The Macalope: An Apple blog

Seeking Alpha's Todd Sullivan really doesn't like Apple's exclusive agreement with AT&T (tip o' the antlers to John Gruber). His dislike of it is so intense, as a matter of fact, that his "analysis" of the deal has burst free of the restraining coil of our so-called "Earth logic" and taken flight to a wondrous world of imagination. [Note for editor: is there a Doug Henning tag?]

The latest estimates have "unlocked" iPhones costing Apple over $1 billion in lost revenue the next 3 years.

Wow! $1 billion sounds like a lot. How did you come up with that number, Todd?

Apple's (AAPL) AT&T (T) tie-up in the US is for another 4 years, meaning the company will continue to not realize monthly revenue, estimated at $120 annually per subscriber from phones "unlocked" for use on other carriers.

OK, so Todd won't tell us where, exactly, he got that number -- you stupid Earth logicians would ask such a question! -- but doing the math he's apparently figuring that there are about 2.1 million unlocked iPhones "in the wild". That's a lot more than other estimates, but the number of iPhones and the grand total are pretty irrelevant once you see how inherently flawed the premise is.

Because this $1 billion is magical fairy money that you can only see when it's reflected in the shiny dew on the Blingo-tree leaves in the virgin wood of the elven kingdom of Willywindle, across the Chocolate River. And then only during the month of Februtuesrarey, which comes once in a 1,000 years, when the snow falls from clear skies and the IRS agents give fabulous deductions for non-asset transactions conducted in previous fiscal quarters. [Note for editor: this could probably use some tightening up.]

Well, anyway, the point is that opportunity cost is only relevant if there is, in fact, an actual opportunity, not some imaginary scenario you just pulled out of your butt. For Apple to be "foregoing" this huge chunk of change, you'd have to buy into the jacktastic assumption that it could negotiate the same $120/year revenue sharing with every other cellular provider in the world.

Not only that, Sullivan glosses over the fact that his "math" assumes a situation where AT&T exclusivity is in effect globally. However, here on Earth, 300 light years from planet Jackass, many if not most of the unlocked iPhones are being used in other countries, particularly countries where Apple doesn't currently have a deal with a cellular provider. Just the other day the lovely and talented Tom Krazit pointed to a report indicating there are 400,000 unlocked iPhones in China alone.

Why does Apple not have a deal in China? Because it's trying to do something craaaazy like negotiate one of them sweet revenue sharing schemes, that's why.

Todd, maybe you should be taking some notes or...

Well, whatever. That's fine.

Apple has stood by its "10 million phones sold by the end of 2008" goal, but recent news that they have dramatically cut back on component orders can only mean sales growth has slowed.

If you click through to the link, it's really not clear exactly what that component cut report was all about. First of all, Apple already said in its quarterly conference call that it expected the first quarter to be slower than normal. Go one link further and you'll see CNBC's Jim Goldman calling the report much ado about nothing.

At any rate, Apple's already sold more than 3.7 million iPhones. With the release of a 16GB version last week, more international rollouts coming and a 3G version sometime later in the year, does anyone really think they aren't going to make 10 million by the end of the year?

Anyone who doesn't cry out for the creation of a Doug Henning tag, that is?

I did a post in May of last year that said AT&T would be the big winner of the iPhone deal and to date they have been.

Yes. Surely, with iPhone sales perfectly aligned with expectations, Apple has taken it in the shorts.

Huh? And since when did this relationship become a zero sum game?

What's so interesting about that link is that it's to a post where Sullivan just references an unlinked-to previous post about the iPhone and then pulls a big long quote from another blog. Why would that be? Possibly because his opinions about the iPhone have been so fantastically wrong?

Like this one where he seems oblivious to the presence of the rest of the world:

This also means that the 10 million units Apple plans to have sold by the end of 2008 will be done to 47 million AT&T subscribers meaning 1 in 5 will have one? Doubt it.

Well, you were right to doubt it! Because you were wrong!

Or this one which the Macalope dispatched with his characteristic aplomb here.

Todd, honey, after all this time maybe you should just drop this particular subject. Because you still don't seem to be getting it.

Back to the current piece:

When you also consider we have not seen what Research in Motion (RIMM), the Blackberry maker and clear "smart phone" leader has planned, Apple may face even more headwinds.

