×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Steve Jobs and the State of Legal Music Downloads

pudge posted more than 10 years ago | from the if-it-is-not-possible-then-please-drop-your-sharing-limits-in-itunes dept.

Music 964

An anonymous reader writes "Rolling Stone has published an interview with Steve Jobs about the current state of the music industry. He is a smart man, that guy. 'When we first went to talk to these record companies -- about eighteen months ago -- we said, "None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

964 comments

Those are shorts? (5, Funny)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669696)

Shorts just keep getting longer every year. I'm wearing shorts right now, and didn't even know it.

Malda and M Jackson have what in common? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669762)

a liking for little boys

Re:Those are shorts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669784)

They were referring to his hair.

and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669788)

T-shirt sleeves seem to be getting longer, too.

the key is... (5, Funny)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669851)

you can still see his legs, so that makes it shorts.

Incidently, you can convert any pair of shorts into slacks by wearing suitably long socks.

Re:Those are shorts? (5, Funny)

KoolDude (614134) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669930)


Of course, he is wearing G5 Shorts, arguably the longest shorts on the planet.

I HAVE A DEAD GREASED FROG IN MY ASS! (-1)

frogsarefriendly (723785) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669699)

Anal Frog Sex Advice Documentation v.001

After you're done stretching your ass with a yoda doll [slashdot.org], you can enjoy a friendly amphibian. Just follow these easy steps!
  1. Locate a frog at your local pet store, or net one in the local pond! You'll want to start small and work your way up to larger frogs.
  2. Lube him and your eagerly awaiting anus thoroughly with your favorite anal lube!
  3. Tie a string to one of his legs. You don't want him crawling up there and dying, out of your feeble reach!
  4. Slowly stuff and work the frog in, he may fight you for a minute or two.
  5. Enjoy as he squirms and slowly suffocates in your anal cavity.
  6. Afterwards, have Michael [slashdot.org] eat the frog out of your ass! He'll even finance your frogs and maybe throw a tip your way!


  • *_A_N_U_S_F_R_O_G_*
    A_________________A
    N_____(GO_LUNUX!!)N
    U__________/______U
    S______o..o_______S
    F_____(.--.)______F
    R__/\(.,...,)/\___R
    O^^___^^__^^___^^_O
    G_________________G
    *_A_N_U_S_F_R_O_G_*

Look for more amphibian sex guides from your favorite frog troll!

Copyright (c) 2003 frogsarefriendly (723785)
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license can be found at the GNU website:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt [gnu.org]

Re:I HAVE A DEAD GREASED FROG IN MY ASS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669914)

I followed your guide, but when I tried to remove the frog, its leg just ripped off. So now I have a dead greased frog with one leg in my ass. I don't feel confident in my sexual power.

The way to protect digital content (4, Insightful)

log0n (18224) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669704)

is to make it cool to buy it. Make it something people *want* to spend the $$$ on.

Bonus content (5, Insightful)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669770)

What about something like old vinyl, where having the cover art is half the reason for buying it?

I've gt a buddy with a HUGE classic vinyl collection (lots of rare stuff) and the artwork is worth WAY more than the record itself. Maybe there's a parallel these guys can draw to offer something a little more tangible than the bits. Having a scan of artwork isn't the same as having a rip of the music.

Of course for that to work, they'd have to stop pumping out 500 godzillion copies of every single album made, which is a problem for them as well.

Re:Bonus content (5, Informative)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669934)

atually, the vinyl industry is a good lead to follow. remember the home taping "debacle" of the late 70's/early 80's ("home taping is killing the recording industry!"). the labels responded with lots of added features to get you to buy the platter:

  1. coloured vinyl. god i love coloured vinyl
  2. gatefold sleeves
  3. bonus flexi discs
  4. free "fan club" memberships with proof of purchase
  5. poster wraps. the idea was blatantly ripped off from a british band crass (who were definitely anti-record industry)
  6. free pony-sized four colour 8-page magazines
  7. infinity groove out tracks. good for parties or, uh, acid trips

of course you cant to most of that with cd's... but the labels at least have to try.

Re:Bonus content (5, Insightful)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7670012)

>of course you cant to most of that with cd's... but the labels at least have to try.

They should. It would be well worth it for them to come out with a huge book sized packaging with one CD and lots of pages (pictures/text/lyrics), posters and what ever merchandising you can get in there.

You effectively can charge more, get free advertisement and make it worthwhile for people to go out and buy the product.

The Copy (5, Interesting)

mgcsinc (681597) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669705)

"And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. The way we expressed it to them was: You only have to pick one lock to open every door." I really like this idea, and I think it needs highlighting. The simple truth is that music companies, so stuck to their physical medium, seem to have been, for so long, under the impression that mp3's are much like pieces of physical media; they're copied once, that copy goes somewhere, and then its all over, as if this "copying" thing requires some kind of physical action that each user must complete, much like Xeroxing paper.

Re:The Copy (5, Insightful)

danrees (557289) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669741)

Exactly. The record companies need to see the added value that people experience by having the physical CD. Just because people can copy CDs, it doesn't mean they will. The same is true of DVDs.

Re:The Copy (5, Interesting)

ooby (729259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669892)

not for nothing, I think having the CD is, to some degree, added value itself. There's the cover art and the insert booklet. Granted, much of this stuff can be found online. But I when I buy merchandise from the band, it's like I'm saying, "Hey, I like your band. Keep making good music." It's somewhat of an investment. Like my hybrid car, I'm not just buying it because it is efficient; I'm also buying it to contribute to a cleaner car of the future.

When you buy Apple... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669713)

...you get what you pay for. -- Gabriel Biel

Can someone post the text of this thing? (-1, Offtopic)

subjectstorm (708637) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669714)

My filter at work is configured to deny me access to Rolling Stone Magazine. I smell a conspiracy!

