In article <pf7RJ.44360$OT%7.21835@fx07.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> >
> >> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
> >> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
> >> technical user.
> >
> > oh, it's very definitely not wrong.
> >
> > your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
> > might be incorrect, and not just with this either.
>
> It's _definitely_ wrong and provably so.
>
> People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
> same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
> Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
> brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
> congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.

just because others state something doesn't necessarily make it
correct.

there are a *lot* of myths about apple, all of which are easily
debunked.

unfortunately, some people refuse to accept anything that contradicts
their beliefs and then resort to attacks.

i know people who worked on the iigs and apple did not cripple it
because of the mac. the entire concept is crazy. crippling it would
have driven customers to competing products, the very opposite of what
is being claimed. also, the mac was more expensive and aimed at a
different demographic. the iigs wasn't a 'cheap mac'. it was a fancy
apple ii.

crippling the iigs makes for a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't
even pass the sniff test, as is often the case with conspiracy
theories.

On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote:
> In article <F07RJ.84949$Gojc.83658@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
>
> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.

I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
its users for one of their products earns my respect.

I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of
wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to
but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly
better on a desktop.

>> Intel-based
>> Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand
>> corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however,
>> think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of
>> Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface
>> machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though.
>
> it's a licensing issue.
>
> microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm, which prevents them from
> licensing it to others until that expires.
>
> <https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind
> ows-on-arm/>
>
> it's possible to get around that but it's considered an 'unsupported
> configuration'.
>
> there's a good chance microsoft will choose to license it for apple
> silicon macs when they can, but that is not guaranteed. they're
> certainly not saying anything one way or the other.

I guess we'll only know once that deal expires and if it is simply not
renewed. I suppose that depends on whether the Surface Pro line
utilizing the Qualcomm processors is an overwhelming success for both
companies or not.

>> He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no
>> sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or
>> 512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound
>> capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion
>> and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced
>
> things were different in 1984 when the 128k mac was released. memory
> was not cheap and they were already having difficulties meeting their
> price point with 128k, let alone 512k.
>
> the sound capabilities were quite good for the time, multitasking was
> possible on a 512k, there were numerous third party expansion options
> and the entire package was intended to be portable. some of the ads
> showed people on bicycles with a mac in its carrying case, strapped to
> the bike.
>
> apple later added everything you listed as missing, including 6 nubus
> slots on the mac ii, which could also run apple's version of unix,
> known as a/ux, all in the late 1980s.
>
> <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png>
> <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg>

Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was
unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid
about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less
than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better
option.

>> is somehow going to compete
>> with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32
>> simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on
>> a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You
>> lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements.
>
> as you say, you lose all credibility when you make such statements.
>
> not only did the mac compete, but it won, at least against the amiga
> and atari. it managed to survive against windows, despite major
> obstacles.

Mac won because Atari and Commodore later ended up fighting one another
on price rather than trying to upgrade their machines in the hope of
competing with the PC and the Mac. I'm talking about 1985 where it was
clear that the Mac was the worst of the four options and you _know_ that
I am.

> there was a *lot* of software and hardware for the mac, and almost
> nothing for amiga and atari.

That is true for software, at the very least. In the case of the Atari,
rampant piracy discouraged companies from bothering to produce software
for it and I don't blame them. Amiga had tons of software, but most of
it was games which is what the Amiga ended up becoming as a result of
its stellar hardware. Unfortunately, few saw the machine's potential as
a workstation.

> you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with
> a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you
> use it.

Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more
than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and
software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well
in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms
within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it
to North America.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote:
> In article <K67RJ.72876$iK66.13377@fx46.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
>> difficult in comparison to an Android device.
>
> it's only difficult for those without the passcode, which is a feature.
>
> for legitimate owners, who *do* have their passcode, it's very easy to
> transfer content to and from an ios device, in any of a variety of
> ways.

Please share them.

>> With an Android, you
>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
>> failure of some sort.
>
> that is false.

Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
additional software, for someone who would want to do so.

>> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
>> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
>> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.
>
> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
> library.

Not anymore.

> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
>
> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
> pirate it. apple doesn't care.

Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
and without DRM.

>> In fact,
>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
>> the music you already downloaded.
>
> that too is false.
>
> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
> determine that anyway.

Like I said, not anymore.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote:
> In article <pf7RJ.44360$OT%7.21835@fx07.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
>>>> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
>>>> technical user.
>>>
>>> oh, it's very definitely not wrong.
>>>
>>> your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
>>> might be incorrect, and not just with this either.
>>
>> It's _definitely_ wrong and provably so.
>>
>> People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
>> same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
>> Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
>> brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
>> congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.
>
> just because others state something doesn't necessarily make it
> correct.
>
> there are a *lot* of myths about apple, all of which are easily
> debunked.
>
> unfortunately, some people refuse to accept anything that contradicts
> their beliefs and then resort to attacks.
>
> i know people who worked on the iigs and apple did not cripple it
> because of the mac. the entire concept is crazy. crippling it would
> have driven customers to competing products, the very opposite of what
> is being claimed. also, the mac was more expensive and aimed at a
> different demographic. the iigs wasn't a 'cheap mac'. it was a fancy
> apple ii.
>
> crippling the iigs makes for a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't
> even pass the sniff test, as is often the case with conspiracy
> theories.

