Kentfromohio

corrections said:

Kentfromohio said:

Apple saved music with iTunes because the ripping of music was a known illegal activity.  And the price worked out by Steve Jobs was a good price.  Ninety nine cents per song made sense versus being forced to buy full albums.  Win/win for customers and artists.

Magazines are so lame these days they can't be given away.  And that is when they do it legally online.  Most are political and their politics is very unattractive.  So who wants lame politics dressed up in a fancy graphical cover or with the NYT logo?  And Apple is likely to exclude political opinions it finds unacceptable, which means it will exclude what half the population wants.   I don't think Apple will exhibit a hearty appreciation of the wide open expression of ideas from across the spectrum. More likely it will be like Facebook and Twitter which censor voices that don't fit the liberal template.  If Apple does that with Apple News it will not be a big success or even a good product.

Wrong: File sharing wasn’t initially regarded as illegal. Also, when iTunes opened the labels were already trying to sell their songs on new forms of physical media and digital through stores from a Microsoft, Sony and on their own. 

Also, lots of magazines have great content that many people don’t see because they spend their free time scrolling through the Facebook feed of radical trash and outrage mongering. 

Apple doesn’t exclude political opinions. Voices espousing hatred and violence are not open expressions from across the spectrum. The are terrorism and deserve to be silenced. 

And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism. 

The federal appeals court reversed a district court's decision to reduce Jammie Thomas-Rasset's owed damages to $54,000 from $1.5m. Tuesday's ruling (pdf) sets the damages at $220,000 and forbids Thomas-Rasset from making sound recordings available for distribution."

"Apple doesn’t exclude political opinions. Voices espousing hatred and violence are not open expressions from across the spectrum. The are terrorism and deserve to be silenced."  Tell that to The Human Coalition, "a pro-life group tells LifeNews that Apple approved and subsequently removed its app from the App Store after criticism from abortion activists and liberal media outlets. As Human Coalition informs LifeNews, it released a mobile app allowing pro-life individuals and church groups to pray for Human Coalition’s abortion-seeking clients, who remain anonymous, in real time. The app, “Human Coalition,” was available for android devices in the Google Play Store, and in the Apple App Store for iOS."   This is exactly what I stated - Apple censoring conservative views. Not hateful.   Just people who are advocating that unborn babies not be killed.  Where is the hate in that controversy?

"And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism."   This sentence is so incoherent it is not able to be refuted because it contains no intelligence.   Now of course regarding Russia, the Mueller report did not find any basis of Russian collusion but we are soon to learn that the Democrat candidate did fund Russian created fake news that tried to subvert the election.  I will note that this quoted statement includes the strange intolerance that was the very point of my comment.  It is this sort of hate filled attitude that Apple may fall prey to and which would harm its business.  Steve Jobs never engaged in this sort of hatred of the customer base.  We will see if Apple is a beacon of free speech or if it exhibits the same aggressive censorship that Facebook and Twitter employ to silence conservative opinion.