Okay, here you go (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669989)

Steve Jobs: The Rolling Stone Interview

He changed the computer industry. Now he's after the music business

By Jeff Goodell

When Steve Jobs cruises into the airy reception area on the Apple Computer campus in Cupertino, California, on a recent morning, nobody pays much attention to him, even though he's the company's CEO. He's wearing shorts, a black T-shirt and running shoes. Tall and a little gawky, Jobs has a fast, loping walk, like a wolf in a hurry. These days Jobs seems eager to distance himself from his barefoot youth -- who was that crazy kid who once called the computer "a bicycle for the mind"?-- and driven to prove himself as a clear-thinking Silicon Valley capitalist.

Jobs punches the elevator button to the fourth floor, where his small office is located. For a man who is as responsible as anyone for the wonder and chaos of Silicon Valley, Jobs' view of it all is surprisingly modest: shrubby treetops extending out toward San Francisco Bay, the distant whoosh of the freeway below.

There is nothing modest, however, about Apple's recent accomplishments. In the past few months, Jobs' company has rolled out the PowerMac G5, arguably the fastest desktop computer on the planet; has redesigned the Powerbook and iBook laptops; and introduced Panther, a significant upgrade of the OS X operating system. But Jobs' biggest move, and certainly the one closest to his heart, has been Apple's plunge into the digital-music revolution. It began two years ago, with the introduction of the iPod portable music player, which may be the only piece of Silicon Valley hardware that has ever come close to matching the lust factor of the original Macintosh. Then, in April of this year, Apple introduced its digital jukebox, the iTunes Music Store, first for the Mac, and then, in October, for Windows. The result: 20 million tracks downloaded, close to a million and a half iPods sold, aggressive deals with AOL and Pepsi, and lots of good PR for Apple as the savior of the desperately fucked-up music industry.

Still, Jobs' bet on digital music is a hugely risky move in many ways, not only because powerhouses such as Dell and Wal-Mart are gunning for Apple (and Microsoft will be soon, as well), but because success may depend on how well Jobs, a forty-eight-year-old billionaire, is able to understand and respond to the fickle music-listening habits of eighteen-year-olds in their college dorms.

Do you see any parallel between the music revolution today and the PC revolution in 1984?

Obviously, the biggest difference is that this time we're on Windows. Other than that, I'm not so sure. It's still very early in the music revolution. Remember, there are 10 billion songs that are distributed in the U.S. every year -- legally -- on CDs. So far on iTunes, we've distributed about 16 million [as of October]. So we're at the very beginning of this.

Bringing iTunes to Windows was obviously a bold move. Did you do much hand-wringing over it?

I don't know what hand-wringing is. We did a lot of thinking about it. The biggest risk was that we saw people buying Macs just to get their hands on iPods. Taking iPods to Windows - that was the big decision. We knew once we did that that we were going to go all the way. I'm sure we're losing some Mac sales, but half our sales of iPods are to the Windows world already.

How did the record companies react when you approached them about getting onboard with Apple?

There are a lot of smart people at the music companies. The problem is they're not technology people. The good music companies do an amazing thing. They have people who can pick the person who's gonna be successful out of 5,000 candidates. It's an intuitive process. And the best music companies know how to do that with a reasonably high success rate.

I think that's a good thing. The world needs more smart editorial these days. The problem is that that has nothing to do with technology. When the Internet came along and Napster came along, people in the music business didn't know what to make of the changes. A lot of these folks didn't use computers, weren't on e-mail -- didn't really know what Napster was for a few years. They were pretty doggone slow to react. Matter of fact, they still haven't really reacted. So they're vulnerable to people telling them technical solutions will work -- when they won't.

Because of their technological ignorance.

Because of their technological innocence, I would say. When we first went to talk to these record companies -- about eighteen months ago -- we said, "None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

Of course, music theft is nothing new. There have been bootlegs for years.

Of course. What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property, called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet.

And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. The way we expressed it to them was: You only have to pick one lock to open every door.

At first, they kicked us out. But we kept going back again and again. The first record company to really understand this stuff was Warner. Next was Universal. Then we started making headway. And the reason we did, I think, is because we made predictions. And we were right. We told them the music subscription services they were pushing were going to fail. MusicNet was gonna fail, Pressplay was gonna fail. Here's why: People don't want to buy their music as a subscription. They bought 45s, then they bought LPs, they bought cassettes, they bought 8-tracks, then they bought CDs. They're going to want to buy downloads.

They didn't see it that way. There were people running around -- business-development people -- who kept pointing to AOL as the great model for this and saying, "No, we want that -- we want a subscription business."

Slowly but surely, as these things didn't pan out, we started to gain some credibility with these folks.

Despite the success of iTunes, it seems that it's a little early to call all of your competitors failures. RealNetworks' Rhapsody, for example, has won over some critics.

One question to ask these subscription services is how many subscribers they have. Altogether, it's around 50,000. And that's not just for Rhapsody, it's for the old Pressplay and the old Musicmatch. The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model, and it might not be successful.

When you went to see music executives, was there much comment about Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign? A lot of them regarded it as an invitation to steal music.

The person who assailed us over it was Michael Eisner. But he didn't have any teenage kids living at home, and he didn't have any teenage kids working at Disney whom he talked to, so he thought "rip" meant "rip off." And when somebody actually clued him in to what it meant, he did apologize.

Lately, the recording industry has been threatening to throw anyone caught illegally downloading music in jail. Is that a smart approach?

Well, I empathize with them. I mean, Apple has a lot of intellectual property, and we really get upset when people steal our software, too. So I think that they're within their rights to try to keep people from stealing their product.