In other words, don't believe the experts and listen to nospam. I'm
sorry but I call bullshit on everything you just said.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

In article <H5aRJ.79664$H_t7.39876@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> >> It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
> >> difficult in comparison to an Android device.
> >
> > it's only difficult for those without the passcode, which is a feature.
> >
> > for legitimate owners, who *do* have their passcode, it's very easy to
> > transfer content to and from an ios device, in any of a variety of
> > ways.
>
> Please share them.

for photos, the phone shows up as a digital camera, so anything that
works with any digital camera will work, including windows explorer
(although oddly, not mac finder) and adobe lightroom.

other content generally requires an app to copy content, via whatever
protocol the user wants, including ftp, sftp, smb, http. the phone can
be connected via usb or wifi, as per the user's choice.

airdrop is another option for mac users (or between ios devices), which
does not require any additional software.

there might be more but that's what comes to mind right now.

> >> With an Android, you
> >> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
> >> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
> >> failure of some sort.
> >
> > that is false.
>
> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.

itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.

there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
well, but quite a few are scamware.

one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.

also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.

> >> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
> >> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
> >> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.
> >
> > there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
> > store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
> > library.
>
> Not anymore.

when the itunes music store was launched, the record companies
*required* apple to have drm because they were incredibly paranoid that
people would pirate music if it was so easy to download it. apple
didn't want drm, but had to do it.

as it turned out, the rampant piracy the record companies feared did
not happen.

they realized that online music sales was actually a good thing, at
which point, they let apple (and others) remove drm.

<https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/apples-jobs-calls-for-drm-
free-music/>
In a rare open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday, Apple urged
record companies to abandon digital rights management technologies.

The letter, posted on Apple's Web site and titled "Thoughts on
Music," is a long examination of Apple's iTunes and what the future
may hold for the online distribution of copy-protected music. In the
letter, Jobs says Apple was forced to create a DRM system to get the
world's four largest record companies on board with the iTunes Store.

> > only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
> > has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
> > would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
> > and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
> >
> > for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
> > whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
> > pirate it. apple doesn't care.
>
> Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
> was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
> and without DRM.

nope. that's not what happened.

as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
they relaxed those requirements.

> >> In fact,
> >> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
> >> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
> >> the music you already downloaded.
> >
> > that too is false.
> >
> > apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
> > determine that anyway.
>
> Like I said, not anymore.

it's always been the case.

it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
music is pirated or encoded by the user.

in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.

itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
source does not matter at all.

that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
quality versions than the pirated versions.

the original copies can be kept if desired.

In article <0jaRJ.14205$Icha.13291@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> >> People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
> >> same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
> >> Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
> >> brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
> >> congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.
> >
> > just because others state something doesn't necessarily make it
> > correct.
> >
> > there are a *lot* of myths about apple, all of which are easily
> > debunked.
> >
> > unfortunately, some people refuse to accept anything that contradicts
> > their beliefs and then resort to attacks.
> >
> > i know people who worked on the iigs and apple did not cripple it
> > because of the mac. the entire concept is crazy. crippling it would
> > have driven customers to competing products, the very opposite of what
> > is being claimed. also, the mac was more expensive and aimed at a
> > different demographic. the iigs wasn't a 'cheap mac'. it was a fancy
> > apple ii.
> >
> > crippling the iigs makes for a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't
> > even pass the sniff test, as is often the case with conspiracy
> > theories.
>
> In other words, don't believe the experts and listen to nospam. I'm
> sorry but I call bullshit on everything you just said.

you're trying to tell me that my personal experience is invalid because
of something you read on the internet. that's not going to fly.

In article <I3aRJ.79663$H_t7.45186@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> >> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
> >> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
> >
> > i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
> > mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
> > iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.
>
> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
> its users for one of their products earns my respect.

the newton was *well* ahead of its time.

its biggest problem was that it was big.

the palm pilot was the right size, despite it not being anywhere near
as advanced.

writing apps for the newton was also very cool. it used something
called soups:

<http://www.canicula.com/newton/prog/soups.htm>
Unlike traditional operating systems such as the MacOS and Windows
NT there is no file system and therefore no files in the Newton
Operating System. Data is instead stored in opaque collections like
a database in entities known as soups. Each entry in a soup can be
likened to a record in a database and each data member in an entry
(known as a slot) can be likened to a field in a database. Unlike
database records entries in a soup do not all have to have the same
slots. To retrieve data entries from the soups you don't access them
directly but rather send queries to the soups which return cursor
objects. You then use the cursor object to get copies of individual
entries in the soup. You can then do whatever you want with the
copies. The original entries in the soups are not modified unless you
overwrite them with your changed copy.

i bought a newton when it was released and within a couple of weeks was
hired to write an app, which paid for the newton many times over.

writing apps for the palm pilot was very much like writing for classic
mac os, which is not surprising since some of the same people worked on
it.

