Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment. Instead Apple pays $50k or more a year to a bunch of latte sipping tight-asses to wipe his back-side for him.
Maybe "Think Different" should be "Think For Yourself".
Meh. The reporter went into the interview with an agenda. Apple tries to control media events and interviews as much as possible, naturally. Rest assured, this interviewer and whomever he represents will never get access to Apple again.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.
Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.
Channel 4 News has often got into trouble for not telling facts, and twisting people's comments to make the argument sound the way they want. Seems this is another situation where Channel 4 is pressuring the interviewee for what they want to hear, not the truth.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.
Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.
I agree. Apple will have full access to Android just like everyone else. You can rest assured that they will adopt any and all technologies to make sure they are at least as good as Android and then improve upon them.
The important thing is that Apple will still have the significant advantage of being in control of both the hardware and the software, unlike most other hardware vendors that will be adopting Google's software.
It's Apple's ability to to create a seamless integration of software and hardware in general that creates the unique Apple appeal.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.
Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.
Agreed. These devices can easily coexist and build off each other.
As to the issue of the close relationship between the iPod and iTunes, then there is some truth in it. If Apple allowed for a drag/drop mode via the Finder or a syncing API then it might alleviate some of the worries.
If you are on Linux then there are certainly alternatives to the iTunes for transferring to the iPod. On the Mac alternatives are almost non-existent.
As for online music services: if you buy iTunes Plus tunes there is no lock-in and as for other services you just better hope that you have MS-Windows available, since most of them seem to only work on Windows and have more lock-in with the more limited WMA format.
I think Android will be good for the market. It will bring a similar experience to other handsets (hopefully more stable and user friendly than WM devices) and hopefully reduce the cost of devices. If it is actually any good then the pressure will be on Apple to reduce their prices and increase availability of the iPhone to other markets. Plus they could also highlight the fact that the iPhone does all of that plus it has multi touch and a smoother interface etc etc.
As to that reporter..
Phil should have grabbed that prick by the throat and said "your that asshole that had itunes.co.uk" and then had him taken round the back of the store, given concrete wellies and sent for a swim in the Thames.
If you are on Linux then there are certainly alternatives to the iTunes for transferring to the iPod. On the Mac alternatives are almost non-existent.
What are you talking about? There are several programs for both Mac and Windows that offer alternatives for putting music onto and getting music off of the iPod, a feature iTunes doesn't even support. I have several of them on my computer - Senuti, iPodDisk, iPodRip. You are not locked into iTunes for anything, on any platform.
I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CONVERT.
IF CDs ONLY PLAYED ON SONY CD MACHINES IN EIGHTIES I GUESS YOU'D BE HAPPY MAKING A LOT OF CASSETTE TAPES.
IF CDs ONLY PLAYED ON SONY CD MACHINES IN EIGHTIES I GUESS YOU'D BE HAPPY MAKING A LOT OF CASSETTE TAPES.
You shouldn't type in all caps either.
Last time I checked, a set of Ford heads don't bolt on a Chevrolet motor. You can't convert heads, so the car industry cows are being even more monopolistic!!
Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment.
That's an interesting spin. It looked like he DID answer the question, or at least gave whatever answer he was willing to give. The circus came from the interviewer not being satisfied with what he had to say and repeating the question and refusing to move on.
If an interviewer gets fixated on something and won't continue the interview, sometimes it's necessary to end it like happened here.
And you don't have to do "convert" to get content on the ipod, just buy a CD and rip it. Or buy an mp3 from Amazon or any other source. It's not remotely a monopoly, this guy was just fishing for a story that isn't there.
And you don't have to do "convert" to get content on the ipod, just buy a CD and rip it. Or buy an mp3 from Amazon or any other source. It's not remotely a monopoly, this guy was just fishing for a story that isn't there.
Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.
Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.
Not true; most iTunes Store customers use PCs.
