And lo on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:15:01 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Chambers wrote:
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought  
>>> music what's the difference?
>>>
>>  Personally, I see none.  So I don't know.
>>  ...Chambers
>
> The difference is the general view of a 'computer' versus that of a  
> music device. A MP3 player that can only play certain MP3s is a waste of  
> money to some people, but a computing device that only runs one OS is  
> the norm. How many people out there even realize that they don't need a  
> special computer to run Linux, that Windows is not the computer?
>
> Cell phone contracts are pretty clear, the phone only runs programs they  
> allow and only has access to certain networks. No average person  
> purchasing one would expect it to run home made software and still work.  
> Game consoles are another similar set up, they run only the software  
> provided by the company. They occasionally send out patches that brick a  
> device that is running unauthorized code. All pretty much out in the  
> open, as they say you can only use their network and new 'upgrades' as  
> long as you do not modify the device.
>
> Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player instead of  
> a 'personal media device' or something.

Exactly it's a perceptual thing; no-one expects a PS3 to play Xbox360  
software, no-one expects a Nokia phone to run the Motorola OS. Sell a  
device that's tied to a 'genre' and everyone expects it to work with all  
cases. It's not a monopoly case that you can't run a Wii game on an Xbox  
so why is it when you can't play certain types of music on your iPod?  
Because "Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player"  
should have gone for iTune music player.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message