> I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of
> wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to
> but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly
> better on a desktop.

sometimes they're not.

which powerbook was it? the powerbook 12" still has a following to this
day.

>
> > <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png>
> > <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg>
>
> Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was
> unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid
> about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less
> than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better
> option.

you're focused only on hardware. the mac had a *lot* of software and a
far more polished interface, which meant it was generally a better
choice.

as i said, the mac survived the 90s and 00s, when windows was dominant.

amiga and atari did not.

> > you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with
> > a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you
> > use it.
>
> Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more
> than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and
> software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well
> in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms
> within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it
> to North America.

what they did was not enough.

the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
that atari and amiga did not have.

companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
much amiga or atari.

Am 22.02.22 um 18:05 schrieb nospam:
> In article <sv2o06$vp2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>
> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
> used.

That is not an answer to what I said.
If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
specifically.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> >> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
> >
> > if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
> > gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
> > location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
> > used.
>
> That is not an answer to what I said.

yes it is.

> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.

there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.

> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
> specifically.

turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as the
app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's not
an option.

Am 22.02.22 um 21:40 schrieb nospam:
> In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>
>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>>> used.
>>
>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>
> yes it is.
>
>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>
> there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.
>
>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>> specifically.
>
> turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as the
> app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's not
> an option.

Navigation is a specific use.
A weather app does not need location services. And neither do a lot of
system services that think they need them.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <sv3ibn$7hd$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> A weather app does not need location services.

yes it does, otherwise it's going to have a very difficult time finding
the weather for your location.

> And neither do a lot of
> system services that think they need them.

some do.

On 2022-02-22 3:01 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <H5aRJ.79664$H_t7.39876@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
>>>> difficult in comparison to an Android device.
>>>
>>> it's only difficult for those without the passcode, which is a feature.
>>>
>>> for legitimate owners, who *do* have their passcode, it's very easy to
>>> transfer content to and from an ios device, in any of a variety of
>>> ways.
>>
>> Please share them.
>
> for photos, the phone shows up as a digital camera, so anything that
> works with any digital camera will work, including windows explorer
> (although oddly, not mac finder) and adobe lightroom.

Yeah, for photos you admittedly won't have problems with any device. It
would have been counterproductive for Apple to prohibit that all the
while boasting about the iPhone's excellent picture quality.

> other content generally requires an app to copy content, via whatever
> protocol the user wants, including ftp, sftp, smb, http. the phone can
> be connected via usb or wifi, as per the user's choice.
>
> airdrop is another option for mac users (or between ios devices), which
> does not require any additional software.
>
> there might be more but that's what comes to mind right now.

Let's be clear that you're saying that music can also be retrieved
easily with a mere USB connection since that also counts as data.

>>>> With an Android, you
>>>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
>>>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
>>>> failure of some sort.
>>>
>>> that is false.
>>
>> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
>> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.
>
> itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.
>
> there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
> well, but quite a few are scamware.
>
> one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.
>
> also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
> lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
> if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
> phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.

MusicBee, which is quite stellar free software, was incapable of syncing
to my iPhone 13 despite having no trouble with a Windows Phone, an
Android and even a simple MicroSD card. It kept complaining that a music
folder was missing. Any attempt to actually get onto the iPhone and
create the folder failed because it locks you out by default, even after
you enter your password to unlock the device. I'm open to the idea that
there is something I forgot to do but it's clearly not as
straightforward as any of the aforementioned devices.

>>>> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
>>>> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
>>>> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.
>>>
>>> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
>>> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
>>> library.
>>
>> Not anymore.
>
> when the itunes music store was launched, the record companies
> *required* apple to have drm because they were incredibly paranoid that
> people would pirate music if it was so easy to download it. apple
> didn't want drm, but had to do it.
>
> as it turned out, the rampant piracy the record companies feared did
> not happen.
>
> they realized that online music sales was actually a good thing, at
> which point, they let apple (and others) remove drm.
>
> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/apples-jobs-calls-for-drm-
> free-music/>
> In a rare open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday, Apple urged
> record companies to abandon digital rights management technologies.
>
> The letter, posted on Apple's Web site and titled "Thoughts on
> Music," is a long examination of Apple's iTunes and what the future
> may hold for the online distribution of copy-protected music. In the
> letter, Jobs says Apple was forced to create a DRM system to get the
> world's four largest record companies on board with the iTunes Store.

The clarification is welcome but it doesn't change the fact that the
"not anymore" is accurate.
>>> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
>>> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
>>> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
>>> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
>>>
>>> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
>>> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
>>> pirate it. apple doesn't care.
>>
>> Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
>> was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
>> and without DRM.
>
> nope. that's not what happened.
>
> as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
> forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
> once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
> they relaxed those requirements.

From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.

