Re: Apple Computer changes its name

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:

> >> And how does one determine whether it's "right" or not?
> >>
> >> One can't, at least not in an objective way -- it's a matter of personal
> >> opinion.
> >
> > Hmm :-) At the risk of sounding somewhat militant, I'll point out that
> > declaring objectivity unobtainable is a technique generally used by
> > those with a less defensible position, in order to create the illusion
> > that theirs has equal merit since both positions are 'subjective'.
>
> Are you saying that my position is "less defendable"?  If so, say it
> explicitly, please, giving your reasons for your opinion!  If not,
> don't make this comparison at all.

Sorry Paul - my intent was not to imply that your position is less
defendable, just that I strongly disagree that differing perspectives
on the topic (and indeed most!) cannot be compared objectively.

> > Of course, such logic ignores the fact that subjective positions have
> > quantitative measures which can be used as the basis of objective
> > comparison, and is therefore fallacious.
>
> The quantitative measure here is called "power".  Power can be obtained
> in several different ways.
>
> One way is through money: if I'm a small customer of yours, and I'm
> pretty alone in what I think about your business practice, probably
> you won't give a shit about what I think.  But if I'm one of your
> biggest customers, or if I'm part of a large movement including most
> of your customers, then you *will* consider very carefully what I
> think.
>
> Another way is through politics, as you hint below:
>
> >> If one thinks it's not right, then one shall not buy music from Itunes.
> >> I don't buy music from Itunes for instance.  I don't even have an iPod
> >> (my two kids have one each though).
> >>
> >> If enough people refrain from buying music from Itunes, then Itunes
> >> will either change this practice - or go out of business.
> >
> > The old "The free market will sort it out" argument. I've always found
> > this overly idealistic, since history is repleat with examples of
> > governments stepping in to 'free' markets that have atrophied due to
> > monopolisation :-)
>
> Is this applicable in the case of Apple and iPod/Itunes?  If so, you
> should of course strongly object against your government's actions... <g>

I believe so - and indeed did object in every way available at the
time. I continue to attempt to convince others of the seriousness of
the issue where appropriate :-)

> > In reality, the free market only operates this way when competition is
> > possible. In this particular case, the locks and controls (supported by
> > recent legislature) that particular players posess guarantees that this
> > style of market cannot exist - with obvious negative consequences for
> > both the consumer and other businesses who would like to compete.
> >
> > Matt
>
> I don't quite understand you here --- after all I am free to not buy an
> iPod and instead buy some other player with no such locks.  And there
> are other players on the market.  Right?
>
> And even if I have an iPod, I can choose to load it with only mp3's
> and not with stuff bought from Itunes.  Right?

Oops! My use of the term "player" above was colloquial, not literal (As
in the companies in the market are 'players'). Of course you're quite
right in your assessment of the iPod as a music player, and I have no
quarrel with the iPod itself. My issue, which is evident in my other
posts is in the use of (relatively new) law to enforce DRM. It's bad
enough when applied to distributable media - of which iTunes is a
culprit, but the grip extends also to the devices that play said media.

Example: Recently in France, the government insisted that Apple behave
themselves and license Fairplay to any competitor who may wish to
produce a music player that can play songs purchased from iTunes.
Apples response? "If you make us do that, we'll not offer the iTunes
store in France at all".

Can you guess what happened next? :-(

> Finally, even if there is a monopoly, with only one single choice of
> that to buy regarding some item, you can still refrain from byuing,
> right?

If the item is non-essential you can choose to go without, that's true.
The problem is a lot more serious when going without isn't practical.

> People should learn to exercise their customer power more by being
> careful about what they buy or don't buy.  Otherwise they'll get
> what they deserve....  :-)   (unfortunately we're already there
> pretty much.... :-(  )

I could not agree more, and would add that people should be a lot more
careful about what changes they allow their governments to make to
intellectual property law. Unfortunately, media presentation of such
issues is usually sufficiently superficial that to the majority of
people the changes seem reasonable.

Matt