How, exactly, is one to consider what one has not seen? And doesn't this idiotic game work both ways? Shouldn't we also consider what we haven't seen from Apple? Or from Nokia? Or from space aliens?

None of this even takes into account the specter of Google's (GOOG) gPhone expected later this year.

Again, we have current Apple products forced to compete against future products from someone else. Why does Steve Jobs even get up in the morning?! And when did the linearity of time get revoked without the Macalope noticing it?

But let's look at some actual market share analysis for a minute.

"When you consider that it launched part way through the year, with limited operator and country coverage, and essentially just one product, Apple has shown very clearly that it can make a difference and has sent a wakeup call to the market leaders," said Pete Cunningham, Canalys senior analyst.

Phew. After reading Sullivan, that voice of sanity is like a soothing liniment applied to a festering rash, isn't it?

Not that the Macalope would know what that's like.

The horny one is a little confused at Sullivan's definition of the term "leader", though, as Nokia is #1 in market share, not RIM. And Apple, while at #3, clearly has the buzz, as manufacturers are scrambling to come up with an "iPhone killer".

But actual figures and logic be damned! Right, Todd? [Note to editor: can you write the Macalope a prescription for a pain killer?]

Instead of having a product that all carriers were glad to carry and sell, he created an atmosphere in which they embarked on a quest to compete directly with him and his product.

Todd, the Macalope just doesn't know how many other ways to say this but that is simply one busted-ass 2007 Nissan Premise you're driving there. Exclusivity is a condition for the revenue sharing agreement. That's how Apple gets the revenue sharing. You can't say Apple's somehow foregoing $1 billion in revenue sharing that it could never possibly get.

I think Apple devotees may find themselves in the future wondering "what could have been" if only Jobs had not started out this process so adversarially.

Yeah, well, the Macalope thinks you will find yourself in the future ignoring the uncomfortable fact that you ever wrote this piece in the first place.

By now you're surely read the big news -- Time Capsule backup device, a strong iPhone update, movie rentals with an accompanying Apple TV update and the ultra light MacBook Air -- so the Macalope won't rehash it.

It's a solid follow-up to last year's Keynote which was a tough act to follow. You can't get a new iPhone every year, but the MacBook Air comes pretty darned close.

One thing the horny one will call out is that Fox's Jim Gianopolus is one entertainment industry executive who seems to "get it" (as far as that's possible for entertainment industry executives). He hit on some key points the Macalope's been hot on for a while: people want a one-stop shop that's easy to use that lets them watch their media anywhere.

Sure, you can quibble over the 24 hour time limit for viewing and you can bitch, bitch, bitch about only being able to watch a movie on one device at a time, and you can moan and whine and cry yourself to sleep over the price or whatever detail you want to gripe about.

But it's still a killer offering. All the major studios, HD content, download directly to an Apple TV, watch content on all your devices, iTunes versions on DVDs... These are notable for the stark contrasts they draw to what the music business had been doing. Now there's a compelling solution.

Congratulations, Stacie Somers of San Diego County! You're the first jackass of 2008!

Well, OK, technically, since the suit was filed on December 31, you're the last jackass of 2007. But as it's already prompted some very silly analysis that we'll have to deal with this year, we're going to put it on the 2008 books, nnkay?

The tip o' the old antlers on this one goes to a friend of the Macalope's who happens to be a lawyer (and a woodland gnome, incidentally), who forwards it on with the one-word summary "Crazy."

Well put, woodland gnome!

So, what's your beef, Stace?

It alleges that Apple has constricted the market by not enabling iPods to play content in the Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, Microsoft's copy-protection technology.

And how! This reminds the Macalope of the time he successfully sued Sony for using the Memory Stick instead of SD. And then the time he successfully sued Microsoft for using FAT32 instead of HFS. And then the time he successfully sued Hamilton-Beach because their cone-filter coffee maker only takes, well, cone filters.

The Macalope likes flat-bottom filters. They're flatter. On the bottom.

The suit contends iPod-owning consumers can only buy music from iTunes, an unlawful tie-in that violates U.S. antitrust laws.

Boy, that sure is true! It sure would be nice if we could buy music to play on our iPods from some other place -- like, say, a popular online retailer or an independent-friendly MP3 site.

Too bad.

Boo, Apple.

