jemmons's comments

I mean the question honestly. I'm wondering where this sense of entitlement comes from.

But I absolutely refuse to feel anything but joy and elation when I consider the miraculous tools I have available to me that allow me to complete works undreamed of by any generations previous.

It may naive, but I have to believe that if we are to care for the children of Ghana, we have to make more of ourselves, not less. To put it another way, would I know anything of Ghana's plight were it not for my shiny electronic computer and its connection to the miraculous interconnected network of shiny electronics?

But, though it's become a cliche in this context, I think what makes these products world-changing is Apple's vision. [EDIT: actually, now that I think about it, it's not their vision. It's their business model (the very thing the OP was deriding). Apple sells hardware and can use software as a loss leader. So it's able to sell Logic and Final Cut for much less than when they were the sole income of their respective companies] After Apple bought Final Cut and Logic, they slashed prices, refined the interfaces to make them much more approachable, and gave users a way to migrate from simple iApps, to Express versions, to the full-blown Studio packages.

This ease of use, low cost, and easy migration vision of Apple's all works together to democratize the creation of media. As a platform, it places an emphasis on the creation of media, not merely the consumption of it.

That's what I find world-changing about it, and I think its all stuff that's happened post-Apple-buyout. But I'd love to hear more about any similar efforts made before Apple bought these products.

The iPod. The iTune Music Store. The iPhone. A world-class music studio for $500. A world-class motion picture studio for $1000. The evolution of the digital hub. The insistence that technology should "just work". I honestly don't know what else you could expect from any other company of any size or business model.

Mea culpa.

I agree completely that opportunity cost is very, very, very hard to measure. Which is why I'm more likely to believe someone with resources, incentive, and skin in the game rather than anecdotal armchair talk.

It seems unlikely that a corporation with so much to gain would not have done the numbers and research here. I understand you think those with your point of view are legion, but the mere fact that a large business is successfully pursuing a strategy counter your beliefs itself argues against this notion.

Make up Mad Magazine-esque nicknames for the subject of your argument that you (but no one else) find clever and at least semi-derogatory. See also: M$, winblows, iSheep

I think we're all better off without DRM, but the iTunes model was the next best thing to no DRM at all. Hardly "draconian".

Economic factors are the only indicators most copyright holders care about when it comes to DRM. The moment they can sell more copies without DRM than with, they'll drop DRM. And not a moment before.

Also note this nonsense is very acceptable to the majority of consumers, myself included. If you want to vote with your wallet and not buy the Kindle/iPhone/Zune until it drops DRM, more power to you. But you'll have to wait until those of us who are happy with the current arrangement have bought our fill and Amazon/Apple/Microsoft have to start looking for niche markets. Your complaining in the mean time is not likely to make an impact.

Fixed that for you.

Love to see evidence to the contrary, though. It's sure to be juicy stuff.

Yes. Exactly. I'd say "not as good", but whatever you like.

But remember, Apple out-competed their iPod opponents by making not just a hardware MP3 player, but also a best-of-class jukebox and wholly innovative online music marketplace and integrating them all together. This integration has been shown time and time again to be the force that gives iPod an edge over competitors. In short, iPod "just works".

Enter the Palm Pre which is just a device. No jukebox. No music store. At this point, if Palm wants to compete, it could invest in building its own media jukebox and online store. Instead, it decides to use 2/3s of the technology of the product it's supposedly competing against by masquerading as the competitor itself.

It's as if you take a Boxter, replace the steering wheel, and then call yourself a competitor to Porsche. At best you are partners with Porsche, and at worst you're ripping them off. In either case, it hardly looks like the level competitive playing field you call for.

Like seemingly everything related to Apple, if you don't perceive -- or just aren't interested in paying for -- the difference in quality, don't buy it. But also please at least consider not insulting the intelligence of those who do and are by claiming the cost isn't justifiable.

I think it's far from obvious when you've been unable to point to one concrete (even biased and opinionated!) example of why you think a Macintosh computer is inferior to the technology you choose to use.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The burden of proof lies with you.

Read the facts. Windows has what, like 86% of the desktop market?

I think you might be confusing facts with statistics? In any market you choose to look at, you can find a high-quality alternative to the commodity product offering that has a minority of the market share. BMW is the oft-quoted example in the automobile industry. It would be a mistake to claim "A BMW clearly doesn't outperform a Ford Taurus because there are so many more Fords on the road." Their relative market share clearly has no bearing on their respective performance.