Re: Apple Computer changes its name

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

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> Right.  And I thought that this prospect would deter the industry
> from limiting resolution--but it didn't!

I thought that too - the perils of optimism :-)

> Just another example of how it's OK to screw early adopters.
> (They already paid twice as much for their early, incompatible
> equipment.)

Production prices go up due to licensing and increased complexity,
costs are passed onto consumers. In the end, everybody loses except the
vendor of the protection technology, who despite their "best" efforts
only managed to temporarily stall unauthorised copying.

Despite the fact that I am generally opposed to unauthorised copying, I
find it very difficult to sympathise with an industry who year after
year cries poor because average profit from media sale=x, estimated
number of pirate copies=y, therefore we are out of pocket an estimated
x*y.

Of course, when this sensationalist conclusion is presented to
governments as "you are out of pocket x*y*0.3, we need better
protection!" they listen.

> > Although the resell value of such equipment may go up, as they're the
> > perfect companion to black market HDMI->VGA/DVI-I decoders once they
> > become obtainable.
>
> Good point--though it's still pretty easy to find places to
> inject component video or RGB in most sets.

In an analog set, yes. In a digital set? 

Matt