Down with our evil, oppressive overlord Steve Jobs.

Uh, yeah.

Well.

Good luck, Stacie Somers of San Diego County!

But you say, "Macalope, our system of jurisprudence is not based on luck, but on well-reasoned arguments based on the code of law and legal precedent!"

That is why the Macalope says: good luck, Stacie Somers of San Diego County!

ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wonders, will Apple every fully embrace DRM-free music?

Causing the Macalope to wonder, will this raging headache right between the antlers ever stop?

Musing on the recording industry's current penchant for only selling DRM-free tracks through stores other than Apple's Kingsley-Hughes says:

While I can't see this having an effect on iPod sales, a decline in iTunes sales could ding Apple's profits, which in turn might mean that it has to get with the 21st century and throw away the digital shackles and compete openly.

You really haven't been paying any attention at all, have you, Adrian.

Despite the iTunes Store's market share, it's still there to drive hardware sales, not the other way around.

Some have taken this post as a slam of Apple - it's not.

Uh, right. Implying Apple's living in the 20th century, that it has to use "shackles" to sell its products and stating it doesn't want to "compete openly" (as if everyone else does) certainly couldn't be misconstrued as anything other than complimentary.

However, Apple/Steve Jobs have in recent months claimed to be anti-DRM...

For the record, that was in February.

...but not managed to offer a complete DRM-free catalog and have blamed the music industry for this. However, Amazon's MP3 store shows that the music industry is obviously interested in offering DRM-free music ... so why not through iTunes?

Uh, because the industry won't let them? Because the recording companies woke up one day and realized they were no longer in the business of music distribution because everyone was using a new distribution channel and that their supposed "value add" of selecting which music would actually be distributed was now not only irrelevant but actually a nuisance because they continue to pick utter crap and, in a vain attempt to salvage some sense of their relevance, they're trying to knock the new market leader off its perch?

The Macalope has written of the willful obtuseness of the ZDNet blogger but Kingsley-Hughes turns it into an art form.

Back here on planet Earth, however, the simple truth is that the initial contracts between the industry and Apple were to supply DRM-ed music through iTunes. Now the industry is conspicuously avoiding renegotiating those contracts in a deliberate effort to reduce the iTunes Store's market position. As Michael Gartenberg said, they're trying to poke Apple with a sharp stick. They're not interested in sales -- they clearly haven't been for years -- they're just trying to be the biggest jackasses they can because that's the only thing they know how to do.

Is there any other rational explanation behind the brilliant ideas these clowns come up with? Message to customers: "We hate you!" Well, message received.

Now that the kid gloves are off and the RIAA has changed its story so that ripping a CD is no longer kosher, the Macalope looks forward to the RIAA's suit against some high-profile CD rippers. [UPDATE: Looks like the Washington Post story was bad. They've issued a correction.] Like, say, President Bush. In for a penny, in for a pound, right boys and girls?

Bring it on, indeed.

The RIAA is like an angry drunk who just got let go from the factory, lashing out at anyone and everyone in arm's reach. Only a ZDNet blogger couldn't see that.

Hey, readers, it's stupid ZDNet blog post day!

Oh, let's not kid ourselves. Every day is stupid ZDNet blog post day!

But how stupid is this one? Really stupid. Because now Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is blaming Steve Jobs for the DCMA DMCA [Note: the Macalope always gets that damn acronym wrong. It's possible, however, that Kingsley-Hughes also believes Jobs is to blame for the Defense Contract Management Agency.].

It seems that Steve Jobs is looking for a new way to make money from consumers (Steve Jobs looking for a way to make money, that's not news I hear you say ... read on ...).

Oh, the Macalope stands corrected. Steve Jobs is not only to blame for the DCMA DMCA, he's also to blame for capitalism.

This time his idea is that Hollywood should start selling "premium" DVDs that contain an iTunes-compatible version of the movie for an extra few bucks.

Wait, who's idea was that again? Let's look at the source -- a New York Times blog post -- Kingsley-Hughes links to:

More interestingly perhaps, the studios are hoping to create [emphasis the Macalope's] "premium" versions of DVDs that include a copy of the movie that can easily be put on an iPod (and presumably a laptop with iTunes or an Apple TV).

Spin, magic wheel of bullshit! Spin!