Our position from the beginning has been that eighty percent of the people stealing music online don't really want to be thieves. But that is such a compelling way to get music. It's instant gratification. You don't have to go to the record store; the music's already digitized, so you don't have to rip the CD. It's so compelling that people are willing to become thieves to do it. But to tell them that they should stop being thieves -- without a legal alternative that offers those same benefits -- rings hollow. We said, "We don't see how you convince people to stop being thieves unless you can offer them a carrot -- not just a stick." And the carrot is: We're gonna offer you a better experience . . . and it's only gonna cost you a dollar a song.

The other thing we told the record companies was that if you go to Kazaa to download a song, the experience is not very good. You type in a song name, you don't get back a song -- you get a hundred, on a hundred different computers. You try to download one, and, you know, the person has a slow connection, and it craps out. And after two or three have crapped out, you finally download a song, and four seconds are cut off, because it was encoded by a ten-year-old. By the time you get your song, it's taken fifteen minutes. So that means you can download four an hour. Now some people are willing to do that. But a lot of people aren't.

You've sold about 20 million songs on iTunes so far - it sounds like a big number, until you realize that billions of music files are swapped every year.

We're never going to top the illegal downloading services, but our message is: Let's compete and win.

David Bowie predicted that, because of the Internet and piracy, copyright is going to be dead in ten years. Do you agree?

No. If copyright dies, if patents die, if the protection of intellectual property is eroded, then people will stop investing. That hurts everyone. People need to have the incentive so that if they invest and succeed, they can make a fair profit. But on another level entirely, it's just wrong to steal. Or let's put it this way: It is corrosive to one's character to steal. We want to provide a legal alternative.

Of course, a lot of college students who are grabbing music off Kazaa today don't see themselves as doing anything any different from what you did when you were a teenager, copying bootleg Bob Dylan tapes.

The truth is, it's really hard to talk to people about not stealing music when there's no legal alternative. The advent of a legal alternative is only six months old. Maybe there's been a generation of kids lost -- and maybe not, who knows? Maybe they think stealing music is like driving seventy mph on the freeway -- it's over the speed limit, but what's the big deal? But I don't think that's the way it's going to stay, not with future generations, at least. But who knows? This is all new territory.

Apple has had a head start in the digital-music business, but obviously lots of other companies are getting into it now, too. Last week, for example, Dell came out with its rival to the iPod, the Dell DJ.

We will ship way more digital-music players than Dell this quarter. Way more. In the long run, we're going to be very competitive. Our online store is better than Dell's. And we have retail channels. Most people don't want to buy one of these things through the mail. Dell's distribution model works against them when they get into consumer electronics. Like, they're going to be selling plasma TVs online. Would you ever buy a plasma TV without seeing it? No way.

And then there's Microsoft. What happens to Apple when Bill Gates starts building an iTunes clone into the Windows desktop?

I'd answer that by saying I think Amazon does pretty well against Microsoft. So does eBay. So does Google. And AOL has actually done pretty well, too -- contrary to a lot of the things people say. There are a lot of examples of companies offering services, Internet-based services, that have done quite well.

And Apple is in a pretty interesting position. Because, as you may know, almost every song and CD is made on a Mac -- it's recorded on a Mac, it's mixed on a Mac, the artwork's done on a Mac. Almost every artist I've met has an iPod, and most of the music execs now have iPods. And one of the reasons Apple was able to do what we have done was because we are perceived by the music industry as the most creative technology company. And now we've created this music store, which I think is non-trivial to copy. I mean, to say that Microsoft can just decide to copy it, and copy it in six months - that's a big statement. It may not be so easy.

How about movies? Do you see an iTunes movie store?

We don't think that's what people want. A movie takes forever to download -- there's no instant gratification.

Has it been difficult wooing artists to the iTunes store?

Most successful artists control the online distribution of their music. So even though they could do a deal with, say, Universal Music, the largest in the business, these companies weren't able to offer us their top twenty artists. So we had to go to each artist, one by one, and convince them, too. A few said, "We don't want to do that."Others said, "We'll let you distribute whole albums but not individual tracks." And we declined. The store is about giving the users choice.

Do you expect that one day Apple will start signing musicians -- and, in effect, become a record label?

Well, it would be very easy for us to sign up a musician. It would be very hard for us to sign up a young musician who was successful. Because that's what the record companies do.

We think there are a lot of structural changes that are probably gonna happen in the record industry, though. We've talked to a large number of artists who don't like their record company, and I was curious about that. The general reason they don't like the record company is because they think they've been really successful, but they've only earned a little bit of money.

They feel they've been ripped off.

They feel that. But then again, the music companies aren't making a lot of money right now . . . so where's the money going? Is it inefficiency? Is somebody going to Argentina with suitcases full of hundred-dollar bills? What's going on?

After talking to a lot of people, this is my conclusion: A young artist gets signed, and he or she gets a big advance -- a million dollars, or more. And the theory is that the record company will earn back that advance when the artist is successful.

Except that even though they're really good at picking, only one or two out of the ten that they pick is successful. And so most of the artists never earn back that advance -- so the record companies are out that money. Well, who pays for the ones that are the losers?

The winners pay. The winners pay for the losers, and the winners are not seeing rewards commensurate with their success. And they get upset. So what's the remedy? The remedy is to stop paying advances. The remedy is to go to a gross-revenues deal and tell an artist, "We'll give you twenty cents on every dollar we get, but we're not gonna give you an advance. The accounting will be simple: We're gonna pay you not on profits -- we're gonna pay you off revenues. It's very simple: The more successful you are, the more you'll earn. But if you're not successful, you will not earn a dime. We'll go ahead and risk some marketing money on you. But if you're not successful, you'll make no money. If you are, you'll make a lot more money." That's the way out. That's the way the rest of the world works.

