BBC: "Why I don't believe Steve Jobs"

Biffo, what exactly is "factually incorrect" about my paragraphs?

Paragraph 1 - "your misunderstanding" refers to your inability to appreciate that the line, "Bill Thompson doesn't particularly like Apple" doesn't have to mean that the person has never liked Apple, or that they don't like everything about Apple. Nothing factually incorrect there - it is pretty basic grammar after all.

Paragraph 2 - did Bill's column include attacks on Apple on various fronts? And are you just making assumptions about Erica's motivation for writing that line, without having asked her? If the answer to both is "yes", then you've got no reason to be saying I was factually incorrect.

Paragraph 3- only one statement here - that it would be incorrect to provide a synopsis of an article critical of Apple that included the line "Bill likes Apple" (since he had listed reasons he doesn't like Apple). Go on, tell me what is "factually incorrect" about that!

To VanillaSpice:

Each of your three paragraphs is factually incorrect. No wonder you class ES as a decent writer.

To Biffo (#5), and your fan club (shirley, #13 and m, #17), it is a shame that you would attack a decent writer like Erica Sadun based on nothing more than your own misunderstanding.

Note that Bill's column included attacks on Apple on various fronts, especially FairPlay. That is why Erica said, "Bill doesn't particularly like Apple" - because Bill detailed the reasons he doesn't like Apple.

Do you honestly think, that in providing a synopsis of an article critical of Apple, Erica should have wrote, "Bill likes Apple" ? That would have been completely incorrect !

Personally, I don't pay much attention to anything he says as it's usually flawed technically (Bill, the command prompt in XP is not DOS) or logically, or designed to stir up a bit of controversy (and increase the hits to his pages on news.bbc.co.uk?)

++

Bill Thompson doesn't really know much about tech, and doesn't bother to find out. His stories are consistently misinformed.

this came up ages ago with Real (remember them?)

"Apple is bad for refusing to license FairPlay and they are bad for using DRM on tracks that are sold elsewhere without DRM"

it costs Apple money to stop R&D and put that technology in with the same level of quality that ITMS users get...

Why should Apple pay all that money to produce a bad version of its own stuff.. so the competition can get a leg up?

Doesn't that sound... anti-competitive to you?

I know am going to get labeled as Apple FanBoi #1 after this posting but I gotta speak out, damn the risk...

For all you "Let the music be free" flag wavers; Try to come up with a business model that makes money for Apple (they are a business, after all) and keeps the record companies, musicians, and film companies happy and making money as well? I would bet my Beatles catalog that the loudest among you spend far too much time on BitTorrent (you know who you are) now rather than paying for any music or movies.

I think the DRM in fair play is just that - fair. So much so that I vote with my wallet. I have purchased thousands of songs on iTMS and a few movies and TV shows as well (I hate it when my DVR goofs up and I miss the latest BSG on SciFi) and I have done so since it opened. I have never had my right to use my music 'how I wish' challenged nor have I hit any roadblocks to doing so. If I really need to exercise my right to "fair use" I just burn a CD and then L O A N it to a buddy. My whole house has music in every room thanks to AirPort Express and iPods around the house and I never have to look at commercials when I watch a TV show. I am happy. I get what I want when I want it.

What is the big deal? How is Fair Play hurting you? Heck Schlomo in posting #4 states that most people don't even know there is any DRM. I can understand a battle based on ideals, heck America and many other countries were founded on principles but can somebody explain the day to day negative impact of Fair Play? I propose that it strikes a careful and acceptable balance and is the best solution so far.

"Free the Music"? Pick a fight on principles with abusers and misusers.

The column sounds like a lot of sour grapes, if you ask me. He starts out ranting about Apple and Jobs garnering so much attention. Bill, that is what a CEO is supposed to do: garner attention for his company. Duh.

More importantly, I'm supposed to take seriously the opinion of someone whose point of view is that I should buy all my CDs and burn them one at a time, rather than use a sophisticated and very friendly online service? This is the voice of reason on DRM? C'mon, that's ridiculous.

For those of you who don't remember; ITS was a Godsend. It meant a simple, practical, fun way to buy music online...for the first time. It opened up a miraculous world of music through its intuitive search, reviews, mixes, and other features.

But, to do it, Jobs had to strike a deal with the devil which, at the time, was about the most liberal deal going. Now he wants to change the terms. Are his motives profit-oriented? Again, duh: He's the CEO. Does he really mean it? Who cares: he put it out there; it's up to the RIAA now to either hold him to it or continue their draconian policies. The last I heard, they were widely scornful of Jobs' letter. So to claim the recording industry is open to ending DRM is delusional, at best.

Steve Jobs feels this BBC guy is a wanker, nothing but another puss filled angry tech columnist who justifies his job by being provocative and otherwise offering nothing. His children idiot dullards, his wife unsatisfied.

I think Steve's a bit harsh but is certainly entitled to his option.

In my view, DRM is part of Apple's business model. True, they don't make much money from selling music from the iTunes music store but DRM helps lock iPod owners into the Apple world.

e.g. If you bought hundreds or thousands of DRM music from the iTunes music store, you will think twice about switching to a competitors product down the road (which might even be a lot better than the iPod).

If Apple really did not like DRM, they would sell DRM free music from artists and labels who have requested that their music be sold DRM free. To date, Apple has not done that. So far, it is just talk, no action.

Apple likes DRM beacuse it is good for Apple.

Rob
P.S. I know that some have argued that selling DRM and DRM free music in the iTunes music store would be confusing to customers. I diagree. Apple already offers some contect DRM free (like the Apple Keynote). But to make matters clear, a flag should be added to iTunes indicating and highlighting whether the content is DRM protected or not.

This is the first time that I have read material by Bill Thompson and I definitely got the feeling that he has a seething hatred for Apple.

In the glass is half full / empty world I got the impression that it pains Bill to even admit that Apple has a glass.