Kingsley-Hughes pompously proclaims:

It seems that fair use is OK in the eyes of Steve Jobs, as long as it comes at a price.

And its seems disingenuous blog posts are OK in the eyes of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, as long as it comes at the expense of Apple or Steve Jobs.

In fairness, Techdirt also misreads it in exactly the same way -- transposing "the studios" for "Steve Jobs" -- and Cory Doctorow takes TechDirt at its word, so Kingsley-Hughes isn't the only one.

Jackassery, of course, loves company.

Does anyone know what the hell they're putting in the water cooler over at ZDNet?

Because.... damn.

Larry Dignan (does anyone know which one is Larry in that picture? Is he the sysadmin, the college professor or the metrosexual? [UPDATE: In comments, Larry says he's the sysadmin. Who had sysadmin in the pool?]) has seen the future, friends! And the future is...

ZUNE!

Actually, the Macalope suspects that Dignan drank a few too many Zimas and fell asleep watching Superman II and the line "You will bow down before Zod! You, and one day, your heirs!" seeped into his brain stem and festered like a Ceti eel and he's just trying to get it out.

Yes, the Macalope knows he's mixing his sci fi movie references.

At any rate, Dignan seems to have awaken with fevered visions of a future where the Zune rules supreme.

However, the Zune's big breakthrough came courtesy of Apple, which bet entirely on music and video downloads. The company's reluctance to offer a subscription service turned consumers away from the iPod...

Ha-ha-ha!

Oh, wait, he's serious.

Yes, the Macalope has long heard about how subscription and ad-based music systems vill take over ze virld! And so far the leading player and store have neither.

Maybe people really want subscription services. The Macalope doesn't, but maybe everyone else does. The problem is, no one apparently cares enough to give up cool hardware that works better in order to get it. Dignan's apocalyptic vision for the iPod's future fails to address this.

Meanwhile, Department of Justice proceeding against the iPod/iTunes link hampered decision making at Apple.

Uh-huh. Just like it did with Microsoft and Windows leading to its complete overthrow in the operating system market and...

Wait, what?

Dignan is clearly no Hiro Nakamura. Or maybe he is and just hasn't realized that the future he's jumping to is an evil future where everything has gone completely haywire and Microsoft is run by Sylar.

Hey, it could happen.

Well, in the world of Zune fan fiction.

Back to Dignan's future.

According to a new report from the NPD Group, a leading consumer and retail information company, sales of Microsoft's Zune are outpacing Apple's iPod by a 5 to 1 margin.

But then Steve Jobs saved the cheerleader and reality was restored.

The End.

Boy, and they have the nerve to call us craaaazy zealots?

Sure, the Zune is getting better and, sure, Microsoft has deep pockets. But the Zune's got a pretty big hole to dig itself out of and drawing little pictures on the back of it isn't going to cut it.

Let's face it: the only real way Dignan's silly vision of the future comes to pass is after the headlines read "STEVE JOBS RETIRES".

But if we're playing Dignan's game, all we have to do is stand Peter Petrelli next to Jobs for a minute so he can pick up his reality distortion field and then...

Oh, great, now the Macalope's doing it!

DIIIIIIIGNAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

Boy, this whole thing with Adrian Kingsley-Hughes lobbing balls in the air only to have Apple bloggers mercilessly smashing them back down in his side of the court really doesn't make for very good tennis, does it?

Lord knows what satisfaction he sees in it, other than the increased hit counts from people linking to him and saying "Can you believe this guy?!"

Kingsley-Hughes has sadly trodden off the path of virtue he set for himself on his PC Doctor blog where his Q&A says:

Why do you rarely talk about anything Mac/Linux/etc ...
I only talk about things that I know. 'Nuff said!

Dude, what happened to that? You used to stand for something!

You've changed, man. You've changed.

Taking a look at the last 10 posts on his ZDNet blog, the Macalope sees that one is about Ubuntu (aka, the operating system that's fun to say), another is about software updates from a variety of vendors including Apple and the remaining eight are specifically about Apple.

If you ask the horny one, he's so far off the path of virtue he can't even see it anymore. He's over the river of temptation, through the forest of overconfidence and head first down the rabbit hole of jackassery.