So you see the recording industry moving in that direction?

No. I said I think that's the remedy. Whether the patient will swallow the medicine is another question.

thank god for that (1)

rhs98 (513802) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669719)

"we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content"

=

"I never have to purchase a CD/Movie/Game again!"

I doubt this will matter much though - companies will always try and protect their content as the majority of users will not try to break the protection anyway.

Today (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669728)

in the lunch line I grabbed some girl's tits and everyone got mad at me and shit in my pants and fell in it and someone kicked me in the balls

Re:Today (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669746)

You too?

Re:Today (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669919)

that wasn't a girl!!! it was cowboy neil's man-boobs!

DRM (4, Funny)

thrillbert (146343) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669730)

Steve Jobs to the RIAA: "We asked 10,000 monkeys, and they don't seem to think that protecting diginal music is possible. However, they gave us this encyclopedia to give to you!"

Yes ladies and gentlement, Steve Jobs does know how to get the answers to the questions that matter the most.

---
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Re:DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669744)

Sigh. Either you're a troll or you don't understand the difference between frogs and monkeys. Either way your comment is irrelevant.

Re:DRM (2, Insightful)

mydigitalself (472203) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669905)

yeah, he asks his programmers :P

*runs*

Re:DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669948)

yeah, he asks his programmers :P

Yes, but is that question phrased in this form:

Bill, I am going to present some data to the RIAA on how I don't think that protecting digital media is possible. If your job were on the line, would you say that I'm right? Thanks!

:)

Buy a Mac to get files onto the iPod? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669742)

>The biggest risk was that we saw people buying Macs just to get their hands on
>iPods. Taking iPods to Windows D that was the big decision.

Yeah, that was gonna happen. Like iPods aren't expensive enough...

The state of legal music downloads (1, Interesting)

PktLoss (647983) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669747)

Is crap.

The EULAs for iTunes and Napster 2 are horrible, more draconion than Microsoft software (which you are already running if you can use iTunes or Napster 2). If I choose to pay for music (and it is a choice these days), stop restricting me, stop invading my privacy and harassing me. It would have been easier to use Kazaa, eDonkey or Piolet to begin with, and there wouldnt have been any restrictions.

Add to that I live in canada, so I can't purchase music with these services (yes I tried).

Re:The state of legal music downloads (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669785)

Sigh. Either you're a troll or you don't understand the difference between revisions and forks. Either way your comment is irrelevant.

Re:The state of legal music downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669809)

" ... Microsoft software (which you are already running if you can use iTunes ... "

I can access iTunes on my Mac, no Microsoft software required.

Huh? (1)

Zygote-IC- (512412) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669980)

So wait, let me get this straight..
They're horrible, draconian, evil, break into your house, drink all your soda, make out with your girlfriend, run up your long distance bill and pass out on your couch bad.
They're an invasion, a harassment and then you end with:
Add to that I live in canada, so I can't purchase music with these services (yes I tried).
If they are so bad, why try? Obviously you're familiar with the EULA. You must be the kind of person that would invite in Dracula just to see what sucking would feel like.
If you really want that feeling, just stick with Microsoft and Windows Media Player

The protection doesn't work (5, Insightful)

k.ellsworth (692902) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669756)

it's just not posible to protect something from millions of hackers... i remember that XP supossed to be "hacker-proof" with the internet activation system... HACKED before even XP was officially released. The SONY protected audio CD's... with a permanent black marker.... it is a utopia to think that no one will try to break the protection... the harder they try to protect something the more challenging to hackers is breakin it.

Re:The protection doesn't work (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669921)

I know of no one who has "hacked" XPs activation system. However, there are MANY copies of the corp' install ISO images out there that dont need activation since they where intended for the 100+ desktop installs. In truth I use my MSDN copy of the same disk but with my real CD Key since I just cant be bothered to activate all my home systems, not that activation is much of an issue for 95% of the people out there.

Re:The protection doesn't work (2, Informative)

arkanes (521690) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669986)

The key generation algorithm for Windows XP has been reverse engineered. That amounts to a 'crack' as far as I'm concerned.

ooops.. (0)

siberian (14177) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669759)

Except .. um.. its not really.. protected anymore.

And, umm.. I can move it around to any format I .. ummm.. want.

Sorry Mr Record Exec...

Legal music downloading... (0, Interesting)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669771)

I don't have a problem with legal music downloading as long as the music is free or close to free. I'm not going to pay nearly $1 per track to get songs. Why not offer something for $20/month that lets you download all the music you want? You've got your continuous revenue stream of subscribers and the subscribers are paying a fair price for entertainment. Why do customers always have to be ripped off?

Re:Legal music downloading... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669827)

because for 20 bucks, you would get all the music you want? This would be sound if everyone was at 28.8, but a lot of people have broadband.

10 bucks for a single CD is the breaking point for me. Trough in some good physical content, then A littl more.

Re:Legal music downloading... (5, Insightful)

Paladine97 (467512) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669842)

Did you RTFA? Jobs explains how when he first pitched the idea the record companies balked because they wanted to do just that: use a subscription based model. These all failed and the record companies realized that pay per track was a more profitable idea.

I think it shows that there isn't a large enough market for subscription base. Those people are the hardcore music listeners, they are the minority. Most people listen to a song on the radio and say "wooooo that is catchy" and pay and download it and be done.

Re:Legal music downloading... (5, Interesting)

kakos (610660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7670006)

In order to guarantee revenue from a subscription based method, the service has to insure you'll stay. The only real way to do this is by making your downloaded music tied to your subscription. If your subscription goes away, so does your music. After all, what is to prevent someone with a big pipe from paying for one month and downloading the entire library and leaving? Because of this, these services are MORE restrictive than iTunes.

iTunes' pricing scheme is $1 for a track or $10 for an album. That is cheap. That's what CDs should be priced at. I praise the prices of iTunes because it offers a reasonable price.

