Bring your own body-guard.
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Bring your own body-guard.
You're missing the point.
Does anyone really care about the whole consent of congress thing anymore? We send troops somewhere, it's a war. A bunch of bribery-driven jackasses in the legislature mean nothing to people killing and dying out in the battlefield.
It may seem petty now, but if every device we use in our daily lives started doing this, it wouldn't so good. Keurig is a good example. You can still make coffee with a simple french press. Trouble is, the k-cups have taken over the coffee selection in a lot of groceries. Expand that into devices of all types and shopping for consumables becomes a total PITA.
I don't care what Jobs said. It's irrelevant. Amazon's store was DRM free. They had the major labels within a year. Apple did not. I don't care what Jobs said at the time. Amazon got it done while Jobs was still blathering on about it. Actions beat words. Apple didn't rid DRM from their catalog until Amazon forced them to. You can go on talking about Jobs all you want. I saw what actually took place.
Hardware margins are a fool's game. Apple is going to lose its shirt if it keeps betting on them. Digital goods is the future. Mark this comment and come back in a few years. You'll see. I also wouldn't bet against Amazon. They're making strategic moves now and sacrificing the short term to win big in the long term.
I don't care who sold DRM free first. This thread is from my comment pointing out that Apple is not the reason music sales now are free of DRM. Amazon's catalog was entirely free of DRM, and they had the major labels within a year. Amazon did that, not Apple. Amazon got there well before Apple. Get it? That's my first comment here.
Apple can't rely on device sales. There's not much more you can make a gadget do. What's going to be next for innovation? Twice the resolution of a retina display? Digital goods are going to be the bread-winner. It's inevitable.
Your last bit there doesn't contradict anything I said. Amazon could have been number one if Apple dug in on the whole DRM thing. I think that's part of what pushed Amazon to create their line of devices. The device drives the catalog. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I wouldn't bet on Apple, but who knows.
Within a year of Amazon opening their digital music store, they had the major labels. Apple was still heavily into DRM then. I don't really care what Apple wanted to do, I'm looking at the facts for what they are. A year in, Amazon had what it needed to be a significant threat to Apple's iTunes store. Jobs may have been truthful saying that little music came from their store at the time, most music would have been ripped from people's CD collections, and I'm sure a significant chunk from file sharing. What was their percent out of the total that had been purchased from online? I'm sure they saw the iTunes store as a big part of Apple's future. Device sales alone only get you so far.
One thing is certain, Jobs wouldn't have been giving Amazon credit for busting DRM. That doesn't mean they didn't play a big part. They pulled off what Apple couldn't or wouldn't.
They didn't have to. They had enough to start chipping away. As Amazon's sales increased, they'd have more power to reign in the hold-outs. Apple didn't have a choice. Amazon was probably hoping they'd try to hold-out. Without devices of their own, the DRM-free nature of their catalog was their best draw. That's probably why they're so heavily into the Kindle, Fire, and other gadgets now. They want their catalog to be the first that a consumer sees. Something they'll never get on other company's devices if those companies have a catalog of their own.
Article from 2009 announcing price cuts to iTunes music, mentions Apple has plans to go DRM free in the future:
From same article:
"While iTunes is the most popular digital music store, others have been faster to offer songs without copy protection. Amazon.com started selling DRM-free music in 2007 and swayed all the major labels to sign on in less than a year."
Awfully weird indeed.
"Starts selling" is the key. Yes, they had some DRM free content. Amazon had all DRM free music content. That's a massive difference. I was very much against Amazon at the time because of the one click patent, but I started buying music there because they were doing it the right way. iTunes went all DRM free later on, well after Amazon.
The only reason they did that is because Amazon beat them to it and was taking their customers away. If not for competition, Apple never would have removed DRM.
That's my take on it too. It sounds like a proposal to guarantee one-sided arguments.
I'm with you on the Mozilla incident. That was absolutely out of bounds and I will never look at Mozilla the same way again. But that was different. Vocal opportunists saw an opportunity to make an example of a CEO and they took it. The guy already had the job. Someone mentioned that he still does code submissions, which further points to the position being the target and not so much the individual. If he was so reprehensible, they would still be complaining that he contributes to the project. All I hear now are the handful of people still expressing outrage at OkCupid, Mozilla, and the other malicious malcontents.
A lot of tech companies aren't even doing reference checks anymore. The last few companies I worked for did not. They're somewhat pointless. Many companies don't allow their employees to answer reference checks at all, other than to verify that the person was employed. Same reason, a person's former employer doesn't want to be liable should the candidate not get hired by the new company.
I can see this occurring in the past, but not the present. Everyone complains about everything online. If you really dig into someone's background, eventually you're going to find something objectionable. There would be hordes of people displaced if this was truly going on in significant numbers. A company can go after a worker, but it's going to be Streisand Effect. When they need to hire new talent, their candidates are also going to do a search. Who is going to want to work for a company that's notorious for silencing its workers?
At best, the employer might be able to reverse-direct-deposit the severance if the complainer wasn't smart enough to move the money. The courts aren't going to take a person's house or retirement savings, and that's probably as much "wealth" that the average American worker has at this point. Want to rat a company out? Grab a disposable phone and tweet away.
Error in operator: add beer