MacUser's Dan Moren has already ably taken down Kingsley-Hughes' latest but, sadly, the silly pundit beat was the beat the Macalope was born to. There's really no use complaining about it now. One might as well complain about how hard it is to wear hats with giant antlers poking out of one's head.

It's pointless.

If you'll pardon the pun.

Anyhoo, after asking his readers' opinions on whether or not iTunes is monopolistic -- come now, students, there is no wrong answer! Ha-ha! -- and having most of his readers say "no, not so much", Kingsley-Hughes stomps his foot and says "It is so monopolistic!"

"What are you people? On dope?"

So, Professor Kingsley-Hughes, just how is iTunes monopolistic?

iTunes is also very picky about which formats it'll play.

You say, "Huh?"

Waiiiiiiit foooooooor iiiiiiiiiit!

If you're [sic] existing music library is in WMA format then you have many pleasant evenings ahead managing the mind-numbingly slow import process.

That's right. It's Apple's fault that your music is locked in Microsoft's proprietary format. Oh, you can convert it, but it's "sloooow".

Well, Adrian, the Macalope would suggest that maybe the reason it's so slow is to give you time to think about the wrong you inflicted on your poor music by putting it into WMA in the first place.

If you still want to keep your WMA library (maybe because you have another media player)...

Or maybe you're just filled with self-loathing.

...then it's time to invest in another hard drive, because from that point on you're going to be doubling up on everything.

Dude, if you've never heard of MP3 then you really have no business writing about digital music players. Or technology.

How did you even get on the web in the first place?

And why are we supposed to assume that this is in any way Apple's fault again? You're choosing to keep files in two different formats, you knucklehead. Don't go bitching about Apple's proprietary iPod and iTunes when your music's in someone else's proprietary format.

Remember too that one iTunes library supports more than one iPod, but that's another catch. Each device has to be an iPod.

That's a half-truth. On Windows it has to be an iPod. But iTunes on the Mac supports a number of other music players.

The Macalope has said this time and time again, but Apple's primary concern is making things work and the company has well learned the lesson of the Newton: connectivity matters. A mobile device is useless if it's difficult to connect to your computer (and vice versa).

Why doesn't Apple spend their time making the Windows version of iTunes work with other players? Because the manufacturers of those devices already make Windows applications to load music onto them.

By making the Mac version of iTunes work with other players, Apple makes the Mac just work. By making versions of iTunes for Windows and the Mac, Apple makes the iPod (and the iPhone) just work.

You're complaining that Apple doesn't make other manufacturers' hardware work better.

That's just weird.

And what happens if you've got a load of music in iTunes and your iPod dies? Why, buy another one of course!

Unless, of course, they're these mystical emm-pee-three files that Kingsley-Hughes has never heard of.

OK, maybe he's talking about FairPlay files. But the problem is he never mentions FairPlay. Or DRM. Or anything that makes any sense.

Then there's the iPod side of the equation. Apple tried to lock the latest generation iPods to iTunes even if this meant upsetting iPod-owning Linux users.

It would be nice if Apple made a Linux version of iTunes.

They don't.

The end.

Formats that the iPod can play are also locked down tight. Want it to play WMAs? Forget about it.

Oh, fer crying out loud! Yes, it doesn't play WMAs! We went over that already! Did you duck out for a cheeseburger or something?

You know, one could make at least a logical case for the supposedly unholy iPod/iTunes/FairPlay trinity being a monopoly, but Kingsley-Hughes doesn't come close. It's not that the Macalope thinks in any way that it is a monopoly, it's just that someone could make a much better argument than this.

Which, admittedly, is not saying much.

Again, the Macalope's not sure what prompted Kingsley-Hughes' misguided interest in writing about Apple, but the Macalope kind of hopes he keeps it up.

It's job security.

The Macalope was thrilled to see that Steve Jobs has issued another statement about digital music and DRM (tip o' the antlers to BoingBoing).

Let's see what Steve has to say.

I'm here to tell you today that I for one am no longer going to fall into this trap. If the licensing labels offering their content to Apple put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Apple invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. We will to use the money to build more exciting hardware, or put it toward further developing OS X or iLife or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don't have any more time to give and can't bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life's too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out.

Oh, wait. That's not right. Somehow it got munged in the copy/paste. Sorry. Replace "Apple" with "Yahoo!" and "Steve Jobs" with "Yahoo! Music's Ian Rogers".

Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened.

Maybe it's because when the Macalope was reading Rogers' speech he thought that it was the kind of speech he wished Steve Jobs had given.

Apple fans -- the horny one included -- lambasted Universal for not letting Apple sell DRM-free tracks through iTunes. So, here's a thought. Why couldn't Steve Jobs have simply said, "OK, screw it. If you won't give us DRM-free tracks when you will give them to other companies, take a hike. That's right, pack up your bags and get out. And, no, those are not your CDs, those are my CDs. And the dog stays."

The same thing they did with NBC (although, perusing NBC's page on iTunes the Macalope sees that, while they're not an "item" anymore, Apple and NBC continue to be "friends with fringe benefits").

But here's the thing about Apple. They're not concerned with party politics. They're focused on what the average customer wants. And the average customer doesn't care that much about DRM. Really. The horny one knows we geeks all get worked up over it (well, not Cory Doctorow-style, but that's borderline auto-erotic asphyxiation in two wet suits kind of worked up about it), but many customers don't even know it exists. And they don't care as long as (let's all say it together!) it plays on their iPod.

Hmm. This reminds the Macalope of another argument. Something about third-party applications on the iPhone...

See, the Macalope may personally want third-party applications on the iPhone and he may personally want Steve Jobs to give the recording industry what for, but that doesn't mean Apple's going to do it or that they should do it.

Why? Because Joe Consumer (that's not a fake name -- that's actually an Apple customer in Fort Wayne, Indiana) is more concerned with his phone and his iPod just working with a minimum of steps than he is with having every last possible choice for features and with ensuring his personal rights for fair use for the rest of his natural life.

Which is why the Macalope has to point out that Andy Ihnatko is wrong.

On this week's MacBreak Weekly (which prominently features discussion of the Macalope's response to last week's MacBreak Weekly), Andy's concern about Apple denying third parties an iPhone SDK is that an iPhone user will one day wistfully look over at some d00d in a suit editing a Word document on a plane.

Seriously. That was his argument.

OK, disclaimer time again. First of all, it sounded more reasonable when Andy said it and, while he used Word as an example, he's more talking about "that one app" an iPhone user might theoretically want. Second, as with Leo Laporte and Chris Breen, the Macalope has the utmost respect for Andy. As a matter of fact, Andy's writing is one of the reasons the Macalope got into blogging in the first place. His takedown of the Zune is a glorious work of art that should be enshrined in a museum somewhere.

But, clearly, that scenario is crazy koo-koo bananas. Consumers -- the target market for the iPhone -- do not want to sit on a plane and edit a Word document. That's the last thing they want to do. That's their definition of hell. Hurtling through the air in a big metal Tylenol with 250 other angry passengers eating salted snack products, drinking diuretics while strapped into a chair next to Bill Lumbergh and wondering "What the hell was that bump? Can turbulence really take one of these things down? What's the stress tolerance of that wing, anyway?", they sure as hell don't want to edit a fricking Word document on a 3-inch screen. They don't want to edit an Excel document. They don't want to work on their "Getting Things Done" action items.

No, they want to watch a movie. They want to listen to music. They want to flip through pictures of themselves on that beach on Maui they just left and console themselves that their last days on this earth were spent well. They want to do that voodoo that the iPhone already does do so well.

So, Andy, the pointy one loves ya, but... um, no.

And that's really the whole thing, isn't it. The whole craziness that seems to have engulfed most of the Apple pundit class for that past few weeks in particular. There's a disconnect between what you want, and what Apple's target market for iTunes and the iPhone wants. Of course, the iPhone concern may all be moot in a few weeks, but the point will still remain.

If anyone's going to be looking enviously at someone's phone, it's going to be Bill Lumbergh.

Mmm, yeah.

Writing for the BBC, Bill Thompson asks the question "Time for Apple to face the music?" (tip o' the antlers to Dominic Bassett.)

Forgive yourselves if you think you've heard this one before. You have.

The recent launch of the new range of iPods, including the video Nano and the iPod Touch, has shown just how far Apple is willing to go to make life difficult for its users in order to shore up its dominant position in the market for music players and downloads.

Do tell, Bill.

First...

No! Wait! Don't! That was rhetorical!

...if you had gone to the trouble of making your own ringtones for your iPhone...