Customers don't always have to be ripped off. But the companies don't have to be ripped off either. Your idea doesn't work and there have been many failed services to prove it. What needs to happen is a happy compromise between the record companies and the consumer. The consumers need to get music for a reasonable price, but the record labels and artists need to get a fair profit. I believe iTunes is as close to this happy medium as we'll get.

Not to be insightful (4, Insightful)

RedHatLinux (453603) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669773)

But it should common sense .... sell a product and it sell the product the way the people want you will make a ton of money. Thats how capitalism is suppose to work.

Re:Not to be insightful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669861)

That may be how capitalism is *supposed* to work. But the media oligopolies (particularly those represented by the RIAA and MPAA) have made the marketplace anything but democratic. Consolidation, conglomeration, vertical integration and horizontal integration, all of these things mean they make more money doing even less for their customers.

Oh come on Pudge... (5, Insightful)

Cyclopedian (163375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669775)

from the if-it-is-not-possible-then-please-drop-your-sharin g-limits-in-itunes dept

Let's be realistic Pudge, Apple would not have been able to get anything off the ground for the Music Store if it had no sharing limits. As with almost everything these days, a compromise is reached that makes the best sense for both parties (or for one, depending on your viewpoint).

I know, I know...this is slashdot, where every editor shows their bias on each story. Perhaps I'm asking too much.

-Cyc

Re:Oh come on Pudge... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669908)

>I know, I know...this is slashdot, where every editor shows their bias on each
>story.

On Slashdot you get what you pay for.

>Perhaps I'm asking too much.

You're paying less. Don't like it? Fuck off.

Re:Oh come on Pudge... (2, Informative)

Have Blue (616) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669928)

Also, don't forget that iTunes originally had no sharing limit. People were abusing this to copy music P2P-style, so it was removed.

Bad analogy (3, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669779)

"It's not possible to protect digital content."

That really isn't that insightful. What he should have said was "people are still going to copy digital content, no matter what you do." Saying that it's not possible to protect digital content is just like saying "it's not possible to protect your home." You can put a lock on the door, but a burglar can break the window. You can put up an alarm, he can cut the power or something. You can create an armored bunker, but if the burglar's got a tank, it's not really going to matter.

Re:Bad analogy (5, Insightful)

kaltkalt (620110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669863)

I think what he was referring to was the analog gap. If my ears can hear it, and/or if my eyes can see it, i can copy it and stick it on the net. Your analogy to a house actually sums up the point. If there is an inside to the house, there is always a way to get in there.

Digital copying is ALWAYS possible. (5, Informative)

L-s-L69 (700599) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669781)

"We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

Smart guys. If you can play it, you can copy it. Either someone breaks the copy protection (Jon J) or you plug a digital out into a digital in.

Trouble is the record companies know this but still keep trying which just makes it harder and more frustrating for the avarage guy/girl who wants to listen to ligit tracks on a mp3 player.

Re:Digital copying is ALWAYS possible. (1)

emgeemg (182902) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669929)

Trouble is the record companies know this but still keep trying which just makes it harder and more frustrating for the avarage guy/girl who wants to listen to ligit tracks on a mp3 player.

This is true but the problem is that all it takes is ONE knowledgable person to go through the trouble of defeating whatever protection mechanism is in place. After that the cat's out of the bag and all the average Joe's need to do is download. If you think about it, that's really what happens even now. Most of the non-technical people I know would not know how to encode a CD into mp3s but they don't have to because there are more knowledable people out there who do know how and take care of it for them.

Maybe... maybe not... (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669960)

While I agree with everything you wrote, I think they will do what the movie industry is doing. I went to see a flick, and they had some small dots flash on the screen, so if it was stolen they could track where it came from. I would not be suprised if the music industry did this with CD's. They could have some small differance in less than a second of sound (perhaps just a small differance in pitch), and then have variations based on different parts of the country. Then they can tell where the piracy is comming from.

Who know what they will do with this data. But it appears they are intent on suing everyone with an MP3 on their hard drive, regardless of where it came from. Maybe this is all the evidence they think they will need for "beyond a resonable doubt". I can just see it: A jury of non-pc people being told be a RIAA "expert" they have tracked it to this pc like a fingerprint.

Re:Digital copying is ALWAYS possible. (4, Interesting)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7670002)

Why do the record companies hate this so much?
Because the underlings have undermined their authority.

Think all the way back, changes in the recording industry, all the way to Thomas Edison, have resulted because a few people with a lot of money made changes. Magnetic Reel to Vinyl, Vinyl to Cassette, Cassette to CD (With the bastard child DAT in there somewhere), these changes all came about as a result of music industry exectives decreeing it.

They hate downloading music because they didn't come up with it first. It's superior to their physical distribution mechanisms, but because they didn't think of it; first they tried to crush it, then they tried to crush it again, with insane DRM.

It takes (I can't believe I'm going to say this, but) normal people like Jobs to put them in their place.

I think it says alot about the music industry when Steve Jobs becomes the straight man.

Re:Digital copying is ALWAYS possible. (5, Insightful)

Mr. Neutron (3115) | more than 10 years ago | (#7670009)

There is one way to prevent digital copying. Require that anything that can process a digital media signal (hardware or software) be enclosed in a black box in which the only access to the signal is with a valid decryption key, and the only output is analog. Then you make "reverse engineering" of any such device illegal.

This, of course, makes Linux illegal. Unless all access to hard drives and similar hardware is enclosed in a closed-source, black-box interface layer. The effective end of open source.