>>>> In fact,
>>>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
>>>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
>>>> the music you already downloaded.
>>>
>>> that too is false.
>>>
>>> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
>>> determine that anyway.
>>
>> Like I said, not anymore.
>
> it's always been the case.
>
> it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
> music is pirated or encoded by the user.
>
> in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.
>
> itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
> in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
> also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
> source does not matter at all.
>
> that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
> copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
> quality versions than the pirated versions.
>
> the original copies can be kept if desired.

With a subscription to Apple Music, if I am correct.

However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?

By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 3:01 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <0jaRJ.14205$Icha.13291@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
>>>> same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
>>>> Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
>>>> brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
>>>> congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.
>>>
>>> just because others state something doesn't necessarily make it
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> there are a *lot* of myths about apple, all of which are easily
>>> debunked.
>>>
>>> unfortunately, some people refuse to accept anything that contradicts
>>> their beliefs and then resort to attacks.
>>>
>>> i know people who worked on the iigs and apple did not cripple it
>>> because of the mac. the entire concept is crazy. crippling it would
>>> have driven customers to competing products, the very opposite of what
>>> is being claimed. also, the mac was more expensive and aimed at a
>>> different demographic. the iigs wasn't a 'cheap mac'. it was a fancy
>>> apple ii.
>>>
>>> crippling the iigs makes for a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't
>>> even pass the sniff test, as is often the case with conspiracy
>>> theories.
>>
>> In other words, don't believe the experts and listen to nospam. I'm
>> sorry but I call bullshit on everything you just said.
>
> you're trying to tell me that my personal experience is invalid because
> of something you read on the internet. that's not going to fly.

How is what you're doing any different?

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 3:01 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <I3aRJ.79663$H_t7.45186@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
>>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
>>>
>>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
>>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
>>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.
>>
>> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
>> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
>> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
>> its users for one of their products earns my respect.
>
> the newton was *well* ahead of its time.
>
> its biggest problem was that it was big.
>
> the palm pilot was the right size, despite it not being anywhere near
> as advanced.
>
> writing apps for the newton was also very cool. it used something
> called soups:
>
> <http://www.canicula.com/newton/prog/soups.htm>
> Unlike traditional operating systems such as the MacOS and Windows
> NT there is no file system and therefore no files in the Newton
> Operating System. Data is instead stored in opaque collections like
> a database in entities known as soups. Each entry in a soup can be
> likened to a record in a database and each data member in an entry
> (known as a slot) can be likened to a field in a database. Unlike
> database records entries in a soup do not all have to have the same
> slots. To retrieve data entries from the soups you don't access them
> directly but rather send queries to the soups which return cursor
> objects. You then use the cursor object to get copies of individual
> entries in the soup. You can then do whatever you want with the
> copies. The original entries in the soups are not modified unless you
> overwrite them with your changed copy.
>
> i bought a newton when it was released and within a couple of weeks was
> hired to write an app, which paid for the newton many times over.
>
> writing apps for the palm pilot was very much like writing for classic
> mac os, which is not surprising since some of the same people worked on
> it.

I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better
than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at
the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller?

>> I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of
>> wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to
>> but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly
>> better on a desktop.
>
> sometimes they're not.
>
> which powerbook was it? the powerbook 12" still has a following to this
> day.

It was a G4 1GHz with 1GB of RAM if I remember correctly. The keyboard
was nice, I couldn't complain about the battery life and the screen was
crisp. I loved not having a tray onto which to put my optical media as
well.

>>> <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png>
>>> <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg>
>>
>> Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was
>> unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid
>> about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less
>> than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better
>> option.
>
> you're focused only on hardware. the mac had a *lot* of software and a
> far more polished interface, which meant it was generally a better
> choice.
>
> as i said, the mac survived the 90s and 00s, when windows was dominant.
>
> amiga and atari did not.

For the interface, I can't say that Mac OS wasn't polished. AmigaOS was
clearly capable of more but fairly daunting to a first time user and
you're right to say that it wasn't all too stable at first... even the
Amiga users themselves will laugh at the "Guru Medication" error they
often received. Atari's TOS was better but it felt like an incomplete
Mac OS. There were few options to say the least. However, it should be
pointed out that AmigaOS became much better as of the second release and
that much of the instability was due to the Amiga 1000 being rushed to
market.

>>> you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with
>>> a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you
>>> use it.
>>
>> Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more
>> than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and
>> software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well
>> in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms
>> within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it
>> to North America.
>
> what they did was not enough.
>
> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
> that atari and amiga did not have.
>
> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
> much amiga or atari.

