Steve Jobs, the iPad, and cultural sugar water
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Jochem Huhmann on 5 Jul 2010 10:49 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> writes: > On 07-05-2010 09:32, Jochem Huhmann wrote: >> Hmm, with iOS 4.0 you can now save books mailed to you as an attachment >> right to iBooks from within the Mail app. There's actually an API now > > Can that feature also save videos? > Images? Documents for iWork? > Project files for Audacity? I have no idea, I don't have a 4.0-capable iThing. As far as I know this feature is only limited to what developers add to their apps and to what Apple allows, of course. I don't think you'll ever see an app that allows saving a mp3 from a torrent to the music library... > (oh-oh, now I'm getting dangerous…) > Applications? :-) ;-) Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: AES on 5 Jul 2010 11:44 In article <m2fwzy3vgc.fsf(a)revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > I agree that all the file management in iOS is an absurd mess as soon as > you don't go through iTunes. But Apple is not trying to allow only stuff > you bought from them on these devices or totally force you to go through > iTunes. As the OP (or one of the OPs) on this thread, I don't argue that "Apple is trying to allow only stuff you bought from them on these devices or totally force you to go through iTunes". However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store), or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case? ["Prisoner of iTunes - the iPad file transfer horror" <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/ipad_file_transfer/> ] My assertion is that Apple created this "absurd mess" (your phrase) associated with iOS, not primarily to make their iGadgets better and easier to use for entertainment consumers. Rather they created this mess in this way primarily so that these devices would be able to enforce as much as possible all the DRM and DRM-type limitations associated with the products of the commercial entertainment industry (the "cultural sugar water"), and increasingly of Apple itself. They _could_ have built their iGadgets starting with the classic file system, Finder, and apps model that is the foundation of their own computers and essentially all other computers; and then built their novice-user-friendly entertainment-oriented interface as a primary option on top of that. That would have made the iGadgets equally (and very) useful both for "real computer users" and for entertainment consumers -- but it would have reduced the protection for many aspects of DRM
From: Adrian C on 5 Jul 2010 11:48 On 05/07/2010 16:44, AES wrote: > > However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any > audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play > it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store), > or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case? No. Spotify. -- Adrian C
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 11:58 In article <siegman-1FA42F.08441205072010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any > audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play > it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store), > or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case? no. using itunes is by far the easiest and most practical way, but there are other methods including itunes alternatives and apps that manage their own content. jailbreaking is not required and doesn't really matter anyway. what is this aversion to itunes anyway? it's just an app. you want finder instead, which is also just an app. itunes is designed to manage music and videos and sync it, while finder is not. itunes does a much, much better job of it. why do people insist on doing things the hard way? > My assertion is that Apple created this "absurd mess" (your phrase) > associated with iOS, not primarily to make their iGadgets better and > easier to use for entertainment consumers. > > Rather they created this mess in this way primarily so that these > devices would be able to enforce as much as possible all the DRM and > DRM-type limitations associated with the products of the commercial > entertainment industry (the "cultural sugar water"), and increasingly of > Apple itself. except that itunes does not require drm content. you can use your own music and videos or even pirated music and videos. apple does not want the drm, they are forced to use it by the content owners. > They _could_ have built their iGadgets starting with the classic file > system, Finder, and apps model that is the foundation of their own > computers and essentially all other computers; and then built their > novice-user-friendly entertainment-oriented interface as a primary > option on top of that. That would have made the iGadgets equally (and > very) useful both for "real computer users" and for entertainment > consumers -- but it would have reduced the protection for many aspects > of DRM they could have done a lot of things. the choices they made resulted in having about 70% of the portable music player market, so it's very clear they chose well.
From: BreadWithSpam on 5 Jul 2010 12:30
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes: > In article <TReYn.6068$Zi.2870(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock > <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > > > > Apple played a huge role in convincing record companies to give up > > > on the DRM for music. > > > > Huh? The way I remember it was Amazon launched a completely DRM-free > > music store, and, after having a modicum of success with it, iTunes > > dropped DRM (actually sold both DRM and non-DRM, the latter at a $0.30 > > premium.) > > apple said initially when they launched the itunes store that drm was a > necessary evil. steve jobs wrote about his hope that drm would go away, > and it did. He was quite outspoken about it. He made it clear that he didn't want DRM, but without it, the record companies wouldn't have dealt with him at all. And it was essential that he got them on board in order to launch the whole thing in the first place. > amazon was able to launch a drm-free music store when the record > companies were considering dropping it, while apple was still tied to > existing contracts, so they could not be first. Amazon would likely never have gotten any traction at all had Apple not already paved the way. -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. |