I'm hoping the electronics industry will never go for it, but considering the recent news about Phoenix ditching BIOS [slashdot.org] in favor of "Trusted Computing," that hope is rapidly fading.

We need to do something before the right to hack stuff is completely taken away.

Make it cheap and easy (5, Insightful)

ericdano (113424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669786)

The only way to curb illegal downloads/pirating/etc, is to make CDs cheap and easy to get. Like DVDs. If CDs were like 1/2 price, like $8 or less, a lot more people would think about buying them than looking for them on Kazaa or Newsgroups or BitTorrent.

I personally like the idea of being able to hear a song before I buy it and then just buy the songs I like. That why iTunes is good.

Re:Make it cheap and easy (1, Insightful)

dasmegabyte (267018) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669945)

CDs DO sell for half price -- $8 or less -- at used CD shops, and online at amazon and half.com

People still look for them on Kazaa or Newsgroups or Bit Torrent.

I used to like that "If only CDs were cheaper" argument myself. But it's just not substantiated by the facts at hand. Cheap solutions exist. They are largely ignored for the free solutions.

Re:Make it cheap and easy (2, Insightful)

jot445 (637326) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669956)

Price is but one part of the equation. As Steve said, its the immediate gratification as well as the availability. On the iTunes store (and via P2P...) I can dl music that is not available locally. I can download it _now_. I can consume _now_. And its all about me, right? Selling CD's (in the conventional fashion) for $8.00 will not significantly increase sales.

Re:Make it cheap and easy (5, Insightful)

krlynch (158571) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669972)

If CDs were like 1/2 price, like $8 or less, a lot more people would think about buying them

I doubt that very much ... I suspect that what would be happening at that price point is that people would be saying "If CDs were like 1/2 price, like $4 or less, a lot more people ...."

People expect something for nothing and have found a way to get just that, and they use the "expense" argument to justify their actions to themselves. The only reason you don't see the same thing happening with DVDs is that most people don't have the bandwidth and diskspace to download movies. Yet. Wait a few years, and then you are going to start hearing "If DVDs were like 1/2 price, like $15 or less, a lot more people ...."

Re:Make it cheap and easy (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669992)

So, there's your solution. Start your own label, sign and promote your own bands, and charge $8 for the CD's! But why stop at $8? Why not $5! Certainly $5 will be enough! They're only $.50 to make in volume! Why, I'll bet we can pull another number out of our ass and say $2.50! But that's still ripping off the consumer to the tune of $2!

CD's are easy to get. Walmart has them. Target has them. Best Buy, Circuit City, even fucking Hot Topic. Are they expensive? You betcha, which is the crux of your argument. While some [dischord.com] record labels believe in "fair pricing" and what not, the rest do not. The solution is NOT to download/infringe those who do not's properties. The solution is to either DO without, buy from those who DO, or DO IT YOURSELF.

Don't give in to Apple's lies. (5, Funny)

Pastor Emerick (730917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669793)

Apple Computer is the maker of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values". But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness.

This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Given the now obvious anti-Christian and cultish nature of Apple Computers, is it any wonder that they have decided to base their newest operating system on Darwinism? This just reaffirms the position that Darwinism is an inherently anti-Christian philosophy spread through propaganda and subliminal trickery, not a science as its brainwashed followers would have us believe.

Re:Don't give in to Apple's lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669840)

I think you had to much LSD in your morning coffee, "Pastor".

Re:Don't give in to Apple's lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669894)

Perhaps you'd like to credit the Web site from which you got your "sermon"? (I saw something remarkably like this months ago.)

plagiarized from ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669933)

here [jesussave.us]

But do give in to Pastor's paranoia? (1)

saddino (183491) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669949)

Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism.

LOL, equating "Open Source" with "Communism" isn't going to win you any converts here Pastor.

Re:Don't give in to Apple's lies. (1)

mydigitalself (472203) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669999)

cultish nature? what like all gathering in a church and singing songs out of a book and listening to a preacher tell you how to live your life?

come on mate. evolution happened. the big bang happened. wake up and smell the agnosticism!

Brilliant (2, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669798)

I'd heard of iTunes but I never bothered to look at it before, assuming it was just another music download service.

I love the idea and the way it's implemented... unlimited burning to CD is what I want and that's what you get. It seems America-centric which puts me off a little (I'm not going to be phoning America when my credit card gets charged by accident) but I was very interested in it and my girlfriend agreed with me.

I looked into it with the possibility of getting her a gift certificate for it for Christmas. Well... I would if it would work on ME or 98. Oh well, another good idea down the drain. I ain't paying to upgrade to XP (as well as the associated hassle) just for that one program, when everything else I download runs just fine. Come on Apple, get off your backside and make a 98 version.

Re:Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669808)

Sigh. Either you're a tr...aw fuck it.

Remember: It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. -- Alfred Adler

Re:Brilliant (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669937)

Get a real job, maybe then you can afford a better operating system. LOL next people will be calling for iTunes on DOS! Lol! Tell you what, just dump your girlfriend for a month, no doubt you'll have more than enough money for not only XP, but an entire new PC!

Advances (5, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669815)

The remedy is to stop paying advances. The remedy is to go to a gross-revenues deal and tell an artist, "We'll give you twenty cents on every dollar we get, but we're not gonna give you an advance."
That's fair and swell, but without the advance, what does the artist need the record company for? If he has to self-finance the production, then the artist might as well do everything. He could just deal directly with internet distributors (such as Apple iTunes Music Store), buy some ads, etc.

