FTFA: They feared that Microsoft would use the technology to exert control over which software could be executed on Windows PCs, freezing out open source operating systems and reducing users' freedom to run the software of their choice.

HAI GUIZE


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple.

Option A: Purchase software/movie/song/game/etc and deal with unskippable portions, locked content, DRM, etc.

Option B: Pirate the software for free and forego any DRM or related headaches and have an astronomically low chance of being caught/fined/imprisoned.

Don't be surprised when people go for Option B. I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.

t3knomanser: Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?

That's not really the same. We might laugh at people who run IE, but they do have the option to install Chrome.

What Apple have done is take a computer and deliberately cripple it. They didn't even take the Android route of allowing sideloading with a "here be dragons" button.

t3knomanser: rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple

It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?

Sadly, I'm in need of a new smartphone now that my blackberry is dying and the iPhone 5 sounds like the best option out there.

I don't entirely like it, but I like it more than other platforms, from software to hardware. I'd love for it to have widgets though, that's something Android does pretty nicely.

Now, the big reason why I'm not decided yet? iTunes. I H.A.T.E. dealing with that program and the fact that I can't drag n drop stuff in and out of the phone is disgusting. So I may put up with Android's bullshiat if I decide iTunes isn't worth the trouble.

Any word about the Nokia Lumia 920? Windows Phone intrigues me and it looks better than Android for me. But what about support and all that stuff?

t3knomanser: rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple

It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?

The problem with this scenario is that Apple (maybe not then, but definitely now) knows that people will go out of their ways to shoehorn their "consumer electronics" into business environments and they sell it as a "multi-use solution" for different companies to resell to customers as business-class products.

However, I give it up to Apple. They basically are selling 4 different sizes of the same thing (two that can make telephone calls) and are making that cheddar cheezy.

The government needs to wise up and crack down on these criminals that are downloading and sharing pirated music, movies, books, etc (i.e. stealing). The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days -- Yes, those movies and songs you love to pretend you're too cool to enjoy, the world loves them and pays a lot (steals a lot, too) to see and hear them. If we threw people in jail and stopped this rampant theft, think of all the money that'd be injected into the economy. It's just common sense -- pay for what you use, then the media companies can hire more people and spend more money, which means more jobs with more people who can pay for songs and movies. It's a positive feedback loop of win compared to the negative feedback loop of economic fail that we all seem to hold in high regard these days.

t3knomanser: rocky_howard: the funny thing is that Apple's success with the iOS devices primed the consumer to expect exactly that. fark Apple

It's a trade-off. Apple positions its mobile devices as consumer electronics. Complaining that they won't let you run the software of your choice is like complaining that your microwave doesn't run Linux. There's certainly a place in the market for general purpose devices, and there always will be. But for most users, most of the time, Apple's model works very well.

Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?


And yet you can still root your iPhone and run alternative software on it. My grandma might not root her iPhone, but tons of people do. The pirates/hackers will always win the battle in the end so long as content and gadget providers continue to struggle with them directly with DRM rather than innovating and trying to create truly enticing legal options.

Yes, the music and movie industries may have to accept a lower profit margin per unit delivered in the end (though it's possible they may be able to make some up on volume), they may even need to become smaller industries. It's either arrogance, desperation or delusion if they think their industry should be exempt from the same changes that technological advancement has imposed on all sorts of other industries. The longer they deny reality the more likely the market will be pulled out from under them entirely.

the sooner drm dies, the better off content will be.

mr_a: I think content owners share a large percentage of the blame.

Yeah... no.

You always bought a license. You just didn't know what you were buying. You bought a book. Inherent in that purchase is a limited use license. You bought a CD, you bought a limited use license. That 'All Rights Reserved' stuff isn't printed on all kinds of shiat for fun. It was there to remind you and so many others that 'yes this is your copy, but all those other rights the creator(s) has are still very much theirs (like the right for distribution and reproduction) and don't you farking forget it.

That the medium is now just 1's and 0's doesn't somehow negate the existence of that license. You didn't buy that plastic and aluminum disc or the block of paper and ink. You bought the limited use license. Kvetching about how you could loan a book or disc to a friend... well, once you lend it, you don't farking HAVE it anymore, do you dumbass? The license nicely moved with the content. That the medium has changed doesn't somehow invalidate or remove that limited use license expectation.

Now, to criticize the creators on THEIR stupidity... I could give a shiat about the people who download a copy of a song. There's no point in going after them, the RIAA and others have made that mistake as a form of deterrence. It was a waste of time and money.

