Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:02 UTC
Apple So, how does the news of Apple and DRM change, or not change, your purchasing habits regarding x86 Macs? Let us know by participating in our following poll:
Thread beginning with comment 12416
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You know
by zizban on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:16 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

if apple was going to switch to x86, they had to do something to keep their os from running on just any x86 pc. I guess this was it. Bummer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: You know
by on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:39 in reply to "You know"
Member since:

> if apple was going to switch to x86, they had to do
> something to keep their os from running on just any
> x86 pc. I guess this was it. Bummer.

STOP YOUR APPLE PROPAGANDA PLEASE

Apple didn't switch to DRM because of x86, but Apple switched to x86 because of DRM!

> I'm sure most sane people will buy a new Mac when
> they're ready to upgrade; regardless of the processor
> architecture, and the inclusion of DRM.

Yes, "sane" people don't care about their interests, they simply say "It's in Apple's interest and not in mine, but hey, it's from Apple, the company who produces gorgeous music players and therefore it's OK to have a computer that does what Apple wants and not what I want". That's "sane".

> The DRM only keeps you from taking your Mac OS X to
> another computer that isn't a Mac. It wont stop you
> from playing your movies or your music.

APPLE PROPAGANDA ALERT

Next year, Apple will switch to x86 with DRM and one year later, Apple will release a silent update to "Pages" so that you can't open your "Pages" documents in software that was not produced by Apple. A silent update like all the silent iTunes updates that imposed more and more restrictions on the users.

> using DRM to stop Piracy, that has plagued the
> Windows Operating Systems for years will not happen
> on a Apple x86 computer this is good:)

Piracy has not "plagued" Microsoft, my darling, piracy has helped Microsoft to gain a monopoly, and now Apple tries to do it exactly the other way round by locking people in, but they will fail.

AND NOW PLEASE VOTE THIS DOWN BECAUSE I DID'T PRAISE APPLE

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: You know
by pravda on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:44 in reply to "RE: You know"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

Somehow it is profoundly American that any intelligent discourse that contains a difference of opinion is voted down. But I did spot you a point for exercising your unalienable right to freedom of speech. Good luck keeping your comment above water.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: iTunes silent updates
by on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 15:54 in reply to "RE: You know"
Member since:

The silent iTunes updates you were refering to did not add restrictions to the original iTunes user agreement. The deal was that iTunes Music Store purchased songs would let you do a certain amount of things, and all the updates still let you do just that.

But even though it's "cool" to be able to override the copy-protection of these AAC songs and easilly convert them to MP3 or to just skip installation of the DRM layer alltogether does not make this right! It's a breach of the agreement on the user part, and if the user didn't want any part of it, he's free to "not" purchase songs in the iTunes Music Store.

Those extra restrictions in silent updates were only implanted because some people abused them, and Apple needed a way to reassure all parties involved (artists, record companies, users, and other stakeholders) that it would still be able to guarantee that the user agreement would still be enforcable.

The consumer always has the choice, but when other people want to abuse theirs by doing something that wasn't agreed in the first place, others are inevitably impacted by this. You're free to buy CD's and rip them for your own personnal archival use (if you're in Canada anyways), buy songs from other services which usually restricts you more than the Music Store, buy iTunes songs, or just do without.

Of course, opening the door to DRMs would be like opening Pandora's Box for some, but the same is for running an unpatched Windows XP system connected to the Internet. I can use a hammer with nails, or with someone else's head... The choice is mine and wether or not I chose to abuse it and face the consequences.

And think about it, just because Apple is using a way to prevent OS X Intel from being leaked and usefully pirated like hell doesn'T mean that it won't be part of all other PC boards within the next 3 years... MS will also want to use it then as they are pushing for it. As far as I know, OS X Intel and PPC doesn't technically prevent you from abusing your "one install" licence and install it in countless other Macs, Intel or PPC, unlike other operating systems we know...

I've been using "dongle" controlled software for a few years, and these companies never abused their license agreements. If they started doing so, I would change software provider in a snap, and their reputation would likely go down the drain along with their revenues if anyone else would be reconsidering as I would. Apple, to me, is no different; as long as they play fair, I'm OK with it. Personally, I don't think that they can afford not to...

So instead of complaining about DRM, I'd start reading those licence agreements more carefully, and let the companies, the protecting instances, and the public know about any abusing clauses before they buy the stuff and get bound by the EULA without a refund. DRM is really just an enforcing medium that will only enforce what you agreed on in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 0