Re:Advances (2, Interesting)

NullAndVoid (181397) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669970)

Artists don't normally pay for production out of their advance, so not getting an advance doesn't mean they have to pay for everything else, too. Presumably the label would still pay for marketing and that sort of thing as well. 80% of the revenue gives a lable plenty of incentive to do everything they can to push your sales up.

Of course the big record companies aren't likely to go for this kind of deal, at least not until they realize newer, smaller companies are eating their lunch.

My experiance with d/l'ing music... (4, Interesting)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669822)

The other thing we told the record companies was that if you go to Kazaa to download a song, the experience is not very good. You type in a song name, you don't get back a song -- you get a hundred, on a hundred different computers. You try to download one, and, you know, the person has a slow connection, and it craps out. And after two or three have crapped out, you finally download a song, and four seconds are cut off, because it was encoded by a ten-year-old. By the time you get your song, it's taken fifteen minutes. So that means you can download four an hour. Now some people are willing to do that. But a lot of people aren't.

What I found, while wanting to sample a song (before I buy the CD), was when you download a song and play it, they have the first ten seconds of the song play normally, then a high pitched sound screeches designed to destroy speakers. I doubt a 10 year old kid is behind that.

But the good news is that WinMX is not as spammed as Kazaa. Not as many people, but chances are you will not get the mp3's which are clearly designed to destroy speakers.

jobs lies about subscriptions (5, Informative)

bmarklein (24314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669825)

Jobs is so intent on trashing the subscription model that he resorts to lies:


One question to ask these subscription services is how many subscribers they have. Altogether, it's around 50,000. And that's not just for Rhapsody, it's for the old Pressplay and the old Musicmatch. The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model, and it might not be successful.


Actual current numbers for the sub services:
Rhapsody (from Real Networks): 250,000
MusicNet: 175,000
Napster (formerly pressplay): 80,000
MusicMatch MX: 150,000

Total here is over 600,000. These services tend to run about $10 per month, yielding a total revenue of over $6 million per month across all services. iTunes has sold 20 million songs in 7 months, or less than $3 million in revenue. Profit margins on subscriptions are higher as well.

I use Rhapsody and it kicks iTunes ass - there's just no comparison, given my listening habits (I'm almost always online). Looks like there are plenty of people who agree with me.

Re:jobs lies about subscriptions (1)

saddino (183491) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669869)

Just curious: where did you get those numbers from?

Re:jobs lies about subscriptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669907)

Right, he wouldn't be ... "so intent on trashing the [non-]subscription model that he resorts to lies." would he?

Re:jobs lies about subscriptions (1)

bmarklein (24314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669913)

From the press. I follow this stuff pretty closely.

The Rhapsody number is from Real Networks last earnings report - so in fact it's a couple of months old, and they've done a big ad push in the last couple of months, so they're probably well over 300K, maybe 350K (they picked up over 100K subscribers last quarter without a big ad push).

Real Crap... (2, Interesting)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669889)

I will never use anything from Real Player, not anything. I had a PC which I purchased from a store (It was a Sony), and it came with real player installed. Whenever I connected to the internet, real player felt compelled to connect to real networks to tell them what I have been doing. I can just imagine what their pay service is like if their free service is so horrible.

Re:Real Crap... (3, Informative)

bmarklein (24314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669963)

RealPlayer sucks, Real sucks as a company, and their RealOne subscription service is worthless. However Real had nothing to do with the development of Rhapsody. They acquired Listen.com, which developed Rhapsody, earlier this year and (so far) Real hasn't changed anything. I started using Rhapsody back when Listen was an independent company.

Re:jobs lies about subscriptions (1)

dema (103780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669946)

Why should anyone believe you more or less than Jobs? Niether of you provide any sources for your statements.

Re:jobs lies about subscriptions (2, Insightful)

cnkeller (181482) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669987)

Total here is over 600,000. These services tend to run about $10 per month, yielding a total revenue of over $6 million per month across all services. iTunes has sold 20 million songs in 7 months, or less than $3 million in revenue. Profit margins on subscriptions are higher as well.

This is a little apples to oranges (hah hah) and you are strictly comparing song revenue, but repeat after me "Apple is a hardware company. Apple is a hardware company."

iTunes exists to sell iPods. What's the profit margin like when you factor those in?

Ph.D. - piled higher, deeper (3, Insightful)

deanj (519759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669829)


We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.


While I don't necessarily believe that they can protect it, I think it's far more interesting that here's yet another group that thinks just because a Ph.D. said something it's gotta be true. Holy crap, when are they going to learn that a Ph.D. doesn't give people complete insight into all things. Hell, most of the time they don't have insight beyond the scope of their own disseration.

Re:Ph.D. - piled higher, deeper (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669877)

Oh quit your prole-centric whining. These Ph.D.s are probably mathematicians and computer scientists that know more about digital content protection than most of Slashdot put together. Why don't you raise the bar in your life and actually learn about something, rather than ripping on those that do?

Re:Ph.D. - piled higher, deeper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669881)

PhD's are considered the expert in their fields. While not all experts know everything, why do you feel the need to challenge Apple over this? Were you hurt by a PhD as a child?

Re:Ph.D. - piled higher, deeper (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7670001)

I think your suffering from Ph.D. envy.

Re:Ph.D. - piled higher, deeper (4, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#7670011)

Holy crap, when are they going to learn that a Ph.D. doesn't give people complete insight into all things. Hell, most of the time they don't have insight beyond the scope of their own disseration.

Ah, but we are taught to work a problem until we have the answer. And I should remind you that the dissertation is only the beginning. Most of us finish the dissertation and then begin work on completely different projects that will set the course for the rest of our careers and the smartest of us will not only be able to discuss problems in great depth within our field, but we will also be able to draw upon broad training in a number of other fields. For instance, my training is in neuroscience, medicine and physiology, but there is also significant background in computer science and image analysis that has allowed our lab to make significant headway in the field of molecular phenotyping using a combination of fields of study including neuroscience, physiology, molecular biology, genetics, computer science and chemistry along with image forensics and analysis.

