But seriously, it was obviously an exaggeration / joke, but the Microsoft part of the comparison was totally serious.

You still don’t get my point that your opinion is clearly solidified, like a Nazi’s hatred toward Jews.

That last bit was a joke to help alleviate that horrible comparison…wow.

I don’t let him off the hook for criticizing this post without reading it all the way though.

In his second point, he refers to the reason I already listed here (guess he didn’t bother to read that) as the only legitimate reason that Apple would require DRM on music that doesn’t want it. BUT, the problem is that if that’s the case why wouldn’t Apple simply say that, instead of just insisting that DRM be applied to music that doesn’t want it without providing that explanation.

He also ignores the issue / question of why Apple does not license its DRM, which is another (seperate) issue that I’ve talked about here and had no good answers for.

[BTW, I tried commenting on that guy's site, but you have to be logged in. As a side note (in case that guy reads this) you might want to adjust your theme to not give the comments box unless people are logged in then, because it's really annoying to type up a whole comment and then only be told after you submit it that you have to be logged in to comment.]

I definitely am getting your points, but they are not valid answers for my questions in my opinion. Apple doesn’t license their DRM because it would be harder for them to do so? Well, of course, but that’s not an excuse. It was easier for Microsoft to exploit their monopoly position too, and for plantation owners to own slaves for that matter, but that didn’t make it right.

I am definitely listening, and I don’t think that my opinion is infallible. There’s a difference between me having an open mind (which I do) and just accepting answers that don’t make sense (which I won’t). In this discussion so far, I think I’ve honestly considered every question posed, and explained why they didn’t sway my opinion. If a reasonable answer comes along, my opinion will be changed and I will happily admit it.

Your clearly not getting my points and it’s hard to do this when you either aren’t listening and/or questioning your own opinion. Or maybe I’m just not writing well enough to get my points across.

Of course any “guarantee” against cracking (whether from MS or Apple) would be false, since all schemes proposed so far have cracks / workarounds. My point is that obviously the record companies do not demand such a guarantee, or even a claim of one, since they are working with both Apple and MS.

I also have previously agreed that Microsoft is moving more in the direction of Apple in regards to their new DRM scheme. The funny part I see about this is that if the roles are reversed, and MS had a dominant player on the market, YOU KNOW that a lot of people would be railing against them for maintaining a monopoly by not licensing their DRM to other companies. Hopefully you don’t dispute this, so I just wonder why it’s OK for Apple but not for MS?

As for the last question, the primary evidence is the subject of this article. It would be trivially easy for Apple to sell DRM free music right now, if in fact they really did want to. There are lots of labels and independent artists who have asked them to and been denied. The only logical explanation (outside of Apple just not wanting to do it) would be if they had agreed not to as part of their deal with the big four, but if this was the case then they should say that. They haven’t.

In addition, I do hope that Steve meant what he said (at least some of it), but like I said before, it’s very easy for him to say that now when he knows he won’t have to back it up with actions (at least as far as the big four go). He’s already chosen not to back it up when it comes to other content owners, so even if it was his honest opinion it would still remain inconsistent.

Well, you answer your own question first of all. The letter states the reasoning to why licensing their DRM is a bad idea, keep in mind he’s stating the licensing is an “option” not a declaration that they wont. He goes on to state, as you mention that it’s a bad idea because Apple can’t protect the record labels. You say that since MS does it so why can’t Apple; first they are totally different companies, one is a hardware company that sells music and one is solely a software company. You know how DRM works so you should know it’s completely different when Apple has to patch their cracked DRM then when MS deals with PfS. An example would be when PfS was first cracked and it took a huge effort on MS part to get all companies to apply a patch in tandem with the providers and hardware providers, all to appease the record companies and their contracts. Apple on the other hand just applies a simple update to iTunes that no-one sees or hears of including a software update to their iPod and it’s over. So that’s why Apple couldn’t protect the record companies, mainly because the process of doing so entales a lot more, MS on the other hand is a company designed to work in this fashion so it’s really nothing new. Simply, Apple couldn’t because they’re not a company designed to do so.

The guarantee that you speak of is easy on a closed DRM model. Apply the patches to both the play and the music and you’re done the deadline is met, I’m sure the record companies have a reasonable time for the any hole to be fixed. How can you guarantee something when you don’t control more then just a fix that you don’t know when it will be applied. Yes, MS manages their “guarantee” on fairy dust and imagination because IMO that guarantee isn’t 100%.

So two points to answer your misunderstanding:
Apple never said they couldn’t do what MS does they say they can’t guarantee what MS does. Maybe this is the reson why the Zune MP and Sony are going in the direction that Apple chose originally, because it’s easier to manage and it is a true garauntee to the record companies.
Just because MS does something doesn’t mean anyone else could do the same. MS can’t make a portable music player that sells and Apple might not be able to license their DRM.

A side: Job’s is very calculated and really hasn’t made any executive blunders in both Pixar and Apple (since his return) so I would have to believe him when he says that option isn’t a good one.

I need an explanation now:
Other then the case that Apple doesn’t allow non-DRM now why do you not trust that Jobs NOW thinks DRM free is the way to go?