As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
even produce colour.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

In article <qCcRJ.85783$f2a5.61795@fx48.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> >>>> With an Android, you
> >>>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
> >>>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
> >>>> failure of some sort.
> >>>
> >>> that is false.
> >>
> >> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
> >> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.
> >
> > itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.
> >
> > there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
> > well, but quite a few are scamware.
> >
> > one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.
> >
> > also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
> > lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
> > if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
> > phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.
>
> MusicBee, which is quite stellar free software, was incapable of syncing
> to my iPhone 13 despite having no trouble with a Windows Phone, an
> Android and even a simple MicroSD card. It kept complaining that a music
> folder was missing. Any attempt to actually get onto the iPhone and
> create the folder failed because it locks you out by default, even after
> you enter your password to unlock the device. I'm open to the idea that
> there is something I forgot to do but it's clearly not as
> straightforward as any of the aforementioned devices.

i dunno what you did or didn't do, nor have i used musicbee, but i
don't see anything about it that indicates they support ios devices.

check out some of the other options, including imazing, which has both
a mac and windows version.

>
> >>>
> >>> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
> >>> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
> >>> library.
> >>
> >> Not anymore.
> >
> > when the itunes music store was launched, the record companies
> > *required* apple to have drm because they were incredibly paranoid that
> > people would pirate music if it was so easy to download it. apple
> > didn't want drm, but had to do it.
> >
> > as it turned out, the rampant piracy the record companies feared did
> > not happen.
> >
> > they realized that online music sales was actually a good thing, at
> > which point, they let apple (and others) remove drm.
> >
> > <https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/apples-jobs-calls-for-drm-
> > free-music/>
> > In a rare open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday, Apple urged
> > record companies to abandon digital rights management technologies.
> >
> > The letter, posted on Apple's Web site and titled "Thoughts on
> > Music," is a long examination of Apple's iTunes and what the future
> > may hold for the online distribution of copy-protected music. In the
> > letter, Jobs says Apple was forced to create a DRM system to get the
> > world's four largest record companies on board with the iTunes Store.
>
> The clarification is welcome but it doesn't change the fact that the
> "not anymore" is accurate.

it's technically correct, but misleading.

drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.

> >>> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
> >>> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
> >>> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
> >>> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
> >>>
> >>> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
> >>> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
> >>> pirate it. apple doesn't care.
> >>
> >> Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
> >> was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
> >> and without DRM.
> >
> > nope. that's not what happened.
> >
> > as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
> > forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
> > once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
> > they relaxed those requirements.
>
> From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
> that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
> Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
> DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.

your recollection is correct. amazon did offer drm-free music slightly
before apple did, but that's only because apple had existing contracts
in place that required drm, whereas amazon could negotiate new ones
without it, because at that time, the record industry was more amenable
to no drm than when they contracted with apple. once apple's contracts
expired, apple was no longer bound to use drm and it went away.

> >>>> In fact,
> >>>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
> >>>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
> >>>> the music you already downloaded.
> >>>
> >>> that too is false.
> >>>
> >>> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
> >>> determine that anyway.
> >>
> >> Like I said, not anymore.
> >
> > it's always been the case.
> >
> > it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
> > music is pirated or encoded by the user.
> >
> > in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.
> >
> > itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
> > in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
> > also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
> > source does not matter at all.
> >
> > that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
> > copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
> > quality versions than the pirated versions.
> >
> > the original copies can be kept if desired.
>
> With a subscription to Apple Music, if I am correct.

you are not correct.

i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
forgotten service.

> However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
> library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
> While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
> entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
> However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
> an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
> available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?

apple music will not help you for the situation you describe.

itunes match will.

apple music is a streaming service, where you have access to the entire
apple catalog, and as with other streaming services, you are paying for
access, not ownership. if you cancel, your access ends, your ability to
stream ceases and any music you downloaded can't be played anymore, at
least not until you resubscribe. it's a cheap way to have access to a
huge library of music that otherwise would have cost a lot to purchase,
but you do not own any of it.

itunes match, which predates apple music, is designed to give you cloud
access for music you already have. you do not get access to what you
don't already own.

it will scan your library and everything that matches is considered to
be purchased, with the assumption that you own it (but there's no way
to check, so pirated music counts), at which point, you can stream it
from apple's catalog and/or download a new copy to replace your
existing version (and keep both if you want).

any remaining songs that do not match will be uploaded for cloud
access, but there obviously won't be a new version to download since it
didn't match anything in apple's catalog. you'll be streaming your own
copy.

that greatly reduces the amount of data to transfer and store on their
servers.

In article <gPcRJ.92504$i65a.25631@fx16.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
wrote:

> >
> >>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
> >>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
> >>>
> >>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
> >>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
> >>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.
> >>
> >> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
> >> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
> >> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
> >> its users for one of their products earns my respect.
> >
> > the newton was *well* ahead of its time.
> >

....

> I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better
> than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at
> the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller?

it did sell, but not as much as the palm pilot.

the design goal was for it to be about the size of a paper day planner,
which is what people used to carry back in the prehistoric times.

its size was a reasonable choice at the time, especially for something
on which people would be writing, but as it turned out, that was a
mistake. people wanted something smaller and didn't mind using palm's
graffiti for the tradeoff.

it also used ordinary aa batteries and a coin battery for backup:
<https://d1rytvr7gmk1sx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/DSC_01
73.jpg>

the newton was also the first apple product to use arm chips, which
apple partly owned and later sold, only to later re-license it for ios
devices.

there was even a web browser, called newtscape.

but despite all of that, a lesser product won out.

specs ain't everything.