There are a great many labs around with incredibly smart individuals in them that would scare the pants off of many of us with their intelligence, so don't sell someone short simply because you don't know what they know.

Not possible to protect... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669833)

When we first went to talk to these record companies -- about eighteen months ago -- we said, "None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

Seeing as AAC has already been broken using their own player, I think that point is pretty well proven. It's not possible to protect digital content, if by "protect" you mean preventing copying.

A CEO who really uses his industry's technology... (5, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669856)

...at least he certainly gives that impression. His description of the "Kazaa experience" is the most intelligent thing I've heard a big executive say about Kazaa lately. It almost sounds as if he's tried it himself--or, at the very least, isn't six layers removed from someone who has.

electric (2, Interesting)

fihzy (214410) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669865)

Media should be sold like electricity- with people paying a regular fixed fee to a chosen company. That way they can own content in whatever format they like, copy from whoever else has a license, use the media on whatever platform they like, and best of all the media giants could have a steady and predictable source of income.

heh (2, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669890)

None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.

.. and they were right. It isn't possible to protect digital content.

I haven't seen one "copy protection" scheme that has actually worked yet and I don't expect to see any in the future either. It's trivial to take the songs off an iPod and people are starting to unravel the DRM on the iTunes music store files - give it time ...

I've given up on iTunes, Nap2, etc (5, Insightful)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669901)

I've pretty much given up on iTunes and Napster 2 and the others for the time being. Only rarely do they have a specific song I am looking for. I also don't think they will ever, of course, carry the rare concert recordings that were easy to get on Napster 1.0 in its heyday (the stuff the RIAA can't whine about: they refuse to take our money for it in any way, anywhere).

If the RIAA wants the legal downloads to flourish, they should get serious about selling the music.

Supply and Demand still work (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669902)

No matter how much something is regulated (ie copyright), the laws of supply and demand still operate, albeit partially shaken up during the initial regulatory process.

When music is hard to get (low supply) and people want it (demand goes up) the price goes up. Look at live music back in the time of Bach or Beethoven. The average person could not afford it -- so only the rich had the best music. The poor had their "opera houses" that were not very safe and did not sound very good.

When music started to get more accessible (records and then tapes) and cheaper, supply went up, and demand went down, so the price went down.

As music became popularized through more radio productions and later television productions (MTV, etc), the supply went way up, the demand went way up, so the prices stayed consistent. The record labels charged what people were willing to pay. If the people were not willing to pay $18 for a CD, the prices would have come DOWN (supply up, demand down, prices drop).

Now we have the Internet. Supply goes up immensely, and demand to pay $18 a CD goes away. Therefore demand has dropped at that price, so the price has basically dropped. Some people pay $18, some people want it for free. Of course the record labels earn "less" per person per song. But the distribution cycle is so different, therefore you have to really look at the supply and demand issues differently.

If the incentive to produce "good" music goes down (less profit), then "good" music will diminish. As there is less and less "good" music, the supply will go down. Demand for "good" music will go up. People who are taking music for free will have less and less music to take for free. The free market over rides copyright and other bad laws by removing the supply of good music, as the incentive to profit is lost.

This is what will happen over time. Music production houses will find that they can make more money selling their popular tunes to TV commercials, movies soundtracks, nightclubs, and other places. Those songs will eventually be thrown into the virtual "public domain" of the Internet, but the cost to produce the music will be a function of the price of a movie, the cost to enter a nightclub, or the cost of a shampoo or fragrance or whatever it is that uses the song for its background music in a commercial.

You can regulate, you can mandate, you can tax. But you can't run from the rules of supply and demand.

License Panther to Clones (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7669940)

What Jobs should also be thinking about is getting over his tight grip on the Apple hardware and let clones come out and then license Panther like Windows.

He finally has a chance in time to actually make some in-roads into the desktop of the general user. Put OpenOffice on it, and the other productivitiy tools and you are good-to-go.

I've never bought a Mac or any sort - but I would buy Panther and put it on a clone if there was one.

I guess times have changed though and the OS isn't the money maker anymore.

Apple's IP (4, Funny)

BassAkwards (670247) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669974)

I mean, Apple has a lot of intellectual property, and we really get upset when people steal our software, too.

Yeah, you hear that MS? Don't go copying any of Panther's UI or else we'll bring Scully back and settle with you for an undisclosed sum.

OT -- Eek Spyware! (1)

Lady_Deb (637608) | more than 10 years ago | (#7669998)

They need to watch their advertisers.. I just got a pop-up with this text:
HELLO, Does your computer seem to be running slower than usual? Well, if you've downloaded any music, movie clips, or games in the past 2 months, then your computer may be infected with "AdWare" and "SpyWare"! Advertisers use downloadable music as a vehicle to "legally" add "SpyWare" and "AdWare" to consumer PCs. If you're suspicious that Internet Advertisers have added "AdWare" or "SpyWare" to your computer, then here's your chance to scan your computer at no charge. Scan here. It wont cost you a cent! "AdWare" and "SpyWare" infections can cause your computer to freeze up, or even crash your hard drive. Your computer was very expensive, so SCAN YOUR SYSTEM TODAY. It wont cost you a dime.
And I've now had 2 Trojan install warnings from Spybot after NOT clicking on their links.

Subscription model (4, Funny)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#7670000)

  • I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model, and it might not be successful. - Jobs

Microsoft has been reasonably successful in forcing a subscription model on their customers, in the form of "Software Assurance". So has the cable TV industry. If you have a monopoly, you can do it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...