Maybe that's true -- I wouldn't know, since I have less than zero interest in using the cloud either as a user or as a developer. However, the Microsoft software that I do actually use is not what I'd call "really good", and has generally been declining in quality.

You're right, Apple has never made incredible software, but I wonder if the decline in their software quality is related to the decline in the quality of software being produced by the industry across the board?

So you want an implicit tone that helps to hide the actual, factual history of Microsoft?

The ones they are using to extort from many Android-based phones, for starters.

I don't think Microsoft cares much about helping IT "get further" as such. It only cares about maximizing profit.

God, I hope that's the case. Since I won't touch cloudy services with a ten foot pole, this would mean that Microsoft will finally stop being a pain in my butt.

What they clearly want to do is break the internet. However, if their goal is to stop infringement by Joe Average, this effort would fail. What will happen is an alternate system will be set up by those of us who know how to do such things (whether we engage in piracy or not -- it doesn't matter), then we'll encourage everyone to use it and when we set up machines for our nontech friends and family, we'll set them up to use the alternate system as well.

Absolutely not true. Customers had access to those music catalogs before iTunes existed, both in legal and illegal ways. I think what you meant was that Apple would never have had access.

True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.

Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.

This also doesn't resemble the truth at all. If there were no such thing as DRM, there would be just as much content being produced. Or, at least, there isn't any indication that wouldn't be true.

And that was good for consumers how?

This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.

Who wouldn't want that?

We have such a thing, so that's good, but I would argue that DRM is not only unnecessary, it needs to die a fiery death.

True enough, which is reason #2 that I will never own Apple anything. Reason #1 why I will never use Apple music devices is that would force me to use iTunes, which sucks beyond measure.

Be careful about confusing causation with correlation.

8

8

I hate attending funerals and only do it because I'm expected to. Would the existence of livestreaming allow me to skip the whole thing while claiming that I took part via the stream? If so, then I'm greatly in favor of it!

Any charge to use the freeway is being overcharged.