Originally Posted by Zack06:
“I think that's what you're trying to do.
You're essentially saying that because Apple was in dispute with certain DRM policies, it gave them a free pass to delete consumer data without their consent, using deceptive software processes.
This case is not ambiguous at all, unless you are of the view that companies should be entitled to delete data that does not belong to them and without user knowledge.
This whole situation was effectively the same as Microsoft Windows throwing up a "system error" calling for a restore of the system, only for the user to find out later it actually also deleted any text documents that weren't created in Microsoft Word on purpose.
Apple was well aware that outright claiming that they would not allow "unsupported DRM" files on to their devices would harm sales, so they resorted to these underhanded tactics to achieve their goal.
If it was as public as you say, answer me why Apple then decided to conceal what they were doing from the consumer?”
“I think that's what you're trying to do.
You're essentially saying that because Apple was in dispute with certain DRM policies, it gave them a free pass to delete consumer data without their consent, using deceptive software processes.
This case is not ambiguous at all, unless you are of the view that companies should be entitled to delete data that does not belong to them and without user knowledge.
This whole situation was effectively the same as Microsoft Windows throwing up a "system error" calling for a restore of the system, only for the user to find out later it actually also deleted any text documents that weren't created in Microsoft Word on purpose.
Apple was well aware that outright claiming that they would not allow "unsupported DRM" files on to their devices would harm sales, so they resorted to these underhanded tactics to achieve their goal.
If it was as public as you say, answer me why Apple then decided to conceal what they were doing from the consumer?”
I've already said they could have done things differently / better. A more useful error message would certainly have helped.
Can you say why Apple should have built in support for everyone else's DRM, or made their DRM solution available to everyone else? Any more than, say, Nintendo make Mario games available to anyone else?
The issue isn't really with the music at all - its with the DRM. Real reverse engineered Apple's DRM, and Apple plugged that hole. The argument that others tampering with their DRM might cause issues with the iPod / iTunes functionality seems perfectly valid to me.
Had Real's music been DRM free it wouldn't have caused this issue.
Given that:
1. It was the record companies who pushed for DRM to be used
2. It was Apple who pushed for DRM to be dropped
3. Non DRM files caused no problem on the iPod
Then its difficult to buy any argument that Apple set out to use DRM specifically to prevent other music from playing on the iPod.
It seems far more likely that they used DRM to get the record companies onside, and they didn't licence their DRM solution, or support other DRM solutions, as doing so would have been impractical and / or caused issues with functionality.
The logical fallacy here is to assume that just because there was a negative side effect of something, means that that negative side effect was the only objective.
People are free to agree or disagree with all of the above - but there can be no dispute that all of the above means the case is at the very least more ambiguous and less clear cut than if DRM was not at the centre of it.