> >
> > the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
> > apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
> > that atari and amiga did not have.
> >
> > companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
> > much amiga or atari.
>
> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
> even produce colour.

true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.

the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.

create a document on the mac, proof it on a laserwriter, and then send
it to an offset printer for final copy.

microsoft word and multiplan were available on the mac in 1984, with
excel following in 1985, which was mac only for a few years.

<https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/Microsoft%20Excel%201.5%20-%
20About.png>

aldus pagemaker was also in 1985, also mac only initially.

people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
windows.

On 2022-02-22 7:36 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <qCcRJ.85783$f2a5.61795@fx48.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>> With an Android, you
>>>>>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
>>>>>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
>>>>>> failure of some sort.
>>>>>
>>>>> that is false.
>>>>
>>>> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
>>>> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.
>>>
>>> itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.
>>>
>>> there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
>>> well, but quite a few are scamware.
>>>
>>> one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.
>>>
>>> also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
>>> lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
>>> if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
>>> phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.
>>
>> MusicBee, which is quite stellar free software, was incapable of syncing
>> to my iPhone 13 despite having no trouble with a Windows Phone, an
>> Android and even a simple MicroSD card. It kept complaining that a music
>> folder was missing. Any attempt to actually get onto the iPhone and
>> create the folder failed because it locks you out by default, even after
>> you enter your password to unlock the device. I'm open to the idea that
>> there is something I forgot to do but it's clearly not as
>> straightforward as any of the aforementioned devices.
>
> i dunno what you did or didn't do, nor have i used musicbee, but i
> don't see anything about it that indicates they support ios devices.
>
> check out some of the other options, including imazing, which has both
> a mac and windows version.

I've already transferred all of my music to the iPhone anyway and
decided that I would be purchasing my music from iTunes from now on so
there's no longer a point. I just found it annoying that it wouldn't
sync the way the previous devices did.

>>>>> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
>>>>> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
>>>>> library.
>>>>
>>>> Not anymore.
>>>
>>> when the itunes music store was launched, the record companies
>>> *required* apple to have drm because they were incredibly paranoid that
>>> people would pirate music if it was so easy to download it. apple
>>> didn't want drm, but had to do it.
>>>
>>> as it turned out, the rampant piracy the record companies feared did
>>> not happen.
>>>
>>> they realized that online music sales was actually a good thing, at
>>> which point, they let apple (and others) remove drm.
>>>
>>> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/apples-jobs-calls-for-drm-
>>> free-music/>
>>> In a rare open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday, Apple urged
>>> record companies to abandon digital rights management technologies.
>>>
>>> The letter, posted on Apple's Web site and titled "Thoughts on
>>> Music," is a long examination of Apple's iTunes and what the future
>>> may hold for the online distribution of copy-protected music. In the
>>> letter, Jobs says Apple was forced to create a DRM system to get the
>>> world's four largest record companies on board with the iTunes Store.
>>
>> The clarification is welcome but it doesn't change the fact that the
>> "not anymore" is accurate.
>
> it's technically correct, but misleading.
>
> drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.

Except in movies, TV shows and games purchased online everywhere except GOG.

>>>>> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
>>>>> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
>>>>> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
>>>>> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
>>>>>
>>>>> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
>>>>> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
>>>>> pirate it. apple doesn't care.
>>>>
>>>> Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
>>>> was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
>>>> and without DRM.
>>>
>>> nope. that's not what happened.
>>>
>>> as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
>>> forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
>>> once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
>>> they relaxed those requirements.
>>
>> From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
>> that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
>> Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
>> DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.
>
> your recollection is correct. amazon did offer drm-free music slightly
> before apple did, but that's only because apple had existing contracts
> in place that required drm, whereas amazon could negotiate new ones
> without it, because at that time, the record industry was more amenable
> to no drm than when they contracted with apple. once apple's contracts
> expired, apple was no longer bound to use drm and it went away.

What I _do_ recall is that in addition to cancelling DRM, Apple also
improved the quality of the music. If I remember correctly, they started
out selling their music as 128kbps, DRMed and ended up with 256kbps and
without. I will be the first to say that 256kbps AAC encoded with
Apple's version of the codec is the best sound that you will get short
of lossless, especially if the music is sold as an "Apple Digital
Master." Vorbis is close though.

>>>>>> In fact,
>>>>>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
>>>>>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
>>>>>> the music you already downloaded.
>>>>>
>>>>> that too is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
>>>>> determine that anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, not anymore.
>>>
>>> it's always been the case.
>>>
>>> it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
>>> music is pirated or encoded by the user.
>>>
>>> in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.
>>>
>>> itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
>>> in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
>>> also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
>>> source does not matter at all.
>>>
>>> that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
>>> copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
>>> quality versions than the pirated versions.
>>>
>>> the original copies can be kept if desired.
>>
>> With a subscription to Apple Music, if I am correct.
>
> you are not correct.
>
> i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
> forgotten service.