Also, when you buy a CD and wish to put on your computer or music player you usually convert it to reduce its size. Even though a CD can be easily copied to another format doesn't make iTunes Store a monopoly. I believe Apple is only 3rd in music distribution. Do you not find it monopolistic that big retails sell music below the retail price in order to get people in their stores, thereby killing off local competition? All Apple has done is make fair compromises to combat both these large brick-and-mortar retailers and illegal downloads. You think that finding a working model that Apple has suddenly become a monopoly despite not being the largest or only music distributer around?
According to the RIAA copying music from a CD to another media and altering the format of music from a CD are both illegal. After a great deal of fighting in favour of the consumer, Apple is the only one to have have found a middle ground with the RIAA which allows tracks purchased from iTunes to be burned to a CD which is both a different media and format. I bet you think iTunes Store should have used MP3 instead of AAC, too.
. I bet you think iTunes Store should have used MP3 instead of AAC, too.
I meant it has to be put on a machine that has iTunes on it. And as for portables that means only Apple devices.
I bet if CD's could only be played on Sony CD machines , then you would be content to convert it and make cassettes of all your music to play other devices back in the eighties through mid-nineties.
I meant it has to be put on a machine that has iTunes on it. And as for portables that means only Apple devices.
I bet if CD's could only be played on Sony CD machines , then you would be content to convert it and make cassettes of all your music to play other devices back in the eighties through mid-nineties.
You said 'machines,' not software. Are you talking about tying a product to a device/program or are talking about a monopoly? If such a law is passed--which it won't-- then everyone who ties music to a player will be in the wrong. This means no subscription music services or Zune marketplace using Protected-WMA. Just because Apple has the most well known, online music store doesn't automatically deem them as evil.
I have no comment of copying music from CDs to tapes because the logic escapes me and the topic is irrelevant. But I can say that RIAA tried to make tape copying illegal and Sony has tried several times to make a new digital music format. All have failed yet iTunes is thriving. Why do you think that is?
The disturbing aspect of the Schiller video is that Schiller needs handlers to defuse the situation. A situation where Schiller is obviously disturbed. One would think that Schiller would be better able to handle himself given his position in Apple? You cannot hide behind lawyers and handlers all your life.
Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.
Absolutely not true, you can play them on a PC or burn them to a CD. It seems like you have no clue what a monopoly really is.
Having to burn to CD to play on a CD player doesn't make a "monopoly". Nor does selling music that doesn't play on other mp3 players. By that logic, sony would have a monopoly on playstation games. Selling two different items that are compatible isn't a monopoly, and it's not remotely illegal.
The comparison to dubbing to cassettes is almost as idiotic as the previous USE OF ALL CAPS. If you don't want to use the iTunes store, use any other mp3 player or any other option to buy music - since there are tons of those options (regardless of whether they have a small market share) how could there possibly be a monopoly?
IF XBOX GAMES ONLY PLAYED ON MICROSOFTS XBOX...oh wait, they do...
Absolutely not true, you can play them on a PC or burn them to a CD. It seems like you have no clue what a monopoly really is.
Having to burn to CD to play on a CD player doesn't make a "monopoly". Nor does selling music that doesn't play on other mp3 players. By that logic, sony would have a monopoly on playstation games. Selling two different items that are compatible isn't a monopoly, and it's not remotely illegal.
The comparison to dubbing to cassettes is almost as idiotic as the previous USE OF ALL CAPS. If you don't want to use the iTunes store, use any other mp3 player or any other option to buy music - since there are tons of those options (regardless of whether they have a small market share) how could there possibly be a monopoly?
IF XBOX GAMES ONLY PLAYED ON MICROSOFTS XBOX...oh wait, they do...
music is music, IDIOT- GAMES ARE NOT.
YOU PROBABLY THINK MONOPOLY IS A BOARD GAME!
FYI:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
Minderbinder was using xbox games as an example of something that is locked to a device. Apple lets you put the music onto as many CDs as you like, and you can import them and use the songs on any device you like. That can't be done for console games. He also never claimed games were music, as you seem to be implying.