It's the people who are hosting, who are distributing, who are seeding the content... those are the ones who need to be smacked down. Pimply guy number 108351? Who cares. The guys running Pirate Bay? Maintaining those servers? Their ISPs? Those are the ones to go after.

eraser8: DoomPaul: I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.

I just checked Xfinity.

If you're a Comcast subscriber, the first two seasons of Game of Thrones is available for streaming. Plus there are about 10,000 clips and features about Game of Thrones that are also available. And, you can always watch the show on OnDemand.

Thanks, but I use a different cable company and don't subscribe to HBO. I just want to be able to purchase the shows for streaming when they air. Right now I just pirate them the day after or watch a livestream then buy the DVD set when it's released.

Cinaed: It's the people who are hosting, who are distributing, who are seeding the content

In the case of bittorrent, Pimply guy number 108351 IS the person who's doing all those things.

TPB just keeps a database on how to findpPimply guy number 108351.

/full of fail

MrHappyRotter: The government needs to wise up and crack down on these criminals that are downloading and sharing pirated music, movies, books, etc (i.e. stealing). The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days -- Yes, those movies and songs you love to pretend you're too cool to enjoy, the world loves them and pays a lot (steals a lot, too) to see and hear them. If we threw people in jail and stopped this rampant theft, think of all the money that'd be injected into the economy. It's just common sense -- pay for what you use, then the media companies can hire more people and spend more money, which means more jobs with more people who can pay for songs and movies. It's a positive feedback loop of win compared to the negative feedback loop of economic fail that we all seem to hold in high regard these days.

6.5/10

Either too dumb, or not dumb enough. I can't decide.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy
You're generous. I was thinking more like 4/10.

I did enjoy his satirical economic argument but the way he inexpertly pushed the "stealing" button was, for better or worse, completely clownish.

farkeruk: What Apple have done is take a computer and deliberately cripple it. They didn't even take the Android route of allowing sideloading with a "here be dragons" button.

Apple deliberately "crippled" a computer format by greatly expanding the formats capability and function and selling it to a larger audience than ever before.

gingerjet: Apple deliberately "crippled" a computer format by greatly expanding the formats capability and function and selling it to a larger audience than ever before.

I'm not sure what you're talking about but let me explain things:-

1. By default, the BSD UNIX operating system allows people to run their own programs.
2. iOS is based on the BSD UNIX operating system
3. The iOS operating system does not allow people to run their own programs
4. Therefore, Apple deliberately crippled it.

t3knomanser: But they aren't going to. So who cares if the feature is removed? Code signing brings other benefits. It's a trade-off, certainly, but it's not inherently bad.

The problem with all closed or protected systems is always that you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. Take the iPad - if you own a v1 or v2, you are vulnerable to attack in future because you're not getting any OS updates. Did anyone realise they were only going to get 2 years of updates when they bought it?

If that were a PC, you'd at least have the option of buying a new OS, or installing Linux. With an iPad, you either risk some code exploiting a known buffer overflow, or throw it in the bin.

MrHappyRotter: The economy is shiat, and creative media is about the only potentially viable U.S. export anymore these days

Be honest - do you have a passport? In Indonesia, I saw video rental stores literally filled wall to wall with pirated movies. In a Taiwanese 3C (like a Best Buy), I was told they didn't carry PSP games because I could just go home and download it on my computer. And in the Middle East, seeing a non-pirated movie is about as common as a Jew and a Muslim sitting down for tea.

Flab: DoomPaul: Option A: Purchase software/movie/song/game/etc and deal with unskippable portions, locked content, DRM, etc.

Option B: Pirate the software for free and forego any DRM or related headaches and have an astronomically low chance of being caught/fined/imprisoned.

Don't be surprised when people go for Option B. I love Game of Thrones but HBO doesn't make the show available for purchase online or streaming, so I pirate it. If they made it easily accessible on something like Amazon video then I would gladly pay for it.

I may be wrong, but the last paragraph of TFA says the exact opposite.

And that's why I don't buy the whole "people wouldn't pirate if it was available cheaply" argument. There is no process for acquiring digital content that will ever be easier or cheaper than torrenting. Sure, some people will pay legally, but then you risk viewers shifting from the current model, which makes good money, to the newer model, which would make far less. That's exactly what happened with the music industry. HBO makes way more money from people shelling out $18/month than they could if they made their shows available to download immediately.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: And in the Middle East, seeing a non-pirated movie is about as common as a Jew and a Muslim sitting down for tea a BLT.

FTFY

mr_a: You can't really buy a book or CD anymore, you "license" it,

You most definitely can buy a book.

Cinaed: You always bought a license. You just didn't know what you were buying. You bought a book. Inherent in that purchase is a limited use license. You bought a CD, you bought a limited use license. [...]
That the medium is now just 1's and 0's doesn't somehow negate the existence of that license. You didn't buy that plastic and aluminum disc or the block of paper and ink. You bought the limited use license.

A big difference between books and digital media is that you owned the physical copy of the book. You could sell it, share it, give it away or donate it to a charity bookstore.

With digital media you are either prohibited from doing those things (transfer of ownership) or very limited in how you can do them at the discretion of the copyright holder (lending/sharing). You aren't really buying a product, you're leasing it.

Honest Bender: mr_a: Buy a book, and after I am finished with it I can lend it to my friends. But buy a digital file for my Kindle, and after I finish it, I am not supposed to do anything with it except store it in my own personal cloud.

Lending Kindle Books

From the Link:

Kindle books can be loaned to another reader for a period of 14 days. The borrower does not need to own a Kindle -- Kindle books can also be read using our free Kindle reading applications for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android devices. Not all books are lendable -- it is up to the publisher or rights holder to determine which titles are eligible for lending. The lender will not be able to read the book during the loan period. Books can only be loaned once, and subscription content is not currently available for lending.

A hell of a lot more restrictive than what you can do with a physical copy that you own.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: A hell of a lot more restrictive than what you can do with a physical copy that you own.

This is one of the reasons I pirate more than I buy for my kindle. That, and I know one day I won't be using a kindle, and I don't want to have hundreds of dollars of books with DRM tied to an Amazon account. I love my Kindle, but damn do e-books need to catch up with the times.

Honest Bender: *shrug* Pros and cons, dude. Truth time: In my almost 30 years of life, I've never once loaned a book. It's just never come up. And, TBH, if I were going to lend someone a kindle book, I'd just pull the file off my kindle (or my backup of ebooks) and email it to them via Calibre. Now they can borrow it forever.

Kindle books use DRM to prevent that. Also, seriously, you've never loaned a book?

t3knomanser: My argument is that the iPad has more in common with a thermostat than a PC

Wow, you are funny.

Put those guys in charge of Microsoft.

farkeruk: t3knomanser: Or, to put it another way, most people can't be arsed to install a non-IE web-browser. Now you expect them to run alternative web browsers and other apps on their phone?

That's not really the same. We might laugh at people who run IE, but they do have the option to install Chrome.

What Apple have done is take a computer and deliberately cripple it. They didn't even take the Android route of allowing sideloading with a "here be dragons" button.

On the flip side, people that develop for iOS actually get paid for their work. The horror!

Honest Bender: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Kindle books use DRM to prevent that. Also, seriously, you've never loaned a book?

DRM can be stripped out so easily it's laughable. So easy that I didn't feel it was necessary to even mention it in my previous post. And no, I've never had occasion to lend a book.

I have lent a book but it was maybe twenty years ago. Do people still do that?

Cinaed: You always bought a license.

Buuuuuuuullll shiiiiiat.

I'm sorry, if you want to take up the mantle of defending the intellectually bankrupt concept of IP the industries are currently pushing go right ahead, but don't try to re-write history. A book used to be a farking book. You owned the book, and you did what you wanted with it. It was also completely legal to record music from radio broadcasts and listen to it, as long as you didn't sell your copy. Now that high quality copies can be made cheaply by the consumer, all of a sudden the industry needs to own rights it never needed before? Fark that.

There's always been money for musicians in live performances, and there always will be. It's easier and cheaper than ever for a musician to record, cut, and distribute an album. There's no need to allow fat rich assholes to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of other people's talent when they no longer add anything of value. Let the recording execs find some other coattails to ride for a while.

gingerjet: Apple deliberately "crippled" a computer format by greatly expanding the formats capability and function and selling it to a larger audience than ever before.

Pffffft. Apple hasn't had a groundbreaking idea since 1984, and even that one was ridiculously overpriced. The only remarkable thing they're really selling these days is packaging and lifestyle. They're just exceedingly good at those two things.

Nice article with the exception that "Darknet" was coined by William Gibson.

The problem with Trusted Computing. Old now but still valid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4