mutliple levels, this was the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to do it. I do have the right to stream music and Apple has the right to do whatever to their software, but don't bullshit your customers...and that is why the title of this discussion is so apropos.
89
paul rinkesPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
03:17 PM ET (US)
Don't forget to use "Shrub" somewhere in the preface. That always works. :)
88
MiskatonicUPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
03:07 PM ET (US)
paul: thanks for the compliment. I'll make sure to post here when my book, "Down And Out And Forced To Eat Excrement In the One Infinite Loop Kingdom" comes out as a 446M PDF file.
87
MiskatonicUPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
02:47 PM ET (US)
Agraham999 writes:
"MiskatonicU, your arguement is weak...and now...wrong. They did not fix the feature...they removed it. You talk about how geeky you are...I think you'd realize the difference."

Sometimes fixing a difference between the documentation and the application entails removing unintended functionality. However, now that you point out that the documentation contradicts itself, I withdraw the part about this being a fix of a misfeature. It sounds like the dev team wrestled with whether or not to include out-of-the-subnet browsing, and ended up including it before retracting it.

That said, it doesn't matter what their intent is. Maybe they meant to maliciously taunt you. Nothing they did actually changed your rights or abilities to listen to music anywhere you want. This thread has included several free and trivially set up ways to listen to your desktop music anywhere in the world, and even set up a public site perfect for pirating if that's what turns you on.

All that changed is that a couple of confused people, who mistakenly believed that a multi-million dollar ad campaign produced by a giant publicly held multinational corporation really meant that that corporation was their close personal friend who shared all their intimate political beliefs and couldn't wait to go to the rally with them and shout political slogans at The Man, became slightly less confused.

Folks, the 1984 commercial was made by an ad agency. Everyone you see is wearing carefully applied makeup. The cameras they used cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The director, Ridley Scott, eventually abandoned whatever principles he held and directed Black Hawk Down in enthusiastic cooperation with the US military. Chiat/Day, the agency responsible for the carefully crafted populist message, went on to represent, among other clients, the brazenly corrupt and generally evil International Olympic Committee.

There are no positive human-centered righteous corporations. Ben & Jerry's, you say? Bought by gigantic faceless Eurocombine Unilever, no longer even remotely socially responsible except for marketing purposes. Cascadian Farms? "In December 1999, Small Planet Foods was purchased by General Mills, affording us the opportunity to bring our products to even more people around the world."

I actually don't call myself a geek. Only people who read Jon Katz's "columns" on purpose call themselves geeks. I call myself a hacker. And what hackers know is generally as follows. First, no corporation is your friend, no matter how much they claim to be. Your only hope is, that as with Apple tends to be the case, they might be less evil than others. Second, if you want something, you must do it yourself. Whining at Apple and bringing excrement into the equation is not only going to do nothing, it's going to reduce their goodwill towards you.
86
paul rinkesPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
02:40 PM ET (US)
to paraphrase homer simpson: "facts? you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true."
85
agraham999Person was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
02:33 PM ET (US)
He does write pretty, unfortunately his facts leave something to be desired. I hear there is an opening at the Times.
84
paul rinkesPerson was signed in when posted
05-29-2003
02:31 PM ET (US)
No, just wondering where else I could go to read you.

You got it goin' on, writing-wise. Shame to have to lurk here to enjoy it.
^     All messages            84-99 of 99  68-83 >>

Print | RSS Views: 4358 (Unique: 2537 ) / Subscribers: 2 | What's this?