Looks like someone found Dictionary. In reply to your edit, there is not one provider of songs to the iPod, you can use songs from almost any DRM-free source. CDs for example. Also, there are heaps of other MP3 players out there. Plenty of online music stores too. Apple's is just more successful as it was conceived early on and well executed.
Comments
Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment. Instead Apple pays $50k or more a year to a bunch of latte sipping tight-asses to wipe his back-side for him.
Maybe "Think Different" should be "Think For Yourself".
Meh. The reporter went into the interview with an agenda. Apple tries to control media events and interviews as much as possible, naturally. Rest assured, this interviewer and whomever he represents will never get access to Apple again.
Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.
The reason behind it, simple, nobody likes monopolies
COMMUNIST!!!!
haha, nevermind, I just woke up----I'm like really wierd right now.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.
Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.
I agree. Apple will have full access to Android just like everyone else. You can rest assured that they will adopt any and all technologies to make sure they are at least as good as Android and then improve upon them.
The important thing is that Apple will still have the significant advantage of being in control of both the hardware and the software, unlike most other hardware vendors that will be adopting Google's software.
It's Apple's ability to to create a seamless integration of software and hardware in general that creates the unique Apple appeal.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.
Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.
Agreed. These devices can easily coexist and build off each other.
If you are on Linux then there are certainly alternatives to the iTunes for transferring to the iPod. On the Mac alternatives are almost non-existent.
As for online music services: if you buy iTunes Plus tunes there is no lock-in and as for other services you just better hope that you have MS-Windows available, since most of them seem to only work on Windows and have more lock-in with the more limited WMA format.
As to that reporter..
Phil should have grabbed that prick by the throat and said "your that asshole that had itunes.co.uk" and then had him taken round the back of the store, given concrete wellies and sent for a swim in the Thames.
If you are on Linux then there are certainly alternatives to the iTunes for transferring to the iPod. On the Mac alternatives are almost non-existent.
What are you talking about? There are several programs for both Mac and Windows that offer alternatives for putting music onto and getting music off of the iPod, a feature iTunes doesn't even support. I have several of them on my computer - Senuti, iPodDisk, iPodRip. You are not locked into iTunes for anything, on any platform.
I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CONVERT.
IF CDs ONLY PLAYED ON SONY CD MACHINES IN EIGHTIES I GUESS YOU'D BE HAPPY MAKING A LOT OF CASSETTE TAPES.
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CONVERT.
IF CDs ONLY PLAYED ON SONY CD MACHINES IN EIGHTIES I GUESS YOU'D BE HAPPY MAKING A LOT OF CASSETTE TAPES.
You shouldn't type in all caps either.
Last time I checked, a set of Ford heads don't bolt on a Chevrolet motor. You can't convert heads, so the car industry cows are being even more monopolistic!!
Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment.
That's an interesting spin. It looked like he DID answer the question, or at least gave whatever answer he was willing to give. The circus came from the interviewer not being satisfied with what he had to say and repeating the question and refusing to move on.
If an interviewer gets fixated on something and won't continue the interview, sometimes it's necessary to end it like happened here.
And you don't have to do "convert" to get content on the ipod, just buy a CD and rip it. Or buy an mp3 from Amazon or any other source. It's not remotely a monopoly, this guy was just fishing for a story that isn't there.
.
And you don't have to do "convert" to get content on the ipod, just buy a CD and rip it. Or buy an mp3 from Amazon or any other source. It's not remotely a monopoly, this guy was just fishing for a story that isn't there.
Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.
Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.
Not true; most iTunes Store customers use PCs.
Also, when you buy a CD and wish to put on your computer or music player you usually convert it to reduce its size. Even though a CD can be easily copied to another format doesn't make iTunes Store a monopoly. I believe Apple is only 3rd in music distribution. Do you not find it monopolistic that big retails sell music below the retail price in order to get people in their stores, thereby killing off local competition? All Apple has done is make fair compromises to combat both these large brick-and-mortar retailers and illegal downloads. You think that finding a working model that Apple has suddenly become a monopoly despite not being the largest or only music distributer around?
