Re: Apple Computer changes its name

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <1168931174.025824.89500@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>>> IMO, This only makes it worse. You can achieve the fair use you're
>>> entitled to, but only at inconvenience that's artificially imposed.
>>>
>>> That there's a way around it doesn't make it right
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> 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.
 
> 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>
 
> 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?

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?

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.... :-(  )



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/