Dammit.

... using snatches of song from your library then you will find they are all gone the next time you sync with the latest iTunes. Apple now sells ringtones to its US customers for $0.99 and it would rather you paid up than made them yourself.

Hmm, let's see, this incredibly annoying system that's an offense to the customer's intelligence can either by the product of:

1. The company that specializes in beautiful hardware and software that are renowned for their ease of use.
2. The recording industry which, if it had its druthers, would charge you every time you hummed a song to yourself or thought about music, musicians, musical instruments, or band camp and the many amusing things you can do with flutes.

Bill seems to think it's A rather than B. It's possible, it's just not very likely. Still, as annoying and offensive as the iPhone ringtones system is, it's worth noting that it's still better than anyone else's system.

Second, it seems that the new generation of iPods will not output video through cables or docks that aren't Apple authorised and have a specific "authentication" chip. Apple charges a hefty cut for joining its approved suppliers programme, and this is a way to ensure that vendors sign up.

Yeah, OK, this one stinks and it's Apple's doing. No argument from the brown and furry one there.

But the nastiest little change is to the iTunes library itself. iTunes keeps your songs organised using a database, and over the years a number of free and open source music players have been developed that can read and write this database format.

This is important as Apple doesn't support Linux...

You have a really loose definition of "important".

... so any Linux user who can't resist the lure of an iPod...

Those damned seductive iPods! Luring unsuspecting neck-bearded 40-year-olds out of their parents' basements with promises of unbridled digital audio delight!

Lest we forget, Bill, you're talking about people who are going to connect an iPod to Linux. Blaming the iPod is pretty much blaming the victim in this context.

... needs a non-Apple library manager, but it also gives Mac and Windows users a bit of flexibility.

And the five people who take advantage of that flexibility are really happy.

Programmes like gtkpod, Rhythmbox and Banshee are easy to use and don't try to sell you songs all the time...

Uh-huh. Using an application you compile yourself is sooo much easier than going to the "View" menu and selecting "Hide MiniStore".

Thompson makes a big fuss about the "cat and mouse" game that requires developers to reverse engineer roadblocks Apple creates to prevent using anything but iTunes to manage songs on an iPod. Oddly, however, his big complaint about the iTunes database checksum was actually solved three days before his piece was posted, making this particular complaint seem rather silly. It also makes the Macalope wonder why the checksum was added in the first place if it was so easy to crack. Again, who's asking for these "features" that keep iTunes closed? Is it Apple management? If so, they should be asking their programmers why their algorithms are so easy to crack.

Or was it the backward elements of the recording industry? Remember, these are people who think every MP3 on your iPod is stolen.

The Macalope doesn't know for sure, but when you look at the history of the iPod and the iTunes Store, to Apple it's never been about selling songs or movies. It's been about selling iPods. It's the recording industry that's demanded that only five computers can be used with one store account, that you can only burn a playlist seven times, and all the other major restrictions.

If Apple was serious about building a music industry around downloads and digital devices then it would open up its devices and interfaces to allow greater innovation and greater competition.

You know, the Macalope knows a lot of faeries who inhabit the magical realm of imagination under the toadstool down by the babbling brook in the Great Green Wood, and even they aren't so unworldly about commerce to expect a company to actively help other companies compete against it.

But, wait! What's this? Well, whaddaya know?! It is possible to compete against Apple! You just, you know, have to create something that doesn't suck.

I wrote a presentation this morning using Microsoft's PowerPoint, but displayed it using Apple's Keynote. Apple can sell Keynote because it took PowerPoint apart and figured out how the files work.

Had Apple been unable to do so, or found that every time it figured out what was happening Microsoft changed the format, it would have complained loudly.

Hey, Bill, Cory Doctorow called. He wants his shtick back.

This analogy was bogus when Doctorow used it and it's bogus now. Microsoft controls the PowerPoint file format and can change it any time it wants. The reason it doesn't is because it doesn't want to create an interoperability nightmare for its Office customers. It's certainly not because Apple would be mad because Keynote can't import the new file format all of a sudden. Good grief.

It's bad enough that Doctorow and Thompson insist on blaming Apple for something that probably isn't its fault. Couldn't they go to the effort to put together a rational argument? Is that asking too much?

Again, that's rhetorical.