I'll have to look into it. All of my music is encoded as Vorbis 320kbps
if ripped from a CD (and since converted to AAC at the same bitrate) and
the rest is either MP3 320kbps or 256kbps AAC purchased from iTunes so
there's really nothing to be concerned with. I was afraid the conversion
would ruin the music and it should have but it doesn't seem to have done
anything at all to the sound.

>> However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
>> library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
>> While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
>> entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
>> However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
>> an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
>> available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?
>
> apple music will not help you for the situation you describe.
>
> itunes match will.
>
> apple music is a streaming service, where you have access to the entire
> apple catalog, and as with other streaming services, you are paying for
> access, not ownership. if you cancel, your access ends, your ability to
> stream ceases and any music you downloaded can't be played anymore, at
> least not until you resubscribe. it's a cheap way to have access to a
> huge library of music that otherwise would have cost a lot to purchase,
> but you do not own any of it.
>
> itunes match, which predates apple music, is designed to give you cloud
> access for music you already have. you do not get access to what you
> don't already own.
>
> it will scan your library and everything that matches is considered to
> be purchased, with the assumption that you own it (but there's no way
> to check, so pirated music counts), at which point, you can stream it
> from apple's catalog and/or download a new copy to replace your
> existing version (and keep both if you want).
>
> any remaining songs that do not match will be uploaded for cloud
> access, but there obviously won't be a new version to download since it
> didn't match anything in apple's catalog. you'll be streaming your own
> copy.
>
> that greatly reduces the amount of data to transfer and store on their
> servers.
>
> if you do cancel itunes match, you will lose cloud access, but whatever
> songs you've already downloaded are yours to keep, just as if you
> bought them outright, and without any drm.
>
> so to answer your question, if your goal is to upgrade the quality of
> some songs you already have, it's $25 to sign up for itunes match, let
> it match your existing library, download the new versions (256kb aac)
> and cancel at some point within the first year (unless you want to keep
> it longer).
>
> one caveat is that matching is not always perfect. if a song has more
> than one version (e.g., live & studio), it might get it wrong, which is
> a good reason to keep the originals.

On 2022-02-22 7:36 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <gPcRJ.92504$i65a.25631@fx16.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
>>>>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
>>>>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
>>>>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.
>>>>
>>>> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
>>>> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
>>>> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
>>>> its users for one of their products earns my respect.
>>>
>>> the newton was *well* ahead of its time.
>>>
>
> ...
>
>> I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better
>> than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at
>> the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller?
>
> it did sell, but not as much as the palm pilot.
>
> the design goal was for it to be about the size of a paper day planner,
> which is what people used to carry back in the prehistoric times.
>
> its size was a reasonable choice at the time, especially for something
> on which people would be writing, but as it turned out, that was a
> mistake. people wanted something smaller and didn't mind using palm's
> graffiti for the tradeoff.
>
> it also used ordinary aa batteries and a coin battery for backup:
> <https://d1rytvr7gmk1sx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/DSC_01
> 73.jpg>
>
> the newton was also the first apple product to use arm chips, which
> apple partly owned and later sold, only to later re-license it for ios
> devices.
>
> there was even a web browser, called newtscape.
>
> but despite all of that, a lesser product won out.
>
> specs ain't everything.

I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not
going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild
have since bitten the dust.

>>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
>>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
>>> that atari and amiga did not have.
>>>
>>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
>>> much amiga or atari.
>>
>> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
>> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
>> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
>> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
>> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
>> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
>> even produce colour.
>
> true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.
>
> the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
> was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
> postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.

Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a
laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that
Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact
mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously
challenge what was already established on the Mac side.

I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around
2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his
computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use
Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which
definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to
give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy
laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac
at home.

It still worked but, admittedly, there was no real use for such a
machine in 2002.

> create a document on the mac, proof it on a laserwriter, and then send
> it to an offset printer for final copy.
>
> microsoft word and multiplan were available on the mac in 1984, with
> excel following in 1985, which was mac only for a few years.
>
> <https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/Microsoft%20Excel%201.5%20-%
> 20About.png>
>
> aldus pagemaker was also in 1985, also mac only initially.
>
> people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
> windows.

If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy
one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer. It's a shock that
the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:51:03 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 22.02.22 um 21:40 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>>
>>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission
>>>> for
>>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>>>> used.
>>>
>>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>>
>> yes it is.
>>
>>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>>
>> there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.
>>
>>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>>> specifically.
>>
>> turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as the
>> app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's not
>> an option.

> Navigation is a specific use.

> A weather app does not need location services.

But it is convenient when on a trip to have it show you the local weather.

> And neither do a lot of system services that think they need them.

It is handy when say you want to check stuff like who has the best petrol
prices etc.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:35:46 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 22.02.22 um 18:05 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <sv2o06$vp2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>
>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>> used.
>
> That is not an answer to what I said.
> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.

> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
> specifically.

Bullshit with an iphone because I know who is using the
GPS service and I dont care who knows where I am.

If I am going to murder or assault someone, I will leave the iphone at
home.

On 2022-02-23 03:20:01 +0000, Jacob Jones said:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:51:03 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 22.02.22 um 21:40 schrieb nospam:
>>> In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>>>
>>>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>>>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
>>>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>>>
>>> yes it is.
>>>
>>>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>>>
>>> there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.
>>>
>>>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>>>> specifically.
>>>
>>> turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as the
>>> app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's not
>>> an option.
>
>> Navigation is a specific use.
>
>> A weather app does not need location services.
>
> But it is convenient when on a trip to have it show you the local weather.

A weather app or website doesn't need to know where you are. Any useful
service will allow you to easily look up the weather anywhere you want.

Of course, the weather predictions are never right, so they're all a
waste of time and money (often tax-payer money in the wages given to
the con-artists claiming to be "weather experts").

>> And neither do a lot of system services that think they need them.
>
> It is handy when say you want to check stuff like who has the best
> petrol prices etc.

Again, any useful such service doesn't necessitate knowing where you
are. You simply need to be able to look up the details for any location
you want.

The reality is that the human race is becoming lazier and lazier, so
the need to type in a location is "so incredibly timeconsuming" that
lazy-asses have to let their mobile device do it for them automatically
.... and then often whine about their privacy being invaded. :-\

Am 23.02.22 um 05:56 schrieb Your Name:
> On 2022-02-23 03:20:01 +0000, Jacob Jones said:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:51:03 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> A weather app does not need location services.
>>
>> But it is convenient when on a trip to have it show you the local weather.
>
> A weather app or website doesn't need to know where you are. Any useful
> service will allow you to easily look up the weather anywhere you want.
>
> Of course, the weather predictions are never right, so they're all a
> waste of time and money (often tax-payer money in the wages given to
> the con-artists claiming to be "weather experts").
>
>>> And neither do a lot of system services that think they need them.
>>
>> It is handy when say you want to check stuff like who has the best
>> petrol prices etc.
>
> Again, any useful such service doesn't necessitate knowing where you
> are. You simply need to be able to look up the details for any location
> you want.
>
> The reality is that the human race is becoming lazier and lazier, so
> the need to type in a location is "so incredibly timeconsuming" that
> lazy-asses have to let their mobile device do it for them automatically
> ... and then often whine about their privacy being invaded. :-\

This time I have to fully agree. Doesn't happen too often.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 23.02.22 um 04:23 schrieb Jacob Jones:
> Bullshit with an iphone because I know who is using the
> GPS service and I dont care who knows where I am.

Your choice. But never complain about lack of privacy. And it needs
resources.

> If I am going to murder or assault someone, I will leave the iphone at
> home.

Your choice you naive Troll.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:56:34 +1100, Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

> On 2022-02-23 03:20:01 +0000, Jacob Jones said:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:51:03 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 22.02.22 um 21:40 schrieb nospam:
>>>> In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
>>>> <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> used.
>>>>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>>>> yes it is.
>>>>
>>>>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>>>> there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.
>>>>
>>>>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>>>>> specifically.
>>>> turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as
>>>> the
>>>> app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's
>>>> not
>>>> an option.
>>
>>> Navigation is a specific use.
>>
>>> A weather app does not need location services.
>> But it is convenient when on a trip to have it show you the local
>> weather.
>
> A weather app or website doesn't need to know where you are. Any useful
> service will allow you to easily look up the weather anywhere you want.
>
> Of course, the weather predictions are never right, so they're all a
> waste of time and money (often tax-payer money in the wages given to the
> con-artists claiming to be "weather experts").
>
>
>
>
>>> And neither do a lot of system services that think they need them.
>> It is handy when say you want to check stuff like who has the best
>> petrol prices etc.
>
> Again, any useful such service doesn't necessitate knowing where you
> are. You simply need to be able to look up the details for any location
> you want.

But when traveling it is much more convenient to have it work that out for
itself.

Even when you aren't traveling too.

> The reality is that the human race is becoming lazier and lazier, so the
> need to type in a location is "so incredibly timeconsuming" that
> lazy-asses have to let their mobile device do it for them automatically

Only fools do what the device can do for itself.

> ... and then often whine about their privacy being invaded. :-\

Only fools do that too.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:37:20 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 23.02.22 um 04:23 schrieb Jacob Jones:

>> Bullshit with an iphone because I know who is using the
>> GPS service and I dont care who knows where I am.

> Your choice. But never complain about lack of privacy.

I don't and deliberately use google maps which is much better than apple
maps.

> And it needs resources.

I don't care, I buy iphones which have plenty of
resources and which don't drain the battery when
I leave all of gps. bluetooth and wifi on all the time.

>> If I am going to murder or assault someone,I will leave the iphone at
>> home.

> Your choice you naive Troll.

Nothing naive about that, Trollchild.