According to the RIAA copying music from a CD to another media and altering the format of music from a CD are both illegal. After a great deal of fighting in favour of the consumer, Apple is the only one to have have found a middle ground with the RIAA which allows tracks purchased from iTunes to be burned to a CD which is both a different media and format. I bet you think iTunes Store should have used MP3 instead of AAC, too.
Not true; most iTunes Store customers use PCs.
. I bet you think iTunes Store should have used MP3 instead of AAC, too.
I meant it has to be put on a machine that has iTunes on it. And as for portables that means only Apple devices.
I bet if CD's could only be played on Sony CD machines , then you would be content to convert it and make cassettes of all your music to play other devices back in the eighties through mid-nineties.
I meant it has to be put on a machine that has iTunes on it. And as for portables that means only Apple devices.
I bet if CD's could only be played on Sony CD machines , then you would be content to convert it and make cassettes of all your music to play other devices back in the eighties through mid-nineties.
You said 'machines,' not software. Are you talking about tying a product to a device/program or are talking about a monopoly? If such a law is passed--which it won't-- then everyone who ties music to a player will be in the wrong. This means no subscription music services or Zune marketplace using Protected-WMA. Just because Apple has the most well known, online music store doesn't automatically deem them as evil.
I have no comment of copying music from CDs to tapes because the logic escapes me and the topic is irrelevant. But I can say that RIAA tried to make tape copying illegal and Sony has tried several times to make a new digital music format. All have failed yet iTunes is thriving. Why do you think that is?
Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.
Absolutely not true, you can play them on a PC or burn them to a CD. It seems like you have no clue what a monopoly really is.
Having to burn to CD to play on a CD player doesn't make a "monopoly". Nor does selling music that doesn't play on other mp3 players. By that logic, sony would have a monopoly on playstation games. Selling two different items that are compatible isn't a monopoly, and it's not remotely illegal.
The comparison to dubbing to cassettes is almost as idiotic as the previous USE OF ALL CAPS. If you don't want to use the iTunes store, use any other mp3 player or any other option to buy music - since there are tons of those options (regardless of whether they have a small market share) how could there possibly be a monopoly?
IF XBOX GAMES ONLY PLAYED ON MICROSOFTS XBOX...oh wait, they do...
Absolutely not true, you can play them on a PC or burn them to a CD. It seems like you have no clue what a monopoly really is.
Having to burn to CD to play on a CD player doesn't make a "monopoly". Nor does selling music that doesn't play on other mp3 players. By that logic, sony would have a monopoly on playstation games. Selling two different items that are compatible isn't a monopoly, and it's not remotely illegal.
The comparison to dubbing to cassettes is almost as idiotic as the previous USE OF ALL CAPS. If you don't want to use the iTunes store, use any other mp3 player or any other option to buy music - since there are tons of those options (regardless of whether they have a small market share) how could there possibly be a monopoly?
IF XBOX GAMES ONLY PLAYED ON MICROSOFTS XBOX...oh wait, they do...
music is music, IDIOT- GAMES ARE NOT.
YOU PROBABLY THINK MONOPOLY IS A BOARD GAME!
FYI:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
music is music, IDIOT- GAMES ARE NOT.
YOU PROBABLY THINK MONOPOLY IS A BOARD GAME!
FYI:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
Minderbinder was using xbox games as an example of something that is locked to a device. Apple lets you put the music onto as many CDs as you like, and you can import them and use the songs on any device you like. That can't be done for console games. He also never claimed games were music, as you seem to be implying.
Looks like someone found Dictionary. In reply to your edit, there is not one provider of songs to the iPod, you can use songs from almost any DRM-free source. CDs for example. Also, there are heaps of other MP3 players out there. Plenty of online music stores too. Apple's is just more successful